India

The Extremist Agenda to Dumb Down Hinduism

|

Hindu fanatics are celebrating after Penguin capitulated to their demands and agreed to "pulp" all unsold of copies of University of Chicago Wendy Doniger's, The Hindus: An Alternative History. They claim that her erotic interpretations of Hinduism  are just another form of "neo-colonialism."

Their jihad against Doniger won't affect her much and maybe even help her book sales. But it will ensure a dark future for Hinduism.

For all their pretensions about learning, Hindus don't fully understand their religion because they haven't made an academic study out of it. Religious studies as a discipline doesn't exist in India. Nor will it if extremists are allowed to go on their boob-banning ramapge. The best and most inquisitive Indian minds won't opt for fields ruled by narrow dogmatism. They'll do something else—or take a one-way ticket to America to study with Doniger.

"Instead of resorting to censorhip," I note in my Washington Examiner column this morning, "Hindu obscurantists should concentrate on addressing their own inadequacies."

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: Missouri Keeps Man Behind Bars Seven Years After He Finished His Sentence, Waiting for Permission to Detain Him Indefinitely

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Links After Dark?
    I’m trying to be constructive here.

    1. NO! Fuck no! It has not been decreed, it’s LATE NITE LINKS!!!

  2. I stand four-square with the author in being opposed to book burning!
    Other than that, I’m not being real successful in caring about it. India has a government that screwed up worse than the US, and it seems Hindis can be as stupid as any other bleevers.
    One book more or less probably isn’t gonna change either one.

  3. Since double-posting seems to be a thing…

    Remember when I promised to stop using nasty insults?

    “Sometimes negative news does come out, but it is often exaggerated and manipulated to spread scandal. Journalists sometimes risk becoming ill from coprophilia and thus fomenting coprophagia, which is a sin that taints all men and women, that is, the tendency to focus on the negative rather than the positive aspects.”

    http://bit.ly/1jOhkki

    More about “Pope Francis, insult comic” –

    http://theweek.com/article/ind…..sult-comic

    1. The Pope Francis Little Book of Insults

      http://thatthebonesyouhavecrus…..sults.html

    2. I have to agree with them on Pope Benedict. I could respect him as a scholar and authority in his field. An intellectual Titan even. I see none of that in Francis.

      1. He’s not a Benedict (few are), but he was a Jesuit educator, teaching literature, psychology and theology, and served as a university rector. Jesuit educators tend to have a certain degree of learning.

        But it’s great to see the Rolling Stone Bad Pope/Good Pope narrative flipped around with Benedict as the Good (or at least learned) Pope. It makes one think.

      2. Same, Benedict is the way cooler pope.

  4. boob-banning ramapge

    Monsters!

  5. Links After Dark?

    Bitcoin Price on MtGox is below $100. Other exchanges are in the $520 – $540 range (down substantially).

    Given the price on Gox (you can’t withdraw bitcoin from them right now, for almost two weeks, and it takes weeks to get fiat out of them), it’s likely that they’re insolvent. Last year at this time, they were 80% of the Bitcoin exchange market. Now they’re under 20%. Hard to see how they come back from this one, though.

    I don’t remember the name of it, but someone put together an exchange where you can buy Gox bitcoin for real bitcoin.. so it’s a gamble, but with a huge payoff. If they’re solvent.

    1. Ruh-Roh. What percent of an exchange transaction does Mt. Gox take?

      1. no idea, really. I’ve not done a lot of trading, just buy-and-hold with occasional purchases. Day trading may be fun, but I have enough stress already.

        Gox has been showing absolutely incompetent management and communication on this. It started with a flaw in their code, and they shut down bitcoin withdrawals to deal with it. What should have been a weekend outage has dragged on, with them finding new problems all the time, and staying closed.

        A month ago, there was a $100 premium on Gox, mostly because it is hard to get fiat out (mostly due to their banking relationships and problems with those).

  6. Their jihad against Doniger

    A Hindu jihad, eh? Good work with the collectivizing and generalizations as well. You taking cues from the trolls here or what?

    1. They = “Hindu fanatics” – She says the religion itself is nondogmatic without ideas of heresy and blasphemy (which I’ll take with a grain of salt), but she’s not attributing this to all Hindus despite her use of a Muslim word.

      1. For all their pretensions about learning, Hindus don’t fully understand their religion

      2. Her last column on the subject referred to the orthodox Hindus who were offended by the book as the “Hindu Taliban”. Dalima certainly has a pattern here.

