NON PRACTICING HINDU
I am a non practicing Hindu in that I do not follow rituals or visit places of worship, I am a Hindu because I was born Hindu, I am non practicing as I was born to liberal parents, way back in Thirties, who gave me the freedom of choice. I am proud to be a Hindu as it permits me a way of life which I want to follow. However, I do wonder that if these self-proclaimed protectors of the Hindu religion, the Togadias, the Singhals and other like minded achieve their Utopian dream will I have to put-on a Dhoti, a Tilak, a Bodi that too on my bald head and carry a Trishul in my hand to proclaim my religion.
Labels: Bodi, hindu, liberal parents, tilak
posted by L. Singh @ 5:26 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
Somebody asked me the other day what religion did I follow. I always give them the same answer: "None but am tolerant of all". I say so because my father was in the army and I have learned from him that to be in the army you have to be secular and tolerant of all religious beliefs out there. I am not in the Army, however, I have applied this lesson to my life. Kal
This romantic notion of moderate Hindus is immoderately foolish. Read what this man says. And do think if you really think your life is important. Read on please======Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Vijay Kumar, who is currently running for the U.S. Congress as a Republican candidate for Tennessee 5th Congressional District. The Primary vote comes on August 5 of this year, and the General Election is on November 4. When he ran before, in 2008, he received about 30% of the vote in Republican Primary. His website is kumarforcongress.com [1]. Visit his blog at kumarforcongress.net [2].
FP: Vijay Kumar, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
You are one of the rare individuals running for office in America who is actually making the issue of Islamic Jihad a significant part of your campaign. Tell us your view of Islamic Jihad and the background you have to make you see it the way you do.
Kumar: I am a native of Hyderabad, India, which is where I first encountered the Muslim culture. We have a substantial number of Muslims there, a higher percentage than most other parts of India, and I began to observe things that troubled me. Later, I traveled a number of Islamic nations, and I lived in Iran from 1976 to 1979, during the Islamic Revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini. I immigrated to the United States in 1979. All my life, I have been interested in political thought. During my travels, I came to realize that Islam is unlike any of the other world religions for a variety of reasons, and they summate to the Islamic ideology behind Jihad.
First, Islam was conceived as a world empire to govern all mankind. It teaches that all the world, and everyone and everything in it, already belongs to Islam–some people just haven’t been made to understand that. Until they have, according to Islam, they are considered “infidels” and inferiors. Put another way, the Islamic view is that all of us in the world are subjects of the Islamic Empire, and those of us who do not acknowledge our subjugation to it must be overcome and brought to submission, through conversion or force. No other religion in the world has such a purpose of world conquest and domination.
Second, Islam does not allow any introspection or self-criticism. It calls for total acceptance, total submission. The very word “Islam” means “submission,” and the word “Muslim” means “one who submits.” The other side of submission, of course, is domination. Islam seeks to dominate every individual and every nation into submission. In that, it shares a key element of slavery, which the civilized world has properly decried and abolished. Such submission is a political act. I am a freeman, and I refuse to submit to Islamic hegemony.
Third, Islam does not have any exit policy for its believers. The act of submission required to become a Muslim is held to be final, irrevocable, and permanent. So criticizing or questioning Islam or its teachings or leaders, or attempting to leave Islam, all are considered severe crimes against Islam, punishable by death.
In contrast, non-Islamic religions allow for dissenting views, introspection, and reasoned debate. In non-Islamic religions, if you so choose, you can leave the faith you were born into without being threatened with physical violence or death. In Islam, both criticism of the faith and apostasy are capital offenses.
All of that is what drives Jihad: Jihad is a permanent war against the unbeliever and his land to bring about his submission. It has been going on for fourteen centuries all over the world, which is why I coined the term “Universal Jihad.” Islam’s Universal Jihad is the single greatest threat to Western civilization and to the entire non-Islamic world in general. It is more dangerous than Nazism and
THE AUTHOR OF THIS COMMENT IS UNDENIABLY A FOOLISH ONE. IT IS THIS "INDIFFERENT TO MY OWN RELIGION BUT RESPECT OTHER RELIGIONS" APPROACH THAT HAS BEEN THE DOWNFALL OF EDUCATED HINDUS OVER THE LAST THREE CENTURIES.
AS A RULE EDUCATED HINDUS LIKE L SINGH HAVE NEGLECTED HINDUISM, ITS TENETS, ITS PRINCIPAL TEACHINGS AND THE GREAT TRADITIONS. HAD HE MADE A SMALL EFFORT TO LEARN WHAT HIS RELIGION HAS TO OFFER THEN HE WOULD NOT BE SO TOLERANT OF OTHER RELIGIONS THAT, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT, HAVE NO CHOICE OF SELF INTERPRETATION OR EXIT CLAUSE BUT INSIST ON TOTAL ACCEPTANCE. AFTER ALL WHY SHOULD ANY RELIGION ADVOCATE TOTAL ACCEPTANCE. THAT TOO ONE BORN IN A DESERT TO CHILD ABUSERS.
L SINGH AND HIS ILK HAVE CREATED THIS DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PSEUDO-SECULARISM THAT TO DECLARE ONESELF A PRACTICING HINDU WOULD BE TO INVITE DERISION; AND THIS FROM SAME LIBERALS WHO WILL FIND IT VERY NECESSARY TO REFER TO A MOSLEM OR A CHRISTIAN AS "DEVOUT".
MANY STATES ARE IN DANGER OF BEING OVER-RUN BY THE MINORITIES AND THEN WE FACE THE SAME DANGER AS HINDUS IN MALAYSIA OR BANGLADESH FACE; TOE THE MUSLIM LINE OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES.
WHY DONT THESE CLOWNS LIKE L SING READ HISTORY WITH A SENSE OF BELONGING TO BHARAT VARSHA AND THE SANAATAN DHARMA
Dare there be more "clowns" like L Singh...if there were, we might just have that thing called peace. It is easier to deal with hate than love. Living in the past and burning over who did what to whom is not going to change anything. Nobody outside cares what ills befall the toad in his little pond. It's just becomes a historical fact no more. Religion was created by man to suit his purpose and no different from recruiting people to join their political affiliations. If there is a God..pray to him and be done with it. What need of temples and swamis...all out to fatten their pockets at the risk of the poor people who think their wishes will come true if they hand over their money to the priest who in return give them prasad and ring some tinkling bells. Your rehtoric is frightening and fanatical. How would you defend yourself from potential dangers of minorities growing? Would you kill them off? Mass genocide? Ethic or in this case religious cleansing? You suggestions are always routed in the past: read the Bharat Varsha etc...you say but according to historical facts India and it's culture has been around for 1000s of years. We have "non-violence" ingrained in our genes. India was able to throw the Brits out because of that. But then a religious fanatic went and killed off Mr. Gandhi. That helped the cause of hindu zealots a lot... What now? Be a good man, treat your fellow humans as equals, be honest, love your parents etc are just a few of the fundamentals that hinduism teaches and that's a good thing. L. Singh may very well be a man who is already living by these principals...maybe you should too instead of spewing your bile all over the internet...or are your recruiting?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home