A Hindu Atheist

Ajita,Sorry, mate. Don't have time to go on a pars...

2009-04-04T22:58:00.000-05:00

Ajita,

Sorry, mate. Don't have time to go on a parsing project.

Suffice it to say, if you make a generalized statement about Charlie Chaplin's contributions to the world, it may come back to bite you in your tush. I mentioned Chaplin's sexual life intentionally and to make a point, not to put words in your mouth. I used "I take it..." which is more of a question.

Also, don't assume that others need to, or would be willing to listen to your pedantic and silly lecture on culture - I already know about the similarities between samosa and sambusa (and did my research more than a decade ago when I first had sambusa), and nor am I a proponent of living in a bubble.

Cheers.

" I am having serious doubts about both your readi...

2009-04-04T16:05:00.000-05:00

" I am having serious doubts about both your reading as well as comprehending abilities"

Ad Hominem as ad hominem gets. If you had quoted a specific statement of mine and then demonstrated why I was misrepresenting you, then the above statement would have a bit more credibility. Without it, its just a defensive ad hominem attack thats meant to belittle the opponent while making oneself feel better.

"Or do you just like to prop up imaginary opponents so that you can feel good about demolishing them? "

In my first comment I didn't refer to any particular thing you said. I was speaking in general about the nature of culture. If you will notice, that first comment was addressed to more than one person. It should be common sense that my statements were not meant to refer to any particular statements by any one person. It is perfectly acceptable to present new perspectives into a conversation. You, on the other hand, made pointed references to my statements and then repeatedly misrepresented them in order to make what you perceived as specific counter points. That is why they were straw men arguments.

"OK. So what are the facts of this issue regarding Charlie Chaplin statue, and which comment of mine led you to give this unnecessary lecture as well as jumping to conclusions about me?

Or do you just like to prop up imaginary opponents so that you can feel good about demolishing them? That's so typical of fundu atheists, whose entire identity is dependent on being anti-religion. I guess even atheists needs a purpose in life."

If you really didn't get the point I was making, then obviously the "lecture" didn't sink in. Again, I did not specifically refer to any statements you made. Sometimes it is pertinent to introduce a fresh perspective, especially if it is absent in the conversation.

No imaginary opponents in my case. I'm pretty sure you exist.

I am not the one who labeled myself as an atheist, nor did I defend atheism. So you are continuing to make straw men arguments. You, on the other hand, DID defend religion and the religious perspective. And if you go back and read right, you will see that I never actually called you religious, although you are now calling me an atheist for no apparent reason.

For the record, I think the word atheist is meaningless. But given the culture-specific definition of atheism, I can see how someone could imagine that without god there can be no identity except in bashing religion. I do feel sorry for those who cannot see any purpose in life except in fantasy. My life, on the other hand, is full of non-imaginary purpose, thank you very much.

"Hey, you did the same to me in your lecture, so you must know if it's fun or not. Pot-kettle. I guess when the shoe is on the other foot, you don't like it."

Again, I didn't make any references to anything you said in my first comment. When I did quote you in my second comment, I was careful to actually follow your argument and not misrepresent you. You on the other hand, quoted specific statements by me and then misrepresented them. The main theme in your current argument is a rehashing of my criticism of you, albeit without any evidence.

"Do you? Please cite the actual facts of this issue regarding Charlie Chaplin statue which are based on above-reproach reporting and not on "journalists" giving their spin, and I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you.

Again, I never quoted or referred to anything specific you said, in my first comment. I was introducing something that was, and still is, missing in the conversation. You may call it a lecture all you want- I am bemused that you would think of that as a criticism. You, on the other hand, made specific false claims about me - (1) about my views on Charlie Chaplin's sex life and child marriage in Hinduism (2) about my opinion on local rights (which was the only thing on which we actually agreed) and (3) some reference to swallowing a revised version of history "hook-line-and-sinker". Specific misquotes.