        Indeed, Dalima can employ all the cross-faith metaphors she wants, but the truth is that we all know that if Doniger wrote this book about Islam, rage-filled mobs from Cairo to Karachi would be howling for her blood as they burn down their own cities and end up killing at least 15 of their countrymen per riot.

        But Hindus who lobby a publisher to no longer distribute a book are completely analogous to bloodthirsty Taliban zealots looking for infields to behead in the name of jihad bil saif.

        1. Who is “Dalima”? Srsly, Eddie, cut-n-paste if you have trouble with the names.

          1. I doubt HM appreciates being confused with me.

            Now, in all seriousness, is there something about me which…*bothers* you?

            1. I doubt HM appreciates being confused with me.

              Well, it’s not like you’re a cannibal or something…are you?

              1. The guy was dead when I got there, I swear! And whoever killed him broke a bottle of A-1 sauce over his head!

  7. Speaking of World Religions: SoCon Robert George Identifies Muslims as Natural Allies of Social Conservatives, then Rants About Porn

    “it is foolish to drive them into the arms of the political left when their piety and moral convictions make them natural allies of social conservatives. (A majority of American Muslims voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election. A majority of the general voting population did not.)

    I admire Muslim women and all women who practice the virtue of modesty, whether they choose to cover their hair or not. There are many ways to honor modesty and practices vary culturally in perfectly legitimate ways. Men and women are called to serve each other in various ways, and women who refuse to pornify themselves, especially in the face of strong cultural pressures and incentives to do so, honor themselves and others of their sex while also honoring those of us of the opposite sex.”

    http://www.firstthings.com/blo…..ral-allies

    1. Didn’t D’Souzaphone basically argue the same thing years ago?

    2. The part that came before that passage:

      “They work, as we do, to inculcate in their children the virtues of honesty, integrity, self-respect and respect for others, hard work, courage, modesty, chastity, and self-control. They do not want to send their sons off to wars. They do not want their children to be suicide bombers. They do not want to impose Islam on those who do not freely embrace it. They thank God for the freedom they enjoy in the United States and they are well aware of its absence in the homelands of many of those who are immigrants. It is not right for us to make them feel unwelcome or to suggest that their faith disables them from being loyal Americans. It is unjust to stir up fear that they seek to take away our rights or to make them afraid that we seek to take away theirs. And it is foolish to drive them into the arms of the political left [etc.]”

      SoCon fanaticism!

      1. When you identify with and defend Muslims because you see an ally in fighting ‘pornification’ then yeah, that strikes me as a bit fanatical.

        From later in the post:

        “of course, we are in the happy position of not having to choose between the ideology of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and that of Hugh Hefner.

        Of course, defenders of pornification claim that they are “liberating women” and “celebrating female beauty.” The liberation claim is the very reverse of the truth. As for “celebrating female beauty,” let me ask you this: Is there an actress in all of Hollywood who when appearing at one of these absurd awards shows dressed in a see-through gown, bra-less and wearing a thong, can compare with the beautiful young Muslim woman in the video I posted? I submit that there is none. Oh, yes, to be sure, the actress will appeal to something in her male viewers. (I’m a man.Take it from me.) But it will not be their sense or appreciation of beauty. It will be something much lower and brutely appetitive. Their experience will be one in which who she actually is as a person is utterly submerged. The men viewing her will not be drawn in to wonder about her thoughts and feelings, her experiences of joy and sorrow, her strengths and vulnerabilities?the things that actually make her the unique person she is. Their experience will, quite literally, be an experience of de-personalized desire?the very definition of lust.”

        1. Here is how the passage begins:

          “I have no doubt that in certain cultures, including some Muslim cultures, the covering of women is taken to an extreme and reflects a very real subjugation, just as in sectors of western culture, the objectification of women (including the sexualization of children at younger and younger ages) by cultural pressures to pornify reflects a very real (though less direct and obvious) subjugation. But, of course, we are in the happy position of not having to choose between the ideology of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and that of Hugh Hefner. [etc.]”

          1. Yes, this passage where he equates the ‘very real subjugation’ of women in some Islamic cultures with the ‘cultural pressures to pornify’ women in ours really undercuts my point about his fanaticism.

              1. It’s just like the Taliban!

                “We write to ask you to stop offering pornographic movies in your company’s hotels. We make no proposal here to limit your legal freedom, nor do we threaten protests, boycotts, or anything of the sort. We simply ask you to do what is right as a matter of conscience.”

                1. Isn’t that Dalmia’s argument in a nutshell? That if you offend her aesthetic sensibilities then you are just like the Taliban?

