<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Mar 3 2009, 04:19 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Mar 3 2009, 04:19 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->well, while I generally agree, I think one has to bear in mind that unlike the bible belt in south east, California is one of the least "Christian" and most "liberal" states in the US. We have to differenciate between the anti-Hindu energy coming from mlechCha stream and christian stream, and do away with the tendency of equating the two. Here it is mlechCha-ism at play not so much christianism, while the two collude on so many agenda points.
[right][snapback]95138[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In #270, had assumed the above was about US and California in <i>general</i>. But maybe it was about the American textbooks/anti-Hindu pseudo-literati people instead?
Already posted, but it's sort of related to the context:
1. http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/post...me/comments.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rajiv Malhotra comments: on Feb 1 2005 1:26PM
<b>NEW YORK TIMES AND THE UCHICAGO CARTEL:</b>
To uncover the long reach of this cartel and how it placed the recent New York Times article, one starts with Prof. Martin Marty who is one of the most powerful scholars at UChicagoâs Divinity School. (This school produces the largest number of PhDs on Hinduism Studies, through its faculty which includes Wendy Doniger.)
Martin Marty now runs the powerful institute of religion at UChicago named after him.
(See: http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/about/index.shtml )
It says, âThe Martin Marty Center is the institute for advanced research in all fields of the study of religion at the University of Chicago Divinity School.â
Who is Martin Marty and how does he fit into the Chicago Cartel? He is described on his own web page as âan ordained minister in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.â See: http://www.elca.org/about.html about this church.) On the question, âIs the Bible the inerrant word of God,â they explain clearly that they are what I would classify as History-Centric and literal. See: http://www.elca.org/questions/Results.asp?recid=16 . They believe that Christ is coming back to raise people from the dead. Furthermore, they assert, âTheories of reincarnation are the antithesis of Lutheran theology.â It is proudly a very âmembership orientedâ institution in every sense of that term, with a vast third world franchise to convert people.
His bio boasts that he was the senior editor of the magazine, âThe Christian Century.â See more about this Christian-centric magazine: http://www.christiancentury.org/ He is described as the nationâs most prominent authors in the field of History of Religions. Along with Wendy Doniger and a few other colleagues, he has helped trained and get influential jobs for a whole generation of scholars and college teachers who now represent Hinduismâs portrayals.
Wendy Doniger and Martin Marty are part of the old boys/girls network and go way back. There is nothing wrong with them being very tight and standing up for each other. See both of these cartel big wigs featured at the Martin Marty Centerâs web site:
http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/about/index.shtml
It is only natural that Wendy Doniger is putting her cartel to good use in this PR campaign to demonize Hindus and anyone who criticizes her. However, it is interesting to notice how blatantly these Christian fundamentalists are respected in the âsecularâ academy/media, because they tend to be well groomed, polished, articulate, with good pedigrees, and most of all, with a good network of contacts (read âcartelâ membership).
Such fundamentalist Christians are the âexpertâ sources used by media to call us âHindu Fundamentalistsâ! All evidence of their conflicts of interest, such as their churchesâ aggressive proselytizing against Hindus in India, get airbrushed away as a sort of denial by the media and by the scholars who fail to highlight these conflicts when featuring their writings.
The following sequence of events is interesting to track:
1) First Marty Martin wrote a one-sided article in Beliefnet to hit at Wendy Donigerâs critics, titled, âScholars of Hinduism under attackâ. See: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/128/story_12899_1.html In typical Biblical style of martyrdom, it positions the âgoodâ side as âvictimsâ of the âbadâ side.
2) But this got largely neutralized when others such as Sankrant Sanu wrote rejoinders on the same portal. See Sankrantâs rejoinder at: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/146/story_14684_1.html
3) Now let us we come to the cartelâs links with New York Times. Edward Rothstein is co-author with Martin Marty in their OUP book. See:
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subj...a&ci=0195144619
4) Naturally, as co-authors it would be natural for them to be close and help each other, and to participate in each otherâs networks. So Edward Rothstein wrote the recent New York Times article in which he headlines Wendy Donigerâs critics as âHindu Puritansâ. He goes on to brand those who oppose her as âHindu fundamentalistsâ and so forth. Many persons have called the article things like âoutright stupid and incompetent journalismâ, âinsulting to Hindus,â etc. The journalist failed to even contact those he criticized for an interview, presumably out of fear that the truth disclosed might work against his agenda.
