<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So this Rabbi Metzger is a less than admirable character? Well,
maybe. If Swami Dayananda and Rajiv Malhotra invest so much in
building bridges with the Jews, it may be for better reasons than a
personal liking for controversial individuals. Hindus already don't
have too many friends abroad, for one, so an alliance with the Jews
may be useful, for both parties in fact.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It has nothing to do with avoiding building alliances with Jews. It has to do with what those claiming to represent Hindus have agreed to: that Hindus are not 'polytheists' or 'idolators' but that we all only worship 'One Supreme Being'. However, there <i>are</i> Hindus who fit the traditional Abrahamic description of what constitutes a polytheist and an idolator.
Why do we need to give up anything of who we are in order for such an alliance to be formed with Jews in the first place.
Can they not accept us for who we are, as we accept that they have but one God, will practise circumcision, will not ever do moorthy puja, do not have the conception of a female God - Hindus are willing to accept all of this and much more of the Jews without question and without reservation. It's because we accept there is difference, even as we have things in common like non-belligerence towards other religious traditions. But why must <i>Hindus</i> compromise in order for them to accept us? We never were and will never be monopolytheists. We are whatever it is that we are. And we ask to be accepted for this. Nothing less.
We are <i>far</i> from being an intolerant ideology at odds with the world. What more do they need to know to accept us in friendship? No interfaith dialoguing is necessary. No compromising should ever be necessary.
I don't know why people expect that we have no right to ask for something so basic. Especially when we give it so automatically.
I am more than looking forward to Sandhya's response to Elst.
maybe. If Swami Dayananda and Rajiv Malhotra invest so much in
building bridges with the Jews, it may be for better reasons than a
personal liking for controversial individuals. Hindus already don't
have too many friends abroad, for one, so an alliance with the Jews
may be useful, for both parties in fact.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It has nothing to do with avoiding building alliances with Jews. It has to do with what those claiming to represent Hindus have agreed to: that Hindus are not 'polytheists' or 'idolators' but that we all only worship 'One Supreme Being'. However, there <i>are</i> Hindus who fit the traditional Abrahamic description of what constitutes a polytheist and an idolator.
Why do we need to give up anything of who we are in order for such an alliance to be formed with Jews in the first place.
Can they not accept us for who we are, as we accept that they have but one God, will practise circumcision, will not ever do moorthy puja, do not have the conception of a female God - Hindus are willing to accept all of this and much more of the Jews without question and without reservation. It's because we accept there is difference, even as we have things in common like non-belligerence towards other religious traditions. But why must <i>Hindus</i> compromise in order for them to accept us? We never were and will never be monopolytheists. We are whatever it is that we are. And we ask to be accepted for this. Nothing less.
We are <i>far</i> from being an intolerant ideology at odds with the world. What more do they need to know to accept us in friendship? No interfaith dialoguing is necessary. No compromising should ever be necessary.
I don't know why people expect that we have no right to ask for something so basic. Especially when we give it so automatically.
I am more than looking forward to Sandhya's response to Elst.