                  1. Well, Ms. Dalmia does tend to the hyperbolic.

              2. I think that if I were a hotelier and this guy asked me to stop selling porn on the pay-per-view, I’d tell him that I looked at the numbers and found that porn makes a lot more money than pandering to idiots.

                -jcr

      2. No dude, the fanaticism comes at the end:

        Of course, defenders of pornification claim that they are “liberating women” and “celebrating female beauty.” The liberation claim is the very reverse of the truth. As for “celebrating female beauty,” let me ask you this: Is there an actress in all of Hollywood who when appearing at one of these absurd awards shows dressed in a see-through gown, bra-less and wearing a thong, can compare with the beautiful young Muslim woman in the video I posted? I submit that there is none. Oh, yes, to be sure, the actress will appeal to something in her male viewers. (I’m a man.Take it from me.) But it will not be their sense or appreciation of beauty. It will be something much lower and brutely appetitive. Their experience will be one in which who she actually is as a person is utterly submerged. The men viewing her will not be drawn in to wonder about her thoughts and feelings, her experiences of joy and sorrow, her strengths and vulnerabilities?the things that actually make her the unique person she is. Their experience will, quite literally, be an experience of de-personalized desire?the very definition of lust.

        1. You got that? They only way for a man to understand a woman is an individual with emotions and intellect is to burka her up. Otherwise, men, being the sociopathic ape-men, they are will be too overcome by their passions and rape her into oblivion.

          1. *they will be too

            I should put my glasses on.

          2. Reading that paragraph twice I’m not sure if I agree with your assessment.

            He’s obviously praising modesty as a virtue of beauty and thinks that lust cheapens aesthetic beauty.

            Does rape factor into that thinking? I don’t think it necessarily does.

            1. There was a touch of hyperbole in my assessment.

              Just a dash.

          3. Yes. And I do not care much for his ‘well there is the sublime appreciation of the uniqueness of a woman and her hopes and joys’ and the ‘lower and brutely appetitive’ of sexual attraction, and ne’er the twain shall meet!

          4. HM, I’m not fully sure I agree with your analysis here. Dr. George starts off praising a video with a Muslim woman who bares her entire face. She’s wearing a hijab, not a burkha. And Dr. George even says that you can be modest without a hijab, it’s a matter of culture. A woman can have her entire head uncovered and still be modest, as he sees it.

            And while you denounce his words, aren’t they true? I mean, when you see some half-naked actress, are you “drawn in to wonder about her thoughts and feelings, her experiences of joy and sorrow, her strengths and vulnerabilities?the things that actually make her the unique person she is”?

            1. Could be, what does her facial expression look like? Or am I not allowed to see beyond the naughty bits for purposes of the question?

              1. Well, I’ll be candid, if I see one of those scantily-clad actresses, my first thought – and my second, third and fourth thoughts – aren’t “wow, I’d really like to connect with her on an emotional level and learn all about her dreams and aspirations!”

                1. What is funny is that SoCons spend a great deal of time and rhetoric painting sexuality and lust as something divorced from all those other things (emotional attachment, intellectual respect, etc), and then they of course see things that way in the world.

                  I think the healthiest relationships and views on relationships realize that all of that can go together.

            2. I can answer that. I think the idea that sexual excitement is something separate and necessarily separated from appreciating the woman who causes that excitement is a bunch of puritanical nonsense. Sexual excitement is not a ‘bad thing’ and appreciation of a woman’s ‘hopes and dreams’ a good thing that can never mix the former. It is a pretty messed up idea of sexuality, what it is and what it does, to think so.

              1. You thoroughly attacked that straw man – no shred of it remains!

                1. Actually your previous comment seems to indicate that in this one case (god that hurt to write 🙂 Bo may have an excellent point.

            3. I mean, when you see some half-naked actress, are you “drawn in to wonder about her thoughts and feelings, her experiences of joy and sorrow, her strengths and vulnerabilities?the things that actually make her the unique person she is”?

              As Bo points out below, that’s a false dichotomy. I fully appreciate my wife as a human being with thoughts, feelings, and ideas. I also find her figure to be quite sexy. The two concepts not only co-exist peacefully in my mind, but they feed off one another in a symbiotic relationship.

              Just as a gynecologist is able to view various women’s most intimate parts all day without feeling the slightest tinge of arousal, so could I…or even you. The solution to objectifying lust is not to mandate that the environment be altered to suit you, but for you to develop control over your reaction to sense-input. This is one of the major differences between the Abrahamic religious and the Dharmic religions, imo.

              1. This is one of the major differences between the Abrahamic religious and the Dharmic religions, imo.

                Very much agreed. One of the first things that attracted me to Buddhism.

