We Are All Hindus Now -- Newsweek

[Guest]

<b>We Are All Hindus Now</b>


America is not a Christian nation. We are, it is true, a nation founded by Christians, and according to a 2008 survey, 76 percent of us continue to identify as Christian (still, that's the lowest percentage in American history). Of course, we are not a Hindu—or Muslim, or Jewish, or Wiccan—nation, either. A million-plus Hindus live in the United States, a fraction of the billion who live on Earth. But recent poll data show that conceptually, at least, we are slowly becoming more like Hindus and less like traditional Christians in the ways we think about God, our selves, each other, and eternity.


The Rig Veda, the most ancient Hindu scripture, says this: "Truth is One, but the sages speak of it by many names." A Hindu believes there are many paths to God. Jesus is one way, the Qur'an is another, yoga practice is a third. None is better than any other; all are equal. The most traditional, conservative Christians have not been taught to think like this. They learn in Sunday school that their religion is true, and others are false. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me."

Americans are no longer buying it. According to a 2008 Pew Forum survey, 65 percent of us believe that "many religions can lead to eternal life"—including 37 percent of white evangelicals, the group most likely to believe that salvation is theirs alone. Also, the number of people who seek spiritual truth outside church is growing. Thirty percent of Americans call themselves "spiritual, not religious," according to a 2009 NEWSWEEK Poll, up from 24 percent in 2005. Stephen Prothero, religion professor at Boston University, has long framed the American propensity for "the divine-deli-cafeteria religion" as "very much in the spirit of Hinduism. You're not picking and choosing from different religions, because they're all the same," he says. "It isn't about orthodoxy. It's about whatever works. If going to yoga works, great—and if going to Catholic mass works, great. And if going to Catholic mass plus the yoga plus the Buddhist retreat works, that's great, too."


Then there's the question of what happens when you die. Christians traditionally believe that bodies and souls are sacred, that together they comprise the "self," and that at the end of time they will be reunited in the Resurrection. You need both, in other words, and you need them forever. Hindus believe no such thing. At death, the body burns on a pyre, while the spirit—where identity resides—escapes. In reincarnation, central to Hinduism, selves come back to earth again and again in different bodies. So here is another way in which Americans are becoming more Hindu: 24 percent of Americans say they believe in reincarnation, according to a 2008 Harris poll. So agnostic are we about the ultimate fates of our bodies that we're burning them—like Hindus—after death. More than a third of Americans now choose cremation, according to the Cremation Association of North America, up from 6 percent in 1975. "I do think the more spiritual role of religion tends to deemphasize some of the more starkly literal interpretations of the Resurrection," agrees Diana Eck, professor of comparative religion at Harvard. So let us all say "om.


http://www.newsweek.com/id/212155

[Guest]

They are making Hindus new target.

[ramana]

I think its a lashback at post Modernism which is moving them away from Christianism and close to paganism without Gods. They want to be Hindus without the Gods and Godesses.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Aug 18 2009, 09:36 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Aug 18 2009, 09:36 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I think its a lashback at post Modernism which is moving them away from Christianism and close to paganism without Gods. They want to be Hindus without the Gods and Godesses.
[right][snapback]100465[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ramana, all these definitions and terms like enlightenment, secular humanism, post modernism rarely embody universal values. For example enlightenment is a word that meant being against the Church . But the same buggers when the talked about India would sit there and applaud when the british authorites engineered the greatest famine in human history in 1770 (see the description by Robert fisk.

Alll the while they kept silent while the slave trade was going on with the full sanction of the Church. Compared to these horrendous criminal enterprises intellectual property theft (par to fthe story in my nex tbook)was a far more enlightened form of larceny. I just dont buy these facile generalizations anymore. MOst of these theories are rationalizations to explain away the massive greed and rapacity of the occidental during the years that they committed massive genocide against native peoples. Words like Enlightenment have a grotesque Orwellian ring about them.

I am reproducing below my initial take on this news item
Reggie i have seen the euphoria arising out of this article by Lisa Miller, and i have received this notification from at least a dozen different sources in the last few days , a Euphoria i might add that clearly indicates that the Indics are by no stretch of the imagination worthy enough to call themselves the successors of Chanakya and that evokes the emotional impulses in the Hindu resulting in such inanities as the Hindi Chini bhai bhai. This is what i wrote to Siaram who was the first to send me this article.