Do the higher ups at the Times even know what these hidden links and potential conflicts of interest are? How well-educated are they on the complex dynamics of our Hindu minorityâs American situation? One wonders why the standards of journalism that even my son's undergraduate class at NYU learns were allowed to drop in the case of this article. What strings were pulled and for what considerations?
So please stop being naïve about âeducatingâ these cartel folks, etc. They are intellectually and politically armed and dangerous.
Regards,
Rajiv<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->These people are not merely christo-conditioned, they seem to be on fire. For christianism. They may hide it, but that's another matter. Cryptochristianism is not purely an Indian convert's thing. The jesuits did it, the western-christian infiltrators into India did it (for example, Bede Griffiths, de Nobili), Max Mueller played the neutral (pseudo-)'scientist' for as long as history could keep his secret, and there are other examples. Sonia tried playing the Secular Wife Of The Secular Indian, and to many an Indian she is still 'secular'. <- The ruse is easy to perform.
Ultra-venom towards Hindu Dharma does not generally come from merely psecular christo-conditioned people. Nor does a lifetime and career devoted to undoing Hindu Dharma and plotting its demise. These require greater motivations, a sacrifice of effort and time for what they are convinced is a higher purpose - driven by certainty that they are Right and All Else Is Wrong, a belief in something else.
Regular American Atheists' anti-pathy towards Hindus is nowhere near the same level. Although there are some exceptions (and it is always a curiosity to discover where that stems from....)
(Am not interested in Steve Farmer's persuasions. It suffices to know he's persuadable: he's obviously not bright; they may have merely hired him to play sidekick since every main character needs one. Not very complimentary, I know, but the dummy's part *has* to be filled, right?)
2. The following is Ari Saja writing on Witzel and his buddies (they pay him to be their friend, or he pays them to be his friends - not sure, as I'm not very familiar with the details of how prostitution works...)
Whatever these people's undisclosed private beliefs may be (I tend to not give much weight to their public declarations on their beliefs, because telling the truth is neither in their interest nor within their ken), but one certainly can't accuse them of being 'religiously neutral' in their public affiliations:
http://arisaja.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/...d-yet-again.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Subpoena compels Witzel to reveal the true identity of "Arun Vajpayee".
â¦It is now widely known, and documents produced by third parties confirm, that Witzel coordinated with other anti-Hindu groups who objected to the Initial Revisionsâ¦DFN' s founder, Dr. Joseph D'Souza is also the President of the "All India Christian Council" and maintains close ties to evangelical Christian groups such as the 700 club.
<b>Discussionâ¦Witzel's Bias, Hostility, and Back-Channel Communications are Squarely at Issue </b>
Witzel's conduct during the Adoption Process is central to CAPEEM's caseâ¦that Witzel (and others) were "hostile" academic advisors and engaged in secret processes is relevantâ¦
The sought after communications are necessary to show procedural improprietiesâ¦While the CDE prevented Professor Bajpai from communicating with Publishers and being "lobbied" by Publishers, it is likely that Witzel was allowed to freely communicate with Publishersâ¦
The sought after communications are necessary to show biasâ¦In one of the emails produced by DFN, Witzel notes "(p)lease check what Wikipedia says about your organizationâ¦They always put back what I erase." In reaction to the forwarded message, DFN's Executive Director asks whether "(DFN) canâ¦edit this ourselvesâ¦I do not want to start being identified as a mission (sic) organizationâ¦" â¦many principals of DFN are unabashed in their antagonism towards Hinduism. For example, Kancha Ilaiah, one of the signatories to a DFN letter to the CDE and an affiliate of DFN stated in an interview that he "hate(s) Hinduism." Mr. Ilaiah states: "Is Hinduism a religion of the stature of Buddhism, Islam and Christianity? In my view, Hinduism is not a religion. It is a cult of worshipping certain violent figures. A religion never worships a violent figure. Religion is a very enlightened social force. Religion is a very civilized thing that came into existence. Religion establishes certainâ¦covenants. Hindiusm is basically a spiritual fascist cult." Witzel's communication with DFN and other third parties show his biasâ¦These include his communications with Roger Pearson (an avowed racial purist) in whose journal Witzel's article appeared, and certain postings to internet webpages where Witzel makes statements indicative of his bias.