              2. “I fully appreciate my wife as a human being with thoughts, feelings, and ideas. I also find her figure to be quite sexy.”

                That is wonderful, and it’s good that Dr. George didn’t say a thing to contradict that.

                1. So, then what’s the problem?

                  Just because you and your fellow travelers can’t get a flash women-folk flesh without prurient thoughts overriding reasoned thinking, doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t.

                  1. Well, to be fair, the discussion started, not with getting a flash of woman flesh, but with blatant pornography.

                    Someone once said that watching pornography (including certain mainstream entertainers) is like satisfying your hunger by watching people eat.

                    1. Beat that socon hobby horse, ed. Beat it!

                    2. Someone once said that watching pornography (including certain mainstream entertainers) is like satisfying your hunger by watching people eat.

                      I’m not sure that’s why people watch it. I think it’s more akin to when I watch the Food Network and I see people eating a really delicious meal and I get hungry watching them eat it.

                2. Yes, he did. George is, not surprisingly, making an argument within the framework of a Platonic (or Neoplatonic) classifications of love (i.e. eros, philos, agape, etc.). Likewise, he seems to adopt the Semitic (that is what Judaism and Islam have in common) cultural viewpoint that eros is much stronger than philos.

                  Now, I’m not saying modesty is a bad thing. Not at all. However, modesty should be something that is freely adopted by an individual, based upon their own spiritual journey…and that’s just not how it works in most Muslim societies, and George knows it. I have seen it with my own eyes within the student population I teach. Every semester, women from Jeddah will arrive on campus, sans hijab, and within a few weeks 99.99 percent of them will begin to cover their hair. Why? Because they could no longer stand the gossip and insinuations from the Riyadh-girls clique. That social pressure is just as insidious as any pressure to “pornify” (to use George’s term).

                  1. “that’s just not how it works in most Muslim societies, and George knows it”

                    Not only does he know it – he *said* it.

                    He also speaks of the faithful Muslims to whom he was introduced through a Christian friend *who used to be a Guantanamo interrogator,* and who thus presumably knows something of Islamic extremism and how it’s distinct from the views of large numbers of peaceful Muslims.

                    1. how it’s distinct from the views of large numbers of peaceful Muslims.

                      But if we’re talking about satorial hijab, it’s not. And again, in light of of the whole Judaizer controversy in the early Church, it’s bizzare that George would advocate that Christians look to what are essentially the cultural mores of the Middle East codified as religious law. It’s like advocating against gluttony by suggesting Christians should eat Kosher or Halal.

                    2. Well, I don’t seem him saying that. Instead, he says, “I admire Muslim women and all women who practice the virtue of modesty, whether they choose to cover their hair or not. There are many ways to honor modesty and practices vary culturally in perfectly legitimate ways.”

                    3. Then he speaks with forked tongue, as he states that in the middle of his essay but then makes a definite value judgement at the end. The two statements contradict one another. After all, Sofia Vergara here is practically in a nun’s habit compared to those all-naked, all-the-time tribes in National Geographic.

                    4. I’m still not sure we see eye to eye on how we interpret the article, if you’re referring to the part at the end. That’s where he talks about how an actress “dressed in a see-through gown, bra-less and wearing a thong” arouses lust and not love.

                      I don’t see how that conflicts with his remarks about modesty. And I don’t think he was endorsing the National Geographic tribal photos.

                    5. Again, he was talking about a stranger all but disrobing in front of millions of people – not the same as meeting a nice lady and getting to know her as a person.

              3. OK, let’s play a game I like to call – Dharmic holy book or Abrahamic holy book?

                Ready? Begin –

                Let him kiss me with kisses of his mouth!
                More delightful is your love than wine!

                Your name spoken is a spreading perfume –
                that is why the maidens love you.

                Draw me!-
                We will follow you eagerly!
                Bring me, O king, to your chambers.
                With you we rejoice and exult,
                we extol your love; it is beyond wine:
                how rightly you are loved!…

                Your breasts are like twin fawns,
                the young of a gazelle
                that browse among the lilies….

                1. Source: The Song of Songs, from the Vatican Web site

                  http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PL9.HTM

                2. I’m not sure what your point is. Though the Song of Songs is beautiful poetry, especially in the original Hebrew.

                  1. The Big Three Abrahamic faiths are in most respects cool with husbands and wives enjoying each other. To take the Catholic tradition – there’s the ascetic strain present, and you can find some fun quotes from Augustine and Jerome regarding marital sex, but taken as a whole the Church affirms the “unitive” function of marriage (for those permitted to marry).