There has always been a small segment of the American population that has been drawn by the precepts that are embeded in the sanatana dharma. Among such votaries i count Emerson and Louisa May Alcott, the author who wrote Little Men and Little Women. But even as they were drawn by Vedantic Hindu precepts , they tried to distance themselves from an overt display of their faith by calling themselves Transcendentalists. Now transcendentalists is a long word and the hope was that most people would not recognize its meaning.So they were as reluctant to come out of the closet, as were Homosexuals till a decede ago I merely tell this story to illustrate the fact that some things never change and baldly stating we are all Hindus while tolerating the excesses that were heaped on the Hindus by the state of California is typical of the 'know nothng, hear nothing and see nothing attitude. I would have believed this artice to a greater degree had i been hearing from Joe six pack defending the Hindu from the "cows , caste and curry" type of characterization.that is even today commonplace. I have heard very few Americans defend Hinduism and to that extent I would not make too much of this article .
I would be curious about reactions to my take on this,especially from those who dont agree with me with the accompanying rationale as to why they feel so. For instance ,am i wrong in taking a jaded view of what may be a genuine turnaround in American public opinion
- Show quoted text -


On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Reggie Sinha wrote:

We are all Hindus now!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/212155

America is not a Christian nation. We are, it is true, a nation founded by Christians, and according to a 2008 survey, 76 percent of us continue to identify as Christian (still, that's the lowest percentage in American history). Of course, we are not a Hindu—or Muslim, or Jewish, or Wiccan—nation, either. A million-plus Hindus live in the United States, a fraction of the billion who live on Earth. But recent poll data show that conceptually, at least, we are slowly becoming more like Hindus and less like traditional Christians in the ways we think about God, our selves, each other, and eternity.



The Rig Veda, the most ancient Hindu scripture, says this: "Truth is One, but the sages speak of it by many names." A Hindu believes there are many paths to God. Jesus is one way, the Qur'an is another, yoga practice is a third. None is better than any other; all are equal. The most traditional, conservative Christians have not been taught to think like this. They learn in Sunday school that their religion is true, and others are false. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me."

Americans are no longer buying it.


Reggie Sinha
Om shanti, shanti, shanti!




--
पुराणमितिव्रुत्तमाख्यायिकोदाहरणं धर्मार्थशास्त्रं चेतीतिहासः।
Kosla Vepa
Indic studies Foundation

[ramana]

Kaushal, My reply was to the perception that the article was aimed at India and Hindus. My point is its internal to the Western thought process for the terms I used are all Western. I should have been more clear.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Please explain the train of thought. Why do they suddenly feel they are Hindus now? Not before and not after?
Wasnt US created by Puritans and dont they have "In God we trust"? Do they now trust i gods? Are godesses not to far in the future?

has the Cultural revoultion hit home? Were Ravi Shankar, Rajneesh, and Deepak Chopra etc finally triumphant? Is New Age taking over?

Where does pagansm without idols fit in?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

reply
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This article described postmodern thought...and not specifically Hinduism.

The whole "what is right for you is right for you, what is right for me is right for me" idea is flawed at the core. We can dress it up however we like, but it's all the same. "There is NO absolute Truth" is the essential truth.

Evangelical Christians (white, and other races too...it's petty to use race as a defining factor in an article like that imho, but I digress) believe in an absolute Truth - a plumbline by which we measure all else. This is why Christianity is hated by so many. There mere act of believing the Bible is an assault on other beliefs.

The public schools teach postmodern thought at every turn. It's sometimes subtle, sometimes not. This, more than differences of opinion in science and history, is the reason so many Christians pull their kids out. The *Worldview* is as different as night and day. The stats are no suprise to me.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Americans were being brainwashed and trained in the last 30 years to be tolerant and
live a multi racial world with different religions

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->My dh is 10 years older than I (I'm 35). He hates wearing his seatbelt. I Always put mine on, usually before I even start the car. I recycle, he does, but only b/c I get on him .

