Going to say something unpopular yet again. Unlikely to coincide with other views expressed here.
There's no need for people to say Hindu prayers in the US senate - even if (as I understand) it is the politicians that requested it and not any Hindus, but still. People already know that the vocals in the US go into crazy hysteria if someone on the opposite side of the world believes in some other Gods than 'the one true gawd'. This whole incident might only make Hindus and Hinduism be more resented in the US. The babble belt has already convinced itself into imagining that 'Jews are controlling America' - their paranoia is such that they could well spin this incident in a similar fanciful way.
Besides, the event might merely incense US evangelicals to send more of their missionaries to India to terrorise Hindus - just so they can stop any such significant public display of Hinduism in the US ('stop it from spreading to America' - <i>this is an important reason as to why many US missionaries go and missionize in Buddhist and Hindu countries</i>).
Also, since there's guaranteed State-Church separation in the US, why should there be a need for any religion to be represented in the senate at all?
And why is Hilary Clinton - who otherwise seems a sensible person - antagonising her own countrymen (#208)? And she's a Baptist herself. Why go out of her way to do something that irks so many of her own people and that is actually unnecessary? She can show her tolerance in a different way: stick up for Hinduism during the media's constant slighting of it for instance, or stop her nation from funding subversive and missionary activities in non-christian countries. It's these things that matter to Hindus in the end, not some token show of tolerance in allowing Hindus or others to do some invocations in a public political gathering.
If I had any say in their country I wouldn't in any way meddle in that nation's religious affairs (I wouldn't set any money aside for faith-based funding either, but I wouldn't push my religion on christians). She should uphold her nation's constitution and allow freedom of religion but no state patronage of any.
(Perhaps in future, when more Americans become Deists, they can do something in the senate with that. Am not wholly averse to the US becoming more open to meaningful ceremony in politics. Also, when are America's atheists and agnostics going to be represented then; are they ever to be the last to get any recognition? <i>Will</i> they ever be officially recognised and accepted in their country?)
Of course I don't agree with that christian hysterian (#209) who's confused about American history. The 'One nation under gawd' thing was added much later as even I know. And the Creator that the Founding fathers spoke of was the Deist Creator, Nature's God. It has nothing to do with any christoislamic deity, so he can stop his whining. Certainly, the one real God of America is the Grand Spirit; why not invoke its/his/her blessings to guide America to peace and a positive future? Such an event would please all the Gods - Hindu and others, besides finally giving recognition to America's own religion.
In the US, as elsewhere, all people should have the right to follow whatever religion they do (as long as they don't bother/terrorise others with/because of it). However, I can't see this occasion of Hindu prayers in the senate doing anything but racking up more anger in the already-angry crowd possessed by their angry imaginary deity jehovallah. Hindus don't need any public confirmation of their religion (with or without recognition they follow their traditional beliefs) in non-Hindu US, though they need to be left in peace. I can't see that <i>not</i> having prayed in the senate would have affected US Hindus negatively in any away. But having done so is attracting all kinds of ill-will.
Sanjay Puri (#211) who said the protests were unamerican is wrong. It is not true to the spirit of the Founding fathers of their nation certainly, but it is very like the vocals of today's America. They're already a vindictive lot, no need for US Hindus to dangle themselves before them (even if upon others' asking) and exasperate them further.
There's no need for people to say Hindu prayers in the US senate - even if (as I understand) it is the politicians that requested it and not any Hindus, but still. People already know that the vocals in the US go into crazy hysteria if someone on the opposite side of the world believes in some other Gods than 'the one true gawd'. This whole incident might only make Hindus and Hinduism be more resented in the US. The babble belt has already convinced itself into imagining that 'Jews are controlling America' - their paranoia is such that they could well spin this incident in a similar fanciful way.
Besides, the event might merely incense US evangelicals to send more of their missionaries to India to terrorise Hindus - just so they can stop any such significant public display of Hinduism in the US ('stop it from spreading to America' - <i>this is an important reason as to why many US missionaries go and missionize in Buddhist and Hindu countries</i>).
Also, since there's guaranteed State-Church separation in the US, why should there be a need for any religion to be represented in the senate at all?
And why is Hilary Clinton - who otherwise seems a sensible person - antagonising her own countrymen (#208)? And she's a Baptist herself. Why go out of her way to do something that irks so many of her own people and that is actually unnecessary? She can show her tolerance in a different way: stick up for Hinduism during the media's constant slighting of it for instance, or stop her nation from funding subversive and missionary activities in non-christian countries. It's these things that matter to Hindus in the end, not some token show of tolerance in allowing Hindus or others to do some invocations in a public political gathering.
If I had any say in their country I wouldn't in any way meddle in that nation's religious affairs (I wouldn't set any money aside for faith-based funding either, but I wouldn't push my religion on christians). She should uphold her nation's constitution and allow freedom of religion but no state patronage of any.
(Perhaps in future, when more Americans become Deists, they can do something in the senate with that. Am not wholly averse to the US becoming more open to meaningful ceremony in politics. Also, when are America's atheists and agnostics going to be represented then; are they ever to be the last to get any recognition? <i>Will</i> they ever be officially recognised and accepted in their country?)
Of course I don't agree with that christian hysterian (#209) who's confused about American history. The 'One nation under gawd' thing was added much later as even I know. And the Creator that the Founding fathers spoke of was the Deist Creator, Nature's God. It has nothing to do with any christoislamic deity, so he can stop his whining. Certainly, the one real God of America is the Grand Spirit; why not invoke its/his/her blessings to guide America to peace and a positive future? Such an event would please all the Gods - Hindu and others, besides finally giving recognition to America's own religion.
In the US, as elsewhere, all people should have the right to follow whatever religion they do (as long as they don't bother/terrorise others with/because of it). However, I can't see this occasion of Hindu prayers in the senate doing anything but racking up more anger in the already-angry crowd possessed by their angry imaginary deity jehovallah. Hindus don't need any public confirmation of their religion (with or without recognition they follow their traditional beliefs) in non-Hindu US, though they need to be left in peace. I can't see that <i>not</i> having prayed in the senate would have affected US Hindus negatively in any away. But having done so is attracting all kinds of ill-will.
Sanjay Puri (#211) who said the protests were unamerican is wrong. It is not true to the spirit of the Founding fathers of their nation certainly, but it is very like the vocals of today's America. They're already a vindictive lot, no need for US Hindus to dangle themselves before them (even if upon others' asking) and exasperate them further.