                    This is traditionally not the same as ogling the hot actresses.

                    1. The Big Three Abrahamic faiths are in most respects cool with husbands and wives enjoying each other.

                      That’s not what I was getting at. I was describing a more fundamental difference between Abrahamic and Dharmic religion in how they view sin and its origin. The Big 3 have the concept of the Edenic Fall and that sin comes from the inside out, that is the lust already present within me will be manifested outward when presented with sexually arousing stimulus. Dharmic religions view sin as coming from the outside in. Buddhism describes the soul as originally shining and the word for sin literally translates as “dust”, that is if you don’t polish a mirror or other reflective surface, dust will accumulate and dim the shine. Lust, from a Dharmic point of view arises when one doesn’t practice control over their senses and allows sexually arousing stimulus to induce lust within the brain. Much of the work of Buddhist meditation is training yourself to disassociate sensory input with mental conception.

                      So, as long-winded as I was, I hope you can understand where I’m coming from with my criticism of George. We have a critically different view as to the nature of sin.

                    2. All right, I think I get it – sort of, at least.

                      I would still like to say that some of the paraphrases I heard of the George article seemed a tad exaggerated. Yes, he doesn’t like Hugh Hefner, porno, naked actresses, and the like, and thinks modesty is a good thing, but that’s hardly the same as wrapping women up in burkhas.

                      And he’s not talking about modeling the US after a Muslim country – the Muslims he’s discussing seem to be living in America, as indicated by his description of them “thank[ing] God for the freedom they enjoy in the United States and they are well aware of its absence in the homelands of many of those who are immigrants.”

                    3. I would still like to say that some of the paraphrases I heard of the George article seemed a tad exaggerated

                      Well, I admitted from the get-go that I was originally being hyperbolic.

            4. She’s wearing a hijab, not a burkha.

              Only shameless sluts show their faces to men they’re not related to!

              -jcr

        2. No bra and a thong? All those celebrity and fashion sites say even the youngest, fittest and sveltest Hollywood starlets wouldn’t be caught dead on the red carpet w/o wearing 2 or 3 layers of Spanx under their gowns. A good couturier should tailor a custom foundation (or build it in to the gown)but fitting the dress over a off-the-rack seamless spun spandex undergarment is in keeping with the overall decline of our once-great civilization.

    3. PS – Bo, thank you for the First Things link – you help me keep up with their excellent work.

    1. I saw buzzfeed and assumed terrible, but that’s pretty awesome. The jaws one is really the highlight, for me.

      1. Not an unreasonable assumption, but they do occasionally come up with something genuinely interesting.

  8. ‘Marriage equality will destroy traditional marriage–and I shall dance on its grave’

    Marriage equality will, in time, fundamentally destroy “traditional marriage,” and I, for one, will dance on its grave.

    It’s not a terribly difficult conclusion to draw.

    As same-sex couples marry, they will be forced to re-imagine many tenets of your “traditional marriage.” In doing so, they will face a series of complicated questions:

    Should one of us change our last name? And if so, who?

    Should we have kids? Do we want to have kids? How do we want to have kids? Whose last name do our kids take?

    How about housework, work-work, childcare? How do we assign these roles equitably? How do we cultivate a partnership that honors each of our professional and personal ambitions?

    As questions continually arise, heterosexual couples will take notice — and be forced to address how much “traditional marriage” is built on gender roles and perpetuates a nauseating inequality that has no place in 2014.

    This will eventually lead to an upswing in heterosexual women who do not take their husbands’ names — after all, are they not just as autonomous and their families just as significant as their LGBTQ counterparts?

    Kultur Kampf!

    1. “I definitely never lied. I am much smarter than that. I didn’t perpetuate a fallacy; I just continually failed to correct it….

      “[invective omitted]…And when that somebody else [invective omitted]… said to you, “No, marriage equality will not change traditional marriage,” I didn’t have the heart to correct them….

      “So yes, I told a white lie while soldiering on toward this inevitable outcome. I bit my lip in favor of dignity and equality — not just for the LGBTQ community but for heterosexual women. I have done nothing for which I am ashamed.”

      Time after time, progs admit they were Lying for Justice, because the normals just couldn’t handle the truth.

    2. How are any of those things not trends that were already occurring in society?

      What a self-important boob.

      1. Yeah, that’s just what I was thinking. All that shit has been being worked on since the rise of feminism and no-fault divorce (at the latest – some of its even older).

    3. And this is why Islamism is going to win, eventually.

      Western civilization has committed suicide, apparently.

  9. You know, I read this but all that comes to mind is ‘wet sari scene’.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.