If you want to talk about bad reporting by journalists, then I will agree with you on that point, but that was never something that I opposed. I didn't come in swinging at your statements. I came in to introduce a different perspective. You came at me swinging at non-existent demons that you made believe I was creating. But turning around and accusing me of ignoring your arguments, when I was making a completely different point altogether, and then yourself ignoring my arguments while misrepresenting me, is hypocritical.

I am placing the conversation in a more general context- that of culture. If that is beyond your level of debate, then just let it go.

It must be fun to make up shit about people, putti...

2009-04-03T00:28:00.000-05:00

It must be fun to make up shit about people, putting words in their mouths just to blow up their non-existent arguments.

Hey, you did the same to me in your lecture, so you must know if it's fun or not. Pot-kettle. I guess when the shoe is on the other foot, you don't like it. Consider it a lesson for you.

You're welcome. :)

Do you care to address my actual statements? Do you know what the topic is here?

Do you? Please cite the actual facts of this issue regarding Charlie Chaplin statue which are based on above-reproach reporting and not on "journalists" giving their spin, and I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you.

Ajita:I haven't indulged in any ad hominem attacks...

2009-04-03T00:24:00.000-05:00

Ajita:
I haven't indulged in any ad hominem attacks - yet. These are your comments addressed to me (and Maald):

True moral behavior comes from accepting all people as part of our human family. It is extremely short sighted to label someone as anti-Indian simply because they were born elsewhere. We are all citizens of the world and Indian culture is spreading everywhere. Statues of Gandhi can be found in almost every industrialized country in the world. And to be fair, Charlie Chaplin's contribution to the lives of people everywhere is tremendous. To belittle this great man by labeling him a Christian and a non-Indian is to see the world through a slit.

As long as you think that only statues of Indians must be put up in India, why dont you give up wearing pants, taking antibiotics, driving cars etc. Better still, why don't you stop using English as your medium of communication? Why don't you stop eating potatoes and green chillies? They are crops that are native to South America. In fact, a large percentage of our food, clothing styles and traditions that we consider purely Indian are actually not. That is the way culture works. Over time ideas spread through the human species. You are seeing things in a static perspective, a view that is myopic and ignorant of reality. Open your eyes and be more human.

OK. So what are the facts of this issue regarding Charlie Chaplin statue, and which comment of mine led you to give this unnecessary lecture as well as jumping to conclusions about me?

Or do you just like to prop up imaginary opponents so that you can feel good about demolishing them? That's so typical of fundu atheists, whose entire identity is dependent on being anti-religion. I guess even atheists needs a purpose in life.

BTW, just because someone is critical of your points, doesn't make them religious. That's intellectual laziness and you should know that.

@Joker: "Reading your comment addressed to me, I a...

2009-04-02T20:18:00.000-05:00

@Joker:

"Reading your comment addressed to me, I am having serious doubts about both your reading as well as comprehending abilities. Till you do a better job of that and actually understand my comment instead of riding away on your high horse giving a lecture, it's pointless to engage in any discussion with you."

Its interesting that after making ad hominem attacks, which are the sign of a weak intellect, you took the trouble to come back and engage away anyway.

"As for the entire world being a family, walk the talk and go live in Afghanistan in Taliban-ruled areas for a while"

Interesting that you're comparing yourself to the Taliban. I would give the same "lecture" about brotherhood of all human beings to the Taliban. They will probably be as unable to empathize with that position as you are.

About Charlie Chaplin's sex life, why does the religious establishment have such a hard time differentiating between consenting and non-consenting relationships? Anyway, this is what's called a straw man argument. You're putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about the matter and since you bring it up, I am adult enough to concede that I hadn't considered it. But you are building the straw man by making up an extreme point of view and passing it off as my opinion. If Charlie Chaplin did indeed have sex with un-consenting adults or with children before puberty, then your point stands.

"The issue is - what is the relevance of putting up his statue next to a temple - if indeed that was the case - without taking the local population's view into account? If you think Charlie Chaplin is great, go ahead and put a statue or a poster in your house - send me your address and I'll even find one and mail it to you"

I guess you didn't read the first part of my comment. Take the blinders off and you'll see that not everything is black and white. People can disagree with some things you say while agreeing with others. So in light of that, your next statement...

