A Conversation with a Religious Fanatic ~ The Gemini Mind

Thursday, October 24, 2013

A Conversation with a Religious Fanatic

I happened to have this conversation with a professor who works in my University back in India. I was hoping to have a mature conversation on freedom of expression. To my surprise, I happened to experience, something, I thought I should share. The persona of hate and irrationality fuelled by Religious Dogma embodied by this cantankerous professor (to my grave surprise). I do not blame him (I do blame the environment he might have been brought up in) but I certainly am very disappointed that people continue to impede societal progress with such narrowminded convictions and more importantly such people find a place in teaching institutions, where the future of our nation is shaped. Bear with me through the whole conversation and you will definitely understand my concern and, hopefully, empathise
.

Comments (11)

Logging you in...

Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout

Logged in as

+2 Vote up Vote down

Karthik · 596 weeks ago

Well, I would start by saying, his initial reaction wasn't bad. "Considering the concept of God is unconfirmed, everything is just an interpretation" you say in one of your later comments. Well, so are "Demons" - so apart from calling the artist(s) as having perverted imaginations, pretty innocuous comment.

"Gun wielding terrorist" - ok, I have a feeling things will start to slide from here on. It is clear that the person is taking this personally.

You pretty much killed it with the next comment, although the last line there might have been un-necessary. Even without that, you pretty much killed it. The only decent thing for the other person to do at this point would have been to say "okee-dok", and leave. However, with the rest of the comment, you did kind of engage him in a little bit of a war of words.

Some parts of the next comment I agree with. But I should be clear which parts. I do not stand for all this Hindu rant he comes up with. More on that later. However, like anything in this world, context is very important - "Removing this humane, moral, ethical and spiritual aspect of these deities..." Only that much. Well, but he should just have expressed concern that by removing these aspects, the artist was not being accurate in his interpretation. See, everyone has displeasures like this. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is offended if Steven Spielberg doesn't get the night sky right in Titanic. So, one has every reason to be offended/perturbed. But yes, one should just stop there. Does go a little overboard with the 'blood-thirsty demons' and all of that rant.

"encourage intellectual debate and hopefully grow as individuals at the end of it" - you were being too hopeful. Religious debates never end with people growing s individuals - ever.

Most of the following posts/rants seem to be focused on MS Hussain's paintings. I cannot pretend I know a lot behind the history of MS Hussain and his brushes with fundamentals. But, I think the main issues are as follows

MF Hussain - a Muslim by religion painted a bunch of Hindu Gods/Goddesses in vulgar poses/ in the nude.

Now, I am sure most intolerant people would first react in a way similar to out dearest friend here. With expletives. While I agree, there is every reason to be disturbed by these paintings, because of how highly you hold these Gods/Goddesses in your heart. However, one needs to take a deep breath and think about it - what's making us mad ?

1. Had these paintings been done by an Hindu artist, would it have disturbed us as much ? Sure, one might still find it disturbing, but would it disturn someone to the same degree ? I believe not. I think it's because the artist involved is (was) a muslim.

But inspite of what one might think of Hindu-muslims not getting along, or anything along these lines, it is to be noted that it applies even more broadly. Wheerever there are divisions based on anything - people are more intolerant if something offensive is done by someone from another sect/group. Take any sports, take racism. It applies broadly.

2. While we have every right to express our views on the paintings, just like we have a right to express our views on anything, it doesn't justify using expletives. See, if I eat at a restaurant, and don't like it, I sure will tell all my friends, the place stinks. Everyone reserves a right to that. But threatening the restaurant owner that I will vandalize the place - that is not acceptable.

3. Aren't most sculptures in temples in the nude ? But we find that extremely acceptable, don't we. We don't have above 18 only temples. All kids are allowed.

Regardless of religion, nude paintings/sculptures/art always have and will continue to evoke a range of emotions in people. Some people are offended by it. It's hard for everyone to reach a consensus on nudity. But, to be fair to Vibu, his original link never referred to any nude paintings - so, it's moot to yourself post stuff, and get incited by them :) That is just convenient.