My point? I believe it's b/c of what we learned in school. His generation wasn't taught, aka brainwashed, to do either; however when I was in school, both of those things were pushed at every opportunity. As was tolerance and unity amongst cultures. I can't count how many times I was shown the kids from different nations, standing in circles, holding hands with big old smiles on their faces.

Now, the examples I gave are not bad things, but I use them to point out how in ps I was showered and showered by a certain agenda and much of it stuck.

With the influence of all the things I mentioned earlier in this post, I'm not surprised at all of the swing in the Universalism direction.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I think the Hindu thing is a red herring, as of course, these views are not Hindu, per se, even if they have something in common with Hinduism.

It seems like three possibilities are being raised here.

1. It's the current political correctness: I'm okay, you're okay.
2. It's the reality of living in a multi-cultural, multi-faith society. If you have good neighbors who are Muslim/Jewish/Agnostic, it's hard to wrap your mind around the fact that they may, in fact, be spending the afterlife in hell.<b>
3. It's a religious shift similar to what happened ~1800, where universalism is on the rise vis a vis other flavors of Christianity.</b> Much of the 20th Century was about the rise of evangelical Christianity and maybe this is a reaction. (Of course, that could still leave #1&#2 partially responsible for causing this shift.)

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Universalism with a broader world view is in.
Post modernism view is being established in the last of the EJ strong hold in the world for a universal NT
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

and comments on newsweek webiste by BRf member

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Did'nt know where to post this, but since it is in context to the Newsweek articl on "We are all Hindu's now", this is one one of the finest concise expositions on Hinduism as explained to the uninitiated along with some reactions to it:

<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Posted By: cpgmm @ 08/18/2009 11:07:41 AM

Context 1:
Western concept of liberty as a political system: e.g. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It's a very broad framework. It does not go into the minutia or stipulate what it is that would make you happy etc.. Does it mean, that you can bring in a rigid system of communism or fascism ideology under that framework of "LLPH"? Obviously not since those political ideologies would violate the basic framework of liberty in the political context. However, you can still have socialism as normative values within the frame work of "LLPH".

Now apply the same concept when it comes to Hindu religion vs a vis other religions. There is no set ideology that Hindus should adhere, to be a Hindu.. Hinduism is freedom of spiritual quest for an individual as long as the framework is not violated. if you insist that your belief or ideology is the only true one and every other faith is in violation, then you are violating the basic freedom of spiritual quest and most Hindus would not accept that as being Hindu.

Context 2:

Another illustration is how western liberal ideology is pilloried by some conservative society of the world by pointing out to the worst in western civilization as an excuse for they not adopting a free society. They often point to p-orno-graphy in the west as failure of a free society They conveniently do not realize that westerners do not necessarily celebrate p-orno-graphy instead consider that a price they have to pay for living in a free society.

Let me apply that to Hinduism. Because there is no rigid rules, you would find some odd and strange practices within Hinduism including some bizarre Tantric rituals. Missionaries and religious supremacists often illustrate these sects to point to the failure of Hinduism just like countries that have a tyrannical political system who point to p-orno-graphy as the central tenet of free society. Hindus would tolerate these bizzare tantric practices (within the context of a law and order) and not necessarily celebrate them as Hindu customs.


Context 3.

Process of scientific quest: Scientists and the process of scientific quest is about the pursuit of that never reaching wall of knowledge. Its the pursuit and not about finding all the answers there is to know. Its about the constant debate. Yet, you would find some individuals (Creationists) who would use this as a weakness to deride scientists and what they do.

In Hinduism, its not about a set of revealed set of truth given to 1 or 2 individual that has adjudicated all questions and that subsequent generation would just have to accept this "adjudicated revealed truth" hence forth and that they would be punished if they challenge these "truths". Instead, Hindu beliefs are really musings of individuals (sears) over a period of time and these musings still continue and will never end just like scientific musings are a never ending pursuit.

Hope that helps
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

A reply to the above:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> WOW! That is a fantastic explanation of Hinduism.

      Thank you cpgmm.

      So if a person is tolerant of other people finding their own way to God and pluralistic , they fall under the big tent called "Hindusim" no matter what their personal faith is. As long as they are tolarant and pluralistic, they could be Christian, Mohammadan or whatever, they would be considered as Hindus!