"But why would you want to inflict what you think is great, on to other people without their consent or whether they agree to Charlie Chaplin's greatness or not, is borderline fascist."

...shows that you are indeed a fundie. Neither did you read my statement on this particular point, nor are you presenting anything close to my actual my views on it.

And yet another straw man here:

"It's a tragedy of our times that India has become synonymous with him and him alone, and we have Nehru khandaan using that name to perpetuate dynastic rule and encourage sycophancy, instead of true democracy. And people like you, instead of doing critical analysis, swallow it hook-line-and-sinker."

Where are you pulling this from? It must be fun to make up shit about people, putting words in their mouths just to blow up their non-existent arguments. Do you care to address my actual statements? Do you know what the topic is here?

How about you address the factual claim that there really is no such thing as a pure cultural tradition? Aloo mutter, anyone?

Ajita wrote:And to be fair, Charlie Chaplin's cont...

2009-04-02T13:24:00.000-05:00

Ajita wrote:
And to be fair, Charlie Chaplin's contribution to the lives of people everywhere is tremendous. To belittle this great man by labeling him a Christian and a non-Indian is to see the world through a slit.

Yes, indeed, Ajita. Charlie Chaplin's contribution to lives of people everywhere was tremendous. Just ask Mildred Harris, Lita Grey, Georgia Hale, Louise Brooks and Oona O'Neill. I take it you are in favor of, and approve of men in their 30s and 40s seducing and marrying teenagers. Oh wait, that's what religious fundies do, like in Hinduism where child-marriage was an evil. Right, Ajita? But when Chaplin did it, then he's a hero and his contributions need to be celebrated by all. *rolling my eyes*

Look, the issue is not whether Charlie Chaplin's contribution to cinema (you conveniently left that out) was great or not. The issue is - what is the relevance of putting up his statue next to a temple - if indeed that was the case - without taking the local population's view into account? If you think Charlie Chaplin is great, go ahead and put a statue or a poster in your house - send me your address and I'll even find one and mail it to you. If his statue is put in a cinema hall or a film studio - where it would be appropriate and it would be a celebration of his contribution to the world of cinema - that's totally understandable. But why would you want to inflict what you think is great, on to other people without their consent or whether they agree to Charlie Chaplin's greatness or not, is borderline fascist. And the irony is that you call other "fundies". Maybe you should look in the mirror first.

Have a wonderful day.

PS. Oh, and BTW, India is much more than just Gandhiji. It's a tragedy of our times that India has become synonymous with him and him alone, and we have Nehru khandaan using that name to perpetuate dynastic rule and encourage sycophancy, instead of true democracy. And people like you, instead of doing critical analysis, swallow it hook-line-and-sinker.

Ajita,Reading your comment addressed to me, I am h...

2009-04-02T12:52:00.000-05:00

Ajita,

Reading your comment addressed to me, I am having serious doubts about both your reading as well as comprehending abilities. Till you do a better job of that and actually understand my comment instead of riding away on your high horse giving a lecture, it's pointless to engage in any discussion with you.

As for the entire world being a family, walk the talk and go live in Afghanistan in Taliban-ruled areas for a while, and then come back and let us know whether your theory/belief was substantiated by reality and facts.

Here is an interesting scenario: I find myself sid...

2009-04-01T23:37:00.000-05:00

Here is an interesting scenario: I find myself siding (partly) with the religious fundies for a change! On the point of local rights, I actually agree with Maald, that is, if the removal of the statue was indeed done because it hurt the aesthetic sensibilities of the local community, AS LONG AS THIS WAS DECIDED BY A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

However, I completely disagree with the xenophobic and bigoted reasons given by said fundies for why the statue is "offensive".

@Maald and Joker:

True moral behavior comes from accepting all people as part of our human family. It is extremely short sighted to label someone as anti-Indian simply because they were born elsewhere. We are all citizens of the world and Indian culture is spreading everywhere. Statues of Gandhi can be found in almost every industrialized country in the world. And to be fair, Charlie Chaplin's contribution to the lives of people everywhere is tremendous. To belittle this great man by labeling him a Christian and a non-Indian is to see the world through a slit.