, has been proved to be anything but an "impartial expert" or "world authority" to judge the middle-school textbook content on Hinduism or India.
From the facts given below, it is clear that Wizel is nothing but a "volunteer" (until his pay is revealed) for right-wing "Xtian" fundamentalist hate groups.
Mr. Witzel has been in regular communication with the leaders of rabid fundamentalist Xtian Commercial Conversion groups, and assiduously tries to edit content on the web-based "Wikipedia" portal, mainly to distort the nature of his backers.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
3. Then again, the christian association with looney anti-Hindus and the western academia's association with the exact same looney anti-Hindus may just be coincidental. Or not.
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/hock.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, these anti-Hindu forces are exploiting the AIT to the hilt, infusing crank racism in vast doses into India's body politic. Read e.g. Kancha Ilaiah's book Why I Am Not a Hindu (Calcutta 1996), sponsored by the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, with its anti-Brahmin cartoons: move the hairlocks of the Brahmin villains from the back of the head to just in front of their ears, and you get exact replicas of the anti-Semitic cartoons from the Nazi paper Der Stuermer.
This crank Dalit tendency is strongly patronized by the Christian missions, witness the distribution of one of the Bahujan Swayamsevak Sangathan's anti-Hindu pamphlets at the Indian Catholic bishops' Delhi press conference just before the Pope's visit in November 1999.
Many of V.T. Rajshekar's brochures (Dalit Sahitya Akademy, Bangalore) are transcripts of speeches given at Christian conferences. Like pure Indian Marxism before, this lumpen anti-Brahminism is also well-liked and even patronized by Western academe. Thus, Ilaiah was invited to contribute to the American University Press book Democracy in India, a Hollow Shell edited by Prof. Arthur Bonner.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, my money's on the US government: that *it* is what's arranging all these contacts, in order to make a wide, impassable net. It's part of their long-distance leveraging of India/subversion of Bharatam program, in the hopes it may implode. Yeah, I'm sure if it does ever implode, it'll implode all over AmeriKKKa.
Some of the sentiments driving it - of its foot soldiers of USAID/Joshua Project/CIA's own missionaries at least, and right up to the handy evangelical sockpuppets like born-again Bush - are certainly christian.
<b>ADDED:</b>
Think it's a bad idea to just assume that it's nothing more than non-ideological 'mlechCha-ism'. Hindus tend to state openly what they are, but the other side derives a great benefit from not saying anything about what motivates them. So they are almost neutrally motivated is it, 'merely' by a conviction that they are right about what's in the textbooks or in the wendy's spawn's books? There is no neutrality. It's a bit like that 'whiteness' thing: people just look past it.
Hindus have to stare back, watch their actions and work out what's driving them. Something certainly is. If the antagonists can latch onto <i>hate-groups</i> and evangelical outfits to drive their views home, then it proves they are not honestly motivated. Because it's not some conviction on their part that they're right, that they have all the facts to hand and that the stubborn Hindus just don't seem to accept it. If that was all, they'd never have chosen to ally themselves with disreputable and downright disturbed entities.
I think working out the 'psychology' of the set(s) of people Hindus are being antagonised by is one of the most important things. It will give Hindus an advantage they sorely need, at least it will develop an alertness. Until that happens, Hindus just continue to take everyone and everything at face value, and consequently take others' words and ideas as coming from some sincere or at least neutral place. But it's not. Hindus are the ones that have been honest here: they've said up front they are Hindus, and that that's what is bringing them to the table. The other side has indicated no more than that it violently dislikes Hindu Dharma and would to anything to ensure it is misrepresented. A mere unreasoned ('mysterious') violent dislike is <i>not at all</i> a complete view of their situation. And Hindus should not stop here and blindly accept this as any kind of answer.