      That is so wise and cool! Now, I understand the premise of this author and the article.

      Bigotry can never be a theology. Even if a God is a jealous God, an individual should be willing to stand up to his or her God and speak for other human beings. One should have the courage to stand up to ones God if necessary instead of selling out so YOU could get to heaven.

            Posted By: humanChild @ 08/18/2009 11:21:46 PM<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Another reply to cpgmm:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Hinduism does not encourage possessive or invasive thinking and activities. Hinduism does not claim that everybody or all good human souls are Hindus. It is all about diversity - tolerance towards difference, and acceptance of difference. How one will identify oneself depends on that self ??? how an individual wants to reveal his/her spiritual identity to other fellow human beings? If you feel comfortable and happy by identifying yourself as Christian or Hindu or Jew or atheist or agnostic, go for that. It is all about your comfort level and happiness. As long as you are not doing any harm to others, you should be fine.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

http://www.newsweek.com/id/212155/output/comments

<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Here is review from average American about this article -
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->To: Cle
We'll be handled like cattle soon enough.
________________________________

To: Cle
The author is ignorant of Christaianity AND Hinduism. Hindus believe in a caste system. Nothing is more unamerican.

________________________________

To: Cle
More proof that we need to grind all immigration to a screeching halt and only open the gates once we get assimilation under control.

________________________________
  (I want all communists to fail.)

_______________________

To: Cle
Well, we can certainly hope that the Hindu caste system never catches on here. Otherwise, for instance, those who fell flat on their faces in North Carolina, would remain in the “Fell Flat On Their Faces In North Carolina” caste, for the rest of their lives, and their descendants as well, if they ever have any, for untold generations<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

Have not read the 31 page of posts..but am responding solely to the OP...number one thing in today's media is to KNOW your sources. I would not trust anything in Newsweek and several other journalistic publications that have very sided agendas. I use to read some of these 20 years ago for research and have seen a continued trend towards irresponsible journalism. Just reading 37% of Christians puts alarm flags...there have been large breaks in denominations (Presbyterian/Methodist/Lutheran etc.) in our generation that have 'watered' down what a Christian is today versus fifty years ago. Many are choosing to create their interpretation of the Bible to fit their congregation...it's a treacherous road and we'll see the effects of it in the next decades. But, don't take everything you read from sources like Newseek as to be fact....I could produce opposite results and still verify my sources....

---------

[agnivayu]

Usual hate propaganda from the commentators. Notice the consistent attack today on Hinduism is "They believe in the caste system". It's a delibrate distortion of words, the caste system is an affirmative action system created by the Indian government. Even so called caste issues are actually very secular and nothing to do with Hinduism (Christo terrorist propaganda)

Casta is a Portuguese word, infact Christian and Muslim (High caste TAP's in subcontinent, Turko/Arab/Persian) caste systems are very rigid. In Brazil for instance, President Lula a member of the "pardo" caste (Olive skinned) railed against "Blond Blue eyed bankers causing the financial crises, why?" Because in Brazil and other South/Central American countries, White upper castes control most the wealth (Brazil/ Mexico etc have the highest GINI index figures showing massive income disparity).
<b>Unlike what the media keeps saying about income disparity in India, so called caste based India has a lower GINI index than even the U.S meaning much less income disparity! (Check the CIA World factbook, this is an important piece of data that we need to highlight)</b>

Under the ancient rigid European Christian caste system, the Roma (Gypsies) are the untouchable caste of Europe, where they face horrendous discrimination

Once India become's an Industrialized country, the arguments made against Hinduism will become very weak.



<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Aug 23 2009, 01:18 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Aug 23 2009, 01:18 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Have not read the 31 page of posts..but am responding solely to the OP...number one thing in today's media is to KNOW your sources. I would not trust anything in Newsweek and several other journalistic publications that have very sided agendas. I use to read some of these 20 years ago for research and have seen a continued trend towards irresponsible journalism. Just reading 37% of Christians puts alarm flags...there have been large breaks in denominations (Presbyterian/Methodist/Lutheran etc.) in our generation that have 'watered' down what a Christian is today versus fifty years ago. Many are choosing to create their interpretation of the Bible to fit their congregation...it's a treacherous road and we'll see the effects of it in the next decades. But, don't take everything you read from sources like Newseek as to be fact....I could produce opposite results and still verify my sources....