As long as you think that only statues of Indians must be put up in India, why dont you give up wearing pants, taking antibiotics, driving cars etc. Better still, why don't you stop using English as your medium of communication? Why don't you stop eating potatoes and green chillies? They are crops that are native to South America. In fact, a large percentage of our food, clothing styles and traditions that we consider purely Indian are actually not. That is the way culture works. Over time ideas spread through the human species. You are seeing things in a static perspective, a view that is myopic and ignorant of reality. Open your eyes and be more human.

Brilliant post!

2009-03-30T18:35:00.000-05:00

Brilliant post!

Hi, I'm from Nepal and I find this an interesting ...

2009-03-29T16:06:00.000-05:00

Hi, I'm from Nepal and I find this an interesting post, since I had yet to meet a real atheist from India or the sub-continent in general in the internet. What you wrote there really resonated with me.

I think that atheist are a quiet bunch, but I think it is high time that we explicitly express our views. Here are just some of the things that people have told me during my online debates, mostly with Christians:

1. Being disrespectful of their religion. But I retort that to garner other peoples' respect, you have to be true and honest with your self. Who will respect you when you make a fool of yourself?

2. That I'm immoral. I find this very offensive, but there is something that theist just don't understand. Morality is above any religion or god and you don't need a god or a scripture to tell me what to do or not do. Do they really want to rape, murder, and steal if there is no god? That sounds psychopathic.

3. That I'll burn in hell fire. Can you really top this one? If it is hell that I am going for my beliefs then so be it.

Christians love to single out a passage from the Bible, "Only a fool says in his heart that god doesn't exist." And they have their "leap of faith" doctrine and other such interesting trivia.

I was just wondering if you could provide in you next blog with somethings that theist have said to you to mean as offense. I have never found an opportunity to debate with a Hindu and wonder how Hindus would reply to atheists? I think it is worthwhile to stress here that all my debates have been online where there is a degree of anonymity. Such a hot issue in real life debate would really create some sparks. Since I don't want to harm my social relationships, I prefer keep my opinions, although not mute, but definitely subdued.

1. I can see every argument amply substantiated wi...

2009-03-24T20:56:00.000-05:00

1. I can see every argument amply substantiated with logical connectors like 'if ... then why ...' and 'hence ..'.

Please write a post explaining it, as I definitely don't see any if-then-else-hence based on solid logic for the conclusions they reached.

2. Such case can not be made unless you stretch the argument far beyond what it actually says. It doesn't argue for irresponsible behavior. 'Live joyously' does not mean 'Live irresponsibly'.

You're assuming that you have a monopoly on what "live joyously" means and everyone will agree with your definition/interpretation as the only valid one, and other interpretations are a stretch/invalid. Different people can draw their own conclusions and result in different behaviors regarding what "living joyously" means - for some, it's a Tata Nano, for others, it's a Mercedes Benz, for some others, a fleet of Mercedes Benz. It's a stretch to say - based on their very limited writings - that I'm stretching the argument far beyond what it means. 'What it means' is inconclusive and debatable based on those writings.

Here's their line: "While life remains let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt" => if I can live a good life while running up a debt, then that's living happily. So, there you go. It's not a stretch anymore. Besides, if all that matters is the present world that I can gather from my senses and there's no fruit anywhere else after I die, it's not a stretch that I can live my life any way I want - how do I *know* that the environmental consequences of my action will manifest? Maybe nature will take care of it.

3. That's a non argument. Just because some idea didn't catch on, does not mean it was wrong.

Where did I say that their idea is wrong? Arre yaar, don't get defensive, OK? It was a genuine question.

Same logic applies to you: just because an idea from the past coincides with parts of your idea, does not mean it was correct/valid. :)

4. 'Hinduism' has vague meaning in context of vedic era. What exactly do you mean by 'Hinduism' when you want to include Charvaka as someone emerged *under* 'Hinduism'? Today's 'Hinduism' isn't the only descendant of vedic era civilization in India. You cannot refer to vedic age civilization as Hindu civilization.