[right][snapback]95138[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In #270, had assumed the above was about US and California in <i>general</i>. But maybe it was about the American textbooks/anti-Hindu pseudo-literati people instead?
Already posted, but it's sort of related to the context:
1. http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/post...me/comments.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rajiv Malhotra comments: on Feb 1 2005 1:26PM
<b>NEW YORK TIMES AND THE UCHICAGO CARTEL:</b>
To uncover the long reach of this cartel and how it placed the recent New York Times article, one starts with Prof. Martin Marty who is one of the most powerful scholars at UChicagoâs Divinity School. (This school produces the largest number of PhDs on Hinduism Studies, through its faculty which includes Wendy Doniger.)
Martin Marty now runs the powerful institute of religion at UChicago named after him.
(See: http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/about/index.shtml )
It says, âThe Martin Marty Center is the institute for advanced research in all fields of the study of religion at the University of Chicago Divinity School.â
Who is Martin Marty and how does he fit into the Chicago Cartel? He is described on his own web page as âan ordained minister in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.â See: http://www.elca.org/about.html about this church.) On the question, âIs the Bible the inerrant word of God,â they explain clearly that they are what I would classify as History-Centric and literal. See: http://www.elca.org/questions/Results.asp?recid=16 . They believe that Christ is coming back to raise people from the dead. Furthermore, they assert, âTheories of reincarnation are the antithesis of Lutheran theology.â It is proudly a very âmembership orientedâ institution in every sense of that term, with a vast third world franchise to convert people.
His bio boasts that he was the senior editor of the magazine, âThe Christian Century.â See more about this Christian-centric magazine: http://www.christiancentury.org/ He is described as the nationâs most prominent authors in the field of History of Religions. Along with Wendy Doniger and a few other colleagues, he has helped trained and get influential jobs for a whole generation of scholars and college teachers who now represent Hinduismâs portrayals.
Wendy Doniger and Martin Marty are part of the old boys/girls network and go way back. There is nothing wrong with them being very tight and standing up for each other. See both of these cartel big wigs featured at the Martin Marty Centerâs web site:
http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/about/index.shtml
It is only natural that Wendy Doniger is putting her cartel to good use in this PR campaign to demonize Hindus and anyone who criticizes her. However, it is interesting to notice how blatantly these Christian fundamentalists are respected in the âsecularâ academy/media, because they tend to be well groomed, polished, articulate, with good pedigrees, and most of all, with a good network of contacts (read âcartelâ membership).
Such fundamentalist Christians are the âexpertâ sources used by media to call us âHindu Fundamentalistsâ! All evidence of their conflicts of interest, such as their churchesâ aggressive proselytizing against Hindus in India, get airbrushed away as a sort of denial by the media and by the scholars who fail to highlight these conflicts when featuring their writings.
The following sequence of events is interesting to track:
1) First Marty Martin wrote a one-sided article in Beliefnet to hit at Wendy Donigerâs critics, titled, âScholars of Hinduism under attackâ. See: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/128/story_12899_1.html In typical Biblical style of martyrdom, it positions the âgoodâ side as âvictimsâ of the âbadâ side.
2) But this got largely neutralized when others such as Sankrant Sanu wrote rejoinders on the same portal. See Sankrantâs rejoinder at: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/146/story_14684_1.html
3) Now let us we come to the cartelâs links with New York Times. Edward Rothstein is co-author with Martin Marty in their OUP book. See:
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subj...a&ci=0195144619
4) Naturally, as co-authors it would be natural for them to be close and help each other, and to participate in each otherâs networks. So Edward Rothstein wrote the recent New York Times article in which he headlines Wendy Donigerâs critics as âHindu Puritansâ. He goes on to brand those who oppose her as âHindu fundamentalistsâ and so forth. Many persons have called the article things like âoutright stupid and incompetent journalismâ, âinsulting to Hindus,â etc. The journalist failed to even contact those he criticized for an interview, presumably out of fear that the truth disclosed might work against his agenda.