I think beyond this, this guy just goes deranged.

And might I add incitingly, if the Gods were given a choice today to choose a weapon of choice, might I suggest the lightsaber.

1 reply · active 596 weeks ago

+2 Vote up Vote down

Vibushan · 596 weeks ago

Precisely. And I meant that it is an interpretation. i was curious to know why he took a stab at the artist's imagination and labeling it perverted. My last line from my following comment was in response to another comment posted by another user who said "AMMA is worried that children see the warrior side of Gods.. I understand her concern".. After my response, that comment was removed :) And yes.. Lightsabers would be the way to go.

+2 Vote up Vote down

Vibushan · 596 weeks ago

Sorry.. <please read my first line as> Precisely. And I didnt question his interpretation. If he said he didnt like the pics, thats his taste. But taking a stab at the author as "perverse" and alling him names. Thats why, I delved further.

+2 Vote up Vote down

Janani · 596 weeks ago

Oh, at first glance, I was wondering why you had to take a dig at "AMMA" all of a sudden...then I felt you would do that only in response to something.

Maybe it IS difficult to have a sane debate when it comes to one's beliefs on religion, but we have to remember that as a teacher one holds the responsibility to ensure that creativity is NOT suppressed. That is a professional ethic. And fancy that an ETHICS teacher behaves this way*. Just because I believe in something doesn't mean I accuse a creator of being perverted and label his work as 'crap'. It is such a disgrace to the teaching community.

And it is true that when you bring religion into education, this suppression is inevitable to creativity by those who wield authority, mainly because the authority was given with an eye on religion, don't you agree? Do you even vaguely remember being taught by a teacher who wore an "I am an atheist" badge on his sleeve, especially in your college? Why would there be a column called 'religion' in the application form?!

And it is quite funny (and disgustingly hypocritical) that people like this one don't find the notion of Krishna's euphemistic "dancing" with 16000 Gopikas or Rama questioning his pregnant wife and banishing her after all the trouble she goes through to keep her chastity intact (perhaps, it has a very very deeeep value-inculcating interpretation that makes millions of people worship them as Gods, while you and I are 'dope licking morons' for raising this point and trying to understand further!), while GUN-esha is an idea that sprouts from a pervert!

And please, let us not be disillusioned that Hindus are tolerant comparatively, if yes, there would never be the debate about M F Hussain and his paintings. The whole idea becomes redundant! And considering the sculptures in Khajuraho or Ellora caves almost ALWAYS depict the skimpily clad Gods and Goddesses in what we can safely call compromising positions, why does it irk if someone expresses the same thing through another medium, just because he is of a different faith? One must go see the mural paintings of Kerala, depicted even in temples sometimes, those interpretations of Shiva and Parvati will make the manufacturers of Muslipower go take a hike!

Sad state of affairs, with a solution nowhere in sight.

*information sourced from a Facebook comment, may not be true

+3 Vote up Vote down

Sriraj · 587 weeks ago

Just dumping a train of thought here. Not bothering about the order of what I'm going to say.

I agree with everything that Karthik and Janani have posted. I have always felt, in the end, it's about how much of what you believe is knowledge and how much is just blind faith. If you do, one painter and his imagination wouldn't hurt you so much. All this tolerance argument may win the case with dummies who think anything that happens in India is out of hurt sentiments and not out of the attempt to tap political gains.

And I would've been shell shocked if this hadn't come from someone who belongs to a place where the focus is only on AMMA even on Sri Krishna Jayanti. I want to be very clear that I have absolutely NO hard feelings against AMMA (I don't even know about her much). It's the chakkar that the people who call themselves her devotees run that bothers me. Don't want to wander off here, but did Smrithi Rekha maam remove her comment? I can understand why considering the way this argument turned out.