OK. Call it "Vedic period" then - whatever you use when you talk about caste system. I don't think that invalidates my point. That's why I put 'Hinduism' in quotes ("").

@Joker 1. I can see every argument amply substanti...

2009-03-24T13:36:00.000-05:00

@Joker

1. I can see every argument amply substantiated with logical connectors like 'if ... then why ...' and 'hence ..'.

2. Such case can not be made unless you stretch the argument far beyond what it actually says. It doesn't argue for irresponsible behavior. 'Live joyously' does not mean 'Live irresponsibly'.

3. That's a non argument. Just because some idea didn't catch on, does not mean it was wrong.

4. 'Hinduism' has vague meaning in context of vedic era. What exactly do you mean by 'Hinduism' when you want to include Charvaka as someone emerged *under* 'Hinduism'? Today's 'Hinduism' isn't the only descendant of vedic era civilization in India. You cannot refer to vedic age civilization as Hindu civilization.

A problem ? Problems with installing statues of...

2009-03-23T22:04:00.000-05:00

A problem ? Problems with installing statues of Vivekan? Well that has better handle on this situation? Charlie Chaplin enjoy is comedy without any religious tag. ho hou

Some thoughts.1. How did Carvaka arrive at the con...

2009-03-23T16:51:00.000-05:00

Some thoughts.

1. How did Carvaka arrive at the conclusions mentioned? If we are to subject Ayurveda to current scientific tests before using its cures instead of accepting those cures on blind faith, then similar criteria should be applied to Carvaka philosophy too and it needs to be tested.

2. Using Carvaka philosophy, a logical case can be made that a frat-boy life on this planet is fine. Meaning, we can pollute the planet all we want, cut down trees for our use without any care for consequences, dump toxic wastes in rivers etc. since hey, this is the only life we have, so why care for what happens to the planet after we're gone since the negative effects of our actions won't manifest till much later? :)

3. I guess there must be a reason why the Carvakas disappeared and there isn't a direct link to them (in terms of practitioners). Any thoughts on that?

4. It's a positive for "Hinduism" under which such a philosophy emerged and bloomed for a while - of course, we don't have any records that tell us whether they faced any resistance or not, though their words still survive. Compare and contrast that to the current situation in the west (which has been heavily influenced by Abrahamic faiths) where atheists have to fight to create a space for themselves and face stiff resistance.

I doubt that you'd face such a stiff resistance from Indians if you were to start an atheists group in India. They may not agree with your philosophy, but they will give you freedom to do what you want.

@HA,I doubt that we are working under the same fra...

2009-03-22T19:00:00.000-05:00

@HA,

I doubt that we are working under the same framework, so there are bound to be some differences in our approaches, though there may be some overlap too.

Perhaps it's best to illustrate it by an example. I personally do not go to temples or do puja as I don't get anything out of it. But I will not tell others who go to temples or do puja that they are misguided people and they should stop worshiping an idol because it's illogical and there's no scientific proof that worshiping an idol accomplishes anything.(If and when they realize it - or not - that's part of their journey and their self-realization.) That's not my understanding of Hinduism which allows pluralism, and I also don't believe in cutting down the tree after I've had my mangoes. I will also listen to temple-goers and their concerns instead of telling them that there's no reason to take offense. Within reason, it is for them to decide what is offensive to them or not, and it's not for non-temple-goers to tell them to chill. Again, this is within reason and depends on the specific issue. I would similarly consider it a valid protest if some Muslims objected to a pig butcher who wanted to open shop next to their mosque - even though in both cases, I *personally* would not be offended.

What I do believe in is having one yardstick for all citizens. So, I'm fine if people take offense - there's no one golden standard that everyone has to go by, and who am I to tell them what should or shouldn't offend them - as long as their protests are lawful and peaceful? What I can do is ask the state to act, and the laws to be applied uniformly to all for the same issue, irrespective of their religion, instead of applying laws differently for different religions. I can also point out the hypocrisy of media and journalists who encourage these double-standards and turn a blind eye towards such misapplications, and ask them to be truly secular. Currently, this situation is pretty lopsided, and getting it to be truly secular and uniform is higher on my priority.