Do the higher ups at the Times even know what these hidden links and potential conflicts of interest are? How well-educated are they on the complex dynamics of our Hindu minorityâs American situation? One wonders why the standards of journalism that even my son's undergraduate class at NYU learns were allowed to drop in the case of this article. What strings were pulled and for what considerations?
So please stop being naïve about âeducatingâ these cartel folks, etc. They are intellectually and politically armed and dangerous.
Regards,
Rajiv<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->These people are not merely christo-conditioned, they seem to be on fire. For christianism. They may hide it, but that's another matter. Cryptochristianism is not purely an Indian convert's thing. The jesuits did it, the western-christian infiltrators into India did it (for example, Bede Griffiths, de Nobili), Max Mueller played the neutral (pseudo-)'scientist' for as long as history could keep his secret, and there are other examples. Sonia tried playing the Secular Wife Of The Secular Indian, and to many an Indian she is still 'secular'. <- The ruse is easy to perform.
Ultra-venom towards Hindu Dharma does not generally come from merely psecular christo-conditioned people. Nor does a lifetime and career devoted to undoing Hindu Dharma and plotting its demise. These require greater motivations, a sacrifice of effort and time for what they are convinced is a higher purpose - driven by certainty that they are Right and All Else Is Wrong, a belief in something else.
Regular American Atheists' anti-pathy towards Hindus is nowhere near the same level. Although there are some exceptions (and it is always a curiosity to discover where that stems from....)
(Am not interested in Steve Farmer's persuasions. It suffices to know he's persuadable: he's obviously not bright; they may have merely hired him to play sidekick since every main character needs one. Not very complimentary, I know, but the dummy's part *has* to be filled, right?)
2. The following is Ari Saja writing on Witzel and his buddies (they pay him to be their friend, or he pays them to be his friends - not sure, as I'm not very familiar with the details of how prostitution works...)
Whatever these people's undisclosed private beliefs may be (I tend to not give much weight to their public declarations on their beliefs, because telling the truth is neither in their interest nor within their ken), but one certainly can't accuse them of being 'religiously neutral' in their public affiliations:
http://arisaja.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/...d-yet-again.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Subpoena compels Witzel to reveal the true identity of "Arun Vajpayee".
â¦It is now widely known, and documents produced by third parties confirm, that Witzel coordinated with other anti-Hindu groups who objected to the Initial Revisionsâ¦DFN' s founder, Dr. Joseph D'Souza is also the President of the "All India Christian Council" and maintains close ties to evangelical Christian groups such as the 700 club.
<b>Discussionâ¦Witzel's Bias, Hostility, and Back-Channel Communications are Squarely at Issue </b>
Witzel's conduct during the Adoption Process is central to CAPEEM's caseâ¦that Witzel (and others) were "hostile" academic advisors and engaged in secret processes is relevantâ¦
The sought after communications are necessary to show procedural improprietiesâ¦While the CDE prevented Professor Bajpai from communicating with Publishers and being "lobbied" by Publishers, it is likely that Witzel was allowed to freely communicate with Publishersâ¦
The sought after communications are necessary to show biasâ¦In one of the emails produced by DFN, Witzel notes "(p)lease check what Wikipedia says about your organizationâ¦They always put back what I erase." In reaction to the forwarded message, DFN's Executive Director asks whether "(DFN) canâ¦edit this ourselvesâ¦I do not want to start being identified as a mission (sic) organizationâ¦" â¦many principals of DFN are unabashed in their antagonism towards Hinduism. For example, Kancha Ilaiah, one of the signatories to a DFN letter to the CDE and an affiliate of DFN stated in an interview that he "hate(s) Hinduism." Mr. Ilaiah states: "Is Hinduism a religion of the stature of Buddhism, Islam and Christianity? In my view, Hinduism is not a religion. It is a cult of worshipping certain violent figures. A religion never worships a violent figure. Religion is a very enlightened social force. Religion is a very civilized thing that came into existence. Religion establishes certainâ¦covenants. Hindiusm is basically a spiritual fascist cult." Witzel's communication with DFN and other third parties show his biasâ¦These include his communications with Roger Pearson (an avowed racial purist) in whose journal Witzel's article appeared, and certain postings to internet webpages where Witzel makes statements indicative of his bias.