I'm glad that other people have noticed the (semi) nude sculptures in all the temples around India. I have always wondered why people take a dab at nude paintings or Gods when our temples are full of them.

And Vibushan, we did not complete the conversation we were having the other day about the incident during the Sethu Samudram issue. We'll do it sometime later. :)

I have never been able to take a side when it comes to taking a dab at beliefs. Religion is the best example. For some people it's personal. They attribute everything to God. They have done so forever and that's their strength. So, obviously, when someone comes along and says, "Mate, wake up! There is no God, or at least there's no proof - something like that", we are talking about destroying everything that this person believed in. His life is practically a lie. Why wouldn't he get hurt?

This debate is just one such example. One guy who probably knows all the shastras or vedas and what so ever - such a big dump of information (isn't he from IIT or something and quit TCS because they asked him to wear a tie - have heard these while in college but not sure if they were just rumours). He teaches moral values and ethics (that has a sarcastic ring to it in so many levels). He preaches tolerance. He calls a 'guy with a brush' trying to stroke his creativity - a pervert. He thinks (maybe because of all the knowledge and maybe because he's a teacher) that he has the authority to go about judging everyone. What's the use of all that knowledge, reading all the shastras, vedas, preaching tolerance and being a staunch devotee of AMMA? All it took was a painter and his brush.

+2 Vote up Vote down

Guest · 569 weeks ago

I hate concept nudity and god together. If anyone is pervert or enjoy nudity better draw his own painting or keep staring himself in mirror or for that matter be nude in public i am not bothered.

Heck with your mentality of considering oneself too liberal, thank God that you no longer part of india anymore.
We don't you and neither India need your mentality.

Pickled western mind with a brain of rat

1 reply · active 569 weeks ago

+3 Vote up Vote down

Vibushan 21p · 569 weeks ago

Hi Guest (Would rather prefer to know my visitors by name than addressing my comments to 'Guest'),
You're not bothered? Mate, looks like you are. If you have take the pains to come to my blog and leave your opinion (and make judgments about my character), you are bothered about it, and quite irrationally so. Given that you come off as 1. An ultra-conservative (nudity is taboo), 2. A person so irrationally devout that a taboo concept cannot be applied to God (Blind servitude) 3. One who is unable to have a reasoned debate because of lack of facts so chooses to attack one's personal attributes (Ad Hominem) 4. Irrationally and selfishly patriotic that you'd prefer to save India for conservationalists rather than encourage free debate (Right Wing Fundamentalist) 5. And finally thanks God after portraying such despicable behaviour (Lack of Ownership), you sir, are a complete disgrace to society.

+2 Vote up Vote down

guest · 569 weeks ago

Seen on Facebook your cruel, mashed mentality making fun comments on video posted on barbaric treatment to animals. This is reflects your attitude and your character.

Again thanks God for flushing you out of India.
Enjoy your life

1 reply · active 569 weeks ago

+3 Vote up Vote down

Vibushan 21p · 569 weeks ago

As Hitchens so eloquently put it, People with one such a judgmental world view should be out on the streets selling pencils from a CUP.

+2 Vote up Vote down

vinoth · 556 weeks ago

lol, easiest way to grab attention, paint indian gods nude and there you go :) I know, most of us admire our own beauty when we are naked, but its for civility that we dress up, and we dress up gods like we dress up to give them more beauty, may be the artist didnt have much colors left to dress up the gods, he might give it a thought as well ;) A thought? Would people have admired Monalisa more than we do now, had Davinci considered to paint her nude?

+2 Vote up Vote down

peter · 488 weeks ago

Hi
'Savor bee is the best Online Shop for pickles, hear you can find different kind of Indian pickles. south indian pickles, north indian pickles available hear, order and buy Indian pickles online India. Get home delivery. http://www.savorbee.com/en/16/pickles

The Gemini Mind

Oru avial. Oru poriyal.

Sample Text

Thursday, October 24, 2013