Lastly, I also believe in having local people decide on a solution to their problems (within the larger framework of the Indian Constitution - that goes without saying) instead of imposing a solution on to them via zealous activists of any stripe, or by outsiders.

So, that's my framework to evaluate issues like this one.

==

Regarding this issue, if you can lay down the facts which have been verified by trusted sources, the different parties involved and what they're saying (direct quotes), and the nature of the problem, then I'll be happy to offer my views. I've read different versions of the same event and I still have to come across a journalist who has offered a clear and objective version of what happened. So, it's useless to waste energy unless and until the dust has settled and facts are known, as everyone is jerking their knees not based on all known facts, but based on their world-view which fills in the gaps. Some of these events are also manufactured by vested interests to cause mischief. I consider it a waste of time to respond without knowing all the facts.

My understanding is that Chaplin was baptized in t...

2009-03-22T05:13:00.000-05:00

My understanding is that Chaplin was baptized in the Church of England when he was a child, but there was much speculation that he came from a Jewish background, which he refused to deny because he thought it would play into the hands of antisemites. There is no strong evidence of Jewish ancestry, but the rumors still persist. As far as I can tell, he had been an agnostic for his entire adult life.

Very interesting indeed! As nitwit said, sounds li...

2009-03-22T01:40:00.000-05:00

Very interesting indeed! As nitwit said, sounds like material for atheist bus ads. Thus, HA's law is verified and established to be true.

Madhvacharya did a good job by keeping Charvaka's viewpoint in his collection of philosophies. Otherwise, I suspect, world would never have known this great thinker who was way ahead of his times.

Amazingly insightful.I saw a couple of books on Am...

2009-03-21T21:38:00.000-05:00

Amazingly insightful.

I saw a couple of books on Amazon about Carvaka. Maybe you can check them out, although I am not sure if it has sanskrit slokas. I plan to buy atleast one of them when I finish the books I am presently reading. If you know of any books which are not available only in India, please let me know.

Btw, Carvaka's last statement sounds more like the message on Atheist bus ads :-)

Hey Guys, Thanks for waiting for my response! @Jok...

2009-03-21T20:33:00.000-05:00

Hey Guys, Thanks for waiting for my response!

@Joker,
I think this is one of the perils of blogging - knee-jerk reactions abound from eager "activists" based on one single version of "truth" with no analysis that includes taking a step back and considering all angles, like the untrustworthy media.
Just to clarify, I am not saying that the TOI version is not the truth, but to base analysis and response only on a single report (and considering it as the correct version of facts) is fraught with danger.

You are absolutely right about the knee-jerk reaction. I'm learning my lessons and thanks for keeping me on my toes. It is infact wrong to base analyses and response based on single report.

But read again my response to Maald. And tell me if I jumped the gun. My point was that no one protested on the basis of legality or any other sensible reason as per the report. All we heard in that particular report is about is "hurt religious sentiments". No one has yet told me what "hurt religious sentiments" mean.

All I hear is blaming the media, blame the commies, blame the "pseudo-seculars", point fingers here and there. But has any one stopped to think about how horrible the idea of "hurt religious sentiments" is? Just like you take me to task and accuse me of being anti-hindu and brush off this news report as reaction from some "religious zealots", then can I ask you to think about how absurd this whole idea of hurt religious sentiments is?? Have you thought about it?

And about Shantanu's blog and biased media reports: Yes. Again, you are right. People should continue to question the media if it screws up. If you are expecting me to sympathize with Hindus for "biased" media reaction and exposing one religion in bad light, then sorry. I say let the media question all the religious mess. Christian, Islamic and any other kind that encourages irrational stupidity. I don't think the media does enough of religion bashing, in my opinion. I say, keep them also on their toes too. Sadly journalism in India seems all screwed up. My sentiments were echoed by comments of kaffir on Shantanu's blog: "This incident exposes yet again the despicable state of reporting and journalism in India, with different versions of the event and no one knows for sure what the facts are."