---------
[right][snapback]100596[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[agnivayu]

A anti-Hindu hate monger (Probably a Christian fundamentalist or a Pakistani from the tone, called budda_p is flooding the Newsweek forum with anti-Hindu propaganda). I posted a counter to his post and also reported his posts as abuse. Maybe we can all post something there if you have the time.

[Guest]

<b>Hinduism invades America</b>

<b>By Wendell Thomas</b>

http://books.google.com/books?id=UK1zdGslG...page&q=&f=false

http://www.archive.org/stream/hinduisminva...age/n3/mode/2up

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Commenting about the Newsweek viewpoint, Rajan Zed said that community was glad that rich philosophical thought of Hinduism was being recognized and accepted widely outside the Hindu circles.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

white guys converging on the idea of 'dharma'? now they'll claim they invented it

[dhu]

<b>Why Lisa Miller should look at Vivekananda!</b>
By S Gurumurthy

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Rig Veda, the most ancient Hindu scripture, says this: `Truth is One, but the sages speak of it by many names.' A Hindu believes there are many paths to God. Jesus is one way, the Qur'an is another, yoga practice is a third. None is better than any other; all are equal." This is no monk of the Ramakrishna Mission discoursing on the spiritual teachings of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa who had experienced the truth of all three faiths -Hinduism, Islam and Christianity -- as valid for their respective faithfuls. It is Lisa Miller, Society editor in Newsweek, in her column (August 15, 2009), "We Are All Hindus Now". By "We" she means Americans.

Lisa Miller is highly concerned that Americans, while remaining true to their Christian faith otherwise, have begun to think and act like Hindu faithfuls. Here is an account of the interesting rendezvous between modern America and ancient Hinduism and its potential for global religious harmony.

From melting pot to WASP the choice of "We" for Americans by Lisa Miller is intentional. It is calculated to reinstate an attempted debate in the US on "the challenges to America's national identity" that had failed to take off. Samuel P Huntington, who had prognosticated the clash of faiths and civilisations in the 1990s, later wrote a book in 2002 titled “Who Are We?” -- a question addressed to Americans. Huntington's answer to the question was that the core American identity -- `America's Creed' as he puts it -- was WASP, that is, White (in race) Anglo-Saxon (in ethnicity) and Protestant (in faith). All other identities, Huntington says, are subordinate. But, unlike his earlier work on clash of civilisations that had set off a furious debate within and outside the US, his theory on WASP as American identity did not.

Now, some history. For over two centuries, the American identity was based on the metaphor of `the melting pot' where all identities eventually, inevitably melt to become the unique American porridge. The theory of `the melting pot' is traced back to 1782 when a French settler in New York, J Hector de Crevecoeur, envisioned the US as not merely a land of opportunity but as a society where individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men whose labours and posterity will one day cause change in the world.

But, the metaphor of the `melting pot' received a jolt after Islamist terror struck at the US from within. The US identity was alternately seen as a `bowl of salads', where all identities remain, but in the same bowl, that is, the US. But "where is the dressing to cover it all?," asked the dissenters of the `Salad Bowl'. The result was Huntington's WASP as the core American identity; but that failed to click.

Now in her article, Lisa Miller seemingly answers Huntington's titular question "who are we" derisively, yet provocatively. She says `we are `Hindu' -- that means, not WASP! Her conclusion "let us all chant OM"; the emphasis on `us' can even incite.

The crisis of national identity in the US is evident in the article. Lisa Miller is no novice in matters of faith; she is a specialist. She writes a weekly column "Belief Watch" in Newsweek. Says her bio, `she reports, writes and edits stories on spirituality and belief; she wrote The Politics of Jesus, a cover story in Newsweek (March 10, 2006) on the impact of religion in the midterm elections in the US.' See why she fears that the US might get Hinduised.

Hinduised America?

After describing how Hindus accept all Gods and all forms of worship as valid, Lisa Miller says: "The most traditional, conservative Christians have not been taught to think like" the Hindus do.