, has been proved to be anything but an "impartial expert" or "world authority" to judge the middle-school textbook content on Hinduism or India.
From the facts given below, it is clear that Wizel is nothing but a "volunteer" (until his pay is revealed) for right-wing "Xtian" fundamentalist hate groups.
Mr. Witzel has been in regular communication with the leaders of rabid fundamentalist Xtian Commercial Conversion groups, and assiduously tries to edit content on the web-based "Wikipedia" portal, mainly to distort the nature of his backers.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
3. Then again, the christian association with looney anti-Hindus and the western academia's association with the exact same looney anti-Hindus may just be coincidental. Or not.
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/hock.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, these anti-Hindu forces are exploiting the AIT to the hilt, infusing crank racism in vast doses into India's body politic. Read e.g. Kancha Ilaiah's book Why I Am Not a Hindu (Calcutta 1996), sponsored by the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, with its anti-Brahmin cartoons: move the hairlocks of the Brahmin villains from the back of the head to just in front of their ears, and you get exact replicas of the anti-Semitic cartoons from the Nazi paper Der Stuermer.
This crank Dalit tendency is strongly patronized by the Christian missions, witness the distribution of one of the Bahujan Swayamsevak Sangathan's anti-Hindu pamphlets at the Indian Catholic bishops' Delhi press conference just before the Pope's visit in November 1999.
Many of V.T. Rajshekar's brochures (Dalit Sahitya Akademy, Bangalore) are transcripts of speeches given at Christian conferences. Like pure Indian Marxism before, this lumpen anti-Brahminism is also well-liked and even patronized by Western academe. Thus, Ilaiah was invited to contribute to the American University Press book Democracy in India, a Hollow Shell edited by Prof. Arthur Bonner.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, my money's on the US government: that *it* is what's arranging all these contacts, in order to make a wide, impassable net. It's part of their long-distance leveraging of India/subversion of Bharatam program, in the hopes it may implode. Yeah, I'm sure if it does ever implode, it'll implode all over AmeriKKKa.
Some of the sentiments driving it - of its foot soldiers of USAID/Joshua Project/CIA's own missionaries at least, and right up to the handy evangelical sockpuppets like born-again Bush - are certainly christian.
<b>ADDED:</b>
Think it's a bad idea to just assume that it's nothing more than non-ideological 'mlechCha-ism'. Hindus tend to state openly what they are, but the other side derives a great benefit from not saying anything about what motivates them. So they are almost neutrally motivated is it, 'merely' by a conviction that they are right about what's in the textbooks or in the wendy's spawn's books? There is no neutrality. It's a bit like that 'whiteness' thing: people just look past it.
Hindus have to stare back, watch their actions and work out what's driving them. Something certainly is. If the antagonists can latch onto <i>hate-groups</i> and evangelical outfits to drive their views home, then it proves they are not honestly motivated. Because it's not some conviction on their part that they're right, that they have all the facts to hand and that the stubborn Hindus just don't seem to accept it. If that was all, they'd never have chosen to ally themselves with disreputable and downright disturbed entities.
I think working out the 'psychology' of the set(s) of people Hindus are being antagonised by is one of the most important things. It will give Hindus an advantage they sorely need, at least it will develop an alertness. Until that happens, Hindus just continue to take everyone and everything at face value, and consequently take others' words and ideas as coming from some sincere or at least neutral place. But it's not. Hindus are the ones that have been honest here: they've said up front they are Hindus, and that that's what is bringing them to the table. The other side has indicated no more than that it violently dislikes Hindu Dharma and would to anything to ensure it is misrepresented. A mere unreasoned ('mysterious') violent dislike is <i>not at all</i> a complete view of their situation. And Hindus should not stop here and blindly accept this as any kind of answer.