"They learn in Sunday school that their religion is true, and others are false; Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." Shortly, what Lisa Miller says about the two faiths is this: Christianity regards all non-Christian faiths as false, but Hinduism recognises all faiths as valid, as valid as the Hindu creed itself. But, she does not stop at this comparison. She laments that most Christians in the US are beginning to think and believe the way the Hindus do. She says: "recent poll data show that conceptually, at least, we are slowly becoming more like Hindus and less like traditional Christians in the ways we think about God, our selves, each other, and eternity."

Lisa Miller goes on to show how Americans are deviating from the fundamentals of Christianity.

"Americans", she says, "are no longer buying" the view that Christianity is the only true religion and all other religions are false. She cites a 2008 Pew Forum Survey and says that 65 per cent of "us" believe that "many religions can lead to eternal life". This includes 37 per cent evangelicals -- "the section", Lisa Miller points out, "most likely to believe that salvation is theirs alone". She adds. For the Hindus who believe in rebirth, the soul alone is sacred; for the Christians, who do not believe in rebirth, their body is as sacred as the soul; yet a third of the Americans, up from six per cent in 1975, cremate their dead like Hindus. Worse, a fourth of the Americans believe in rebirth, according to Harris 2008 poll, like Hindus. More. And some 30 per cent of the Americans, up from 20 in 2005, say "they are spiritual, not religious"; this marginalises the Church. She implies that these are just consequences of the American Christian distancing from the basic tenet of Christianity as the only true faith and all other faiths as false.

`Semitic' propensity for conflict. But, what is wrong if American Christians refuse to regard the other faiths as false? Is it not the right approach to accommodate other faiths in a world of diverse faiths? Two-thirds of Christians in America believe in Christianity and, at the same time, they do not view other faiths as false. She knows that those Americans, who do not hate the other faiths as false, still believe in Christianity.

But she does not seem to regard mere belief in Christianity Christian enough, unless the faith extends more to dismiss -- that is hate -- all other faiths as false. This view directly flows from belief that the sacred text of Christianity, which proclaims it as the only true faith and others false, is inerrant. This is what has come to be known as fundamentalism. Lisa Miller's view clearly seems fundamentalist. This leads to how this fundamental tenet has been the very source of intolerance.

The Encyclopaedia of Britannica, compiled mostly by Christian intellectuals, says that in the very view that Christianity is the only true faith and other faiths are false inheres intolerance. It says, "Christianity, from its beginning, tended toward an intolerance that was rooted in its religious self-consciousness. Christianity understands itself as revelation of the divine truth that became man in Jesus Christ himself....To be a Christian is to `follow the truth' (III John); ...He who does not acknowledge the truth is an enemy "of the cross of Christ" (Phil 3:18); he "exchanged the truth about God for a lie" (Rom 1:25) and made himself advocate and confederate of the "adversary, the devil" (I Pet 5:8). Thus one cannot make a deal with the devil and his party -- and in this lies the basis for the intolerance of Christianity (15Ed. Vol4. Pp.49192). That is, recognising other faiths as valid amounts to making "a deal with the devil". The fundamental command to regard other faiths as false, which is what, in Lisa Miller's view, makes one a true Christian, has the propensity and potential for conflicts; it has actually led to violent conflicts in history. This propensity and potential is shared by the three monotheistic faiths -- Judaism, Islam and Christianity. That is why the Fundamentalism Project of Chicago University found that the "traits of fundamentalism are more accurately attributed to" sacred text-based Abrahamic faiths -- read the monotheistic ones -- "than to their cousins" in the East, namely Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Confucianism (Fundamentalisms Observed, University of Chicago, p820). This brings the discourse closer to India.

Hinduised Christianity?

While Lisa Miller complains about Hinduisation of the (`Semitic') Christianity in the US, the secular intellectuals object to semitisation of Hinduism in India! The seculars who complain about semitisation dare not name any faith as `Semitic', even though, by `Semitic', they can mean only the Abrahamic. Scholars like Sitaram Goel and Konrad Elst say that the label `Semitic' is "hopelessly inaccurate" for the Abrahamic faiths besides sounding anti-`Semitic' to the Western ears. Yet the Indian seculars insist on the word `Semitic' for the Abrahamic faiths. Keeping aside the label issue, move on to the core of the debate and its history. Dr Karan Singh first characterised the rise of Hindutva in 1990s as semitisation of Hinduism; later, the secular intellectuals appropriated the label! The Ayodhya movement, which gave birth to the ideology of Hindutva, had challenged the views of Indian seculars who had, for decades, derided Hinduism as "illiberal" and "inequitable" and successfully de-legitimised Hinduism in the Indian public domain. But, the rise of Hindutva in 1990s made it tough for them to continue their anti-Hindu line; so they not only U-turned, but also fell in love with Hinduism and, more, certified it as "liberal"! They went on to distinguish the "liberal" Hinduism from the "illiberal" and "semitisised" Hindutva; they castigated Hindutva for importing `Semitic' features into the liberal, tolerant Hinduism. But, surprisingly, in the entire debate, the seculars would not name the "illiberal" and "intolerant" `Semitic' faiths -- read the Abrahamic faiths -- nor say what objectionable features of theirs Hindutva imports into Hinduism! Here the secular scholars in India have been less than open and honest, while Lisa Miller has been brutally explicit and honest. She says that Hinduism is polluting the American Christian beliefs.

Lisa Miller's logic seems to be: what is the Christianity left of Christianity if Christians do not believe it to be the only true faith and see other faiths as false. In Lisa Miller's view, while Hinduism accepts all faiths as valid as itself, a true Christian has to believe that only his faith is true and that even Hinduism, which accepts other faiths, is a false faith. But the secular scholars in India have no guts to say about the `Semitic' faiths what Lisa Miller says about the Hindu faith.

The need to de-semitisise

The charge of semitisisation of Hinduism by the seculars is political, not theological. The real issue is the need for de-semitisising the `Semitic' -- that is Abrahamic -- faiths. Beginning with Swami Vivekananda's expositions on inter-religious harmony the discourse of the Hindu school has been a continuous plea for `de-semitisising' the `Semitic' faiths. Vivekananda even wanted India to be "junction of Vedanta brain and Islamic body"; that is India, with Hindus and Muslims, should have a body, organised and united like the Muslims, and a mind liberated by Vedanta -- namely a society organised on Vedanta as the core thought. That is, organised Hindus and de-semitisised Muslims! His was a call for the de-semitisisation of all `Semitic' faiths; mention of Islam was just the context. The `de-semitisisation', which Vivekananda had pleaded for, seems to have started in Christianity in US with American Christians beginning to accept, like Hindus do, the other faiths too as valid. Yet, despite that being a welcome development, Lisa Miller is clearly frightened of the de-semitisation process.

But unless the `Semitic' faiths `de-semitisise', they will not be able to contain their inherent propensity for conflict. When a faith says that the other faiths are false, as in Lisa Miller's view Christianity does, it is an invitation for conflict with other religions. In contrast, if each religion accepts that other religions are as true, will that not put an end to clash between religions? This is conflict avoidance. This has been the very fundamental of Hindu approach to other faiths. A religion -- read Hinduism -- which believes that all religions are as valid as itself, has no potential for conflict with other religions. And a religion -- read a `Semitic' faith -- which believes that its faith and God alone, are true and all other religions as false, has all propensity for conflict with other religions.

Once a faith is declared to be false, does it not become an object of hate? How then can religious harmony be achieved if some religions declare other religions to be false?

This is where opinion-makers like Lisa Miller need to rethink. What she sees as the USP of Christianity -- namely Christians believing in their faith as the true faith and other faiths as false--has the propensity and potential to dynamite global religious harmony; more so because Christianity is the largest faith in the world. Her logic equally applies to what Islam also believes in, namely that Islam alone is true and all others including Christianity false. And that is what inspired the terrorists to attack the US on 9/11. If Christians are mandated by their Text to think that theirs is the only true faith and others as false, Islamists too are mandated by their Text to think likewise.

Where will the two conflicting and explosive mandates against all other faiths lead the world? Here is where the Hindu view that all religions are true is not only relevant, but seems to be the only way out of the dangers of religious fanaticism. The Hindu faith itself is different from the Hindu view of other faiths. By saying that each faith is sacred for its followers, a Hindu does not cease to be a Hindu. Likewise if a Muslims or Christians say that all faiths are as valid as theirs, they are no less Muslims or Christians. They remain Christians or Muslims and accept others faith as valid; they only become less sectarian.

It needs no seer to say that the features of `Semitic' faiths, which tend to promote conflict with other faiths, need to be given up -- that is, the `Semitic' faiths need to be de-semitisised. That is the only way out of the current drift towards religious and civilisational clashes. This is what Swami Vivekananda had warned the world, particularly the West, on September 11, 1893, exactly 108 years to the date of the religious terror strike at the US on September 11, 2001. The young Indian monk, who was just 30 then, pleaded before the august audience of religious elders of the world against "sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descendant, fanaticism" which, he pointed out, "have filled the earth with violence, drenched it often with human blood, destroyed civilization and sent whole nations to despair." How far-sighted a warning?

Yet, Lisa Miller seems to lament, instead of celebrating, the decline of bigotry and sectarianism in her faith. And the Indian seculars are still impeding, instead of enabling, the emergence of the non-conflicting Hindu thought as the global mediator between different faiths. Will Lisa Miller look at Vivekananda? Will our seculars and leftists heed him?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Here is response from Christian Post, Enjoy it or Barf it !!!!
<b>Are We a Nation of Hindus</b>?

[acharya]

But do all paths lead to God? HARDLY!

In a survey of the world's religions, Christianity is still the dominant one, with 2.1 billion believers (33% of the world's population). Islam is next with 1.3 billion (21%), followed by Hinduism (900 million, 14%), Sikhism (23 million, 0.36%), Judaism, Bahaism, Buddhism, etc. Interestingly, atheists number about 1.1 billion (16%). However, the numbers for Islam are inflated a bit, considering that it's essentially forced upon people in countries like Iran or Malaysia.

• Pantheists believe that all life is unity. In particular, they believe that the spirit (atman) is the nonmaterial, intangible self connecting with the concrete world. The concept of reincarnation is also different between Hinduism and Buddhism. Hindus believe in moksha, where you reappear in a new form. Buddhists believe in nirvana, where your moral effect is carried over in a karmic cycle. Each birth is a rebirth, and each birth is a result of karma. The human condition can thus be summarized as misery and opportunity. And, the way to obtain bliss (atman siddhi) is through knowledge, works, and devotion.

Can you get to heaven, according to Christian Orthodoxy, by works? Ephesians 2:9-10 is a hint.

• Hinduism started around 2500 BC. Buddhism started around 500 BC as a response to Hinduism. In general, lower caste Hindus fled to Buddhism because the latter had no vegas and no caste system, thus they felt more valued.

• The goal of Hinduism is unity with an impersonal absolute. The goal of Christianity is communion with the divine, or a relationship with God, a personal being.

As you can see, all paths DO NOT lead to God, nor do they hope to. Add to this scenario the other 21 or so major religions and you can see how ridiculous an idea it is to suggest that all paths lead to God.

[HareKrishna]

<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Aug 28 2009, 12:28 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Aug 28 2009, 12:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->But do all paths lead to God? HARDLY!
self connecting with the concrete world. The concept of reincarnation is also different between Hinduism and Buddhism. Hindus believe in moksha, where you reappear in a new form. Buddhists belie
• Hinduism started around 2500 BC. Buddhism started around 500 BC as a response to Hinduism. In general, lower caste Hindus fled to Buddhism because the latter had no vegas and no caste system, thus they felt more valued.

• The goal of Hinduism is unity with an impersonal absolute. The goal of Christianity is communion with the divine, or a relationship with God, a personal being.
ad to God.
[right][snapback]100728[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Religion in general has 3 goals
1-material benefits-good health,good trip,wining the lotery <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
2-Disolvation in the impersonal absolute meaning a "state" whit no atributes and no activity.
3-Eternal comunion whit the personal absolute,a state whit atributes and activity.
In hinduism you find all the 3 goals depending of each spiritual level and personal taste.
Philosophical religions point to 2 and 3 and usualy disregard the 1,while folk religions point mostly to 1.