Check this out:
http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/the-chaplin-psyops-by-toilet-paper-of-india/

It has a better handle on the situation. Unfortunately, your "atheism" or rather, anti-Hinduism comes in the way of sifting through the chaff. :)

You think that post has better handle on the situation? Ha ha ha ha. Labelling the director as a commie and blaming the christian conspiracy, asking for a statue of the temple infront of Jama Masjid etc.. Read the post again!!!

Just because I'm a atheist,doesn't make me anti-Hindu. Would you agree if I say that you are suffering from persecution complex? You forgot that I'm an equal opportunity religion basher. Be it Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. Sometimes I feel that if there indeed is a vast Christian conspiracy to destroy "Hinduism" then so be it. Better fight with each other and destroy each other in the name of religion. Enough of this tolerance nonsense I try to advocate. Atleast then people will realize the mess that the identity of this religion creates.

@Maald,

Thanks for the link. The article is vrey funny indeed. You failed to quote the funniest part of that blogpost:

http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2009/03/let-them-put-up-statue-of-clown-say.html
why can't they put this clown up right next to one of the many churches in mangalore?

If you are suggesting that I am being hypocritical by supporting a Charlie chaplin statue next to a temple and if it looks ugly, then hear me out: I say put a statue of Laloo, Karunidhi, Charlie chaplin right next to every temple, every church and every mosque for all I care. If you want any support to do that let me know! I am with you.

I don't even know why I even waste time talking about this. All I ask is we need to get rid of this notion of "hurt religious sentiments". I feel so stupid for advocating religious tolerance sometimes. Every side cries out foul when they feel their "religion" is under the radar.

So ridiculous. Imagine this:
Imaginary God(s). Building to worship this imaginary God (Church/Mosque/Temple whatever). Now if someone wants to put a statue of Charlie chaplin next to a building hosting an imaginary character, then I am all for Charlie Chaplin. Who's with me? :)

To be fair there is one more news report:

Statue is illegal?

which suggests that:

The organisers of the film, House Full, had neither applied for the licence from local gram panchayat nor moved papers to obtain an no-objection certificate (NOC) from the department of Coastal Regulatory Zone.

I still stand by the message I want to convey. Think about this idea of "hurt religious sentiment". Don't ignore it just because it makes you comfortable when zealots from YOUR religion are using it. This is far far more important than Charlie chaplin next to a temple.

Maald/Joker,
Keep coming back to the blog to keep me on my toes!! All opinions are welcome here. You are not hurting anyone's sentiment as long as we address the topic at hand :)

quoting Shadow Warrior:"despite the spin put on th...

2009-03-20T14:59:00.000-05:00

quoting Shadow Warrior:

"despite the spin put on this by the ELM and the pseudo-seculars, the issue is as follows: a giant statue of charlie chaplin, a clown, (do you know how big a 67 foot statue is?) will be overhanging a temple. it ruins the view and is disgusting."

http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2009/03/let-them-put-up-statue-of-clown-say.html

But what can you expect from a state where some cr...

2009-03-20T11:49:00.000-05:00

But what can you expect from a state where some crores of tax payers money is alloted for the temples so as to please GOD's so that the satate can prosper :D

Those who have such demands, they are not even wor...

2009-03-20T11:48:00.000-05:00

Those who have such demands, they are not even worth of talking about him.
This whole incidence was an insult to Vivekananda

Check this out:http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/...

2009-03-17T14:30:00.000-05:00

Check this out:
http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/the-chaplin-psyops-by-toilet-paper-of-india/

It has a better handle on the situation. Unfortunately, your "atheism" or rather, anti-Hinduism comes in the way of sifting through the chaff. :)

HA,I could point to many instances in recent past ...

2009-03-17T08:58:00.000-05:00

HA,

I could point to many instances in recent past where a certain incident has been given communal color, and different newspapers report differently on the same incident - some bringing in RSS/religious angle, and others not.

So, the question for you is: How do you know that the news report you quoted and based your post on is not because of a knee-jerk reaction on your part? Did you do some basic research by looking into different angles and reading different newspapers to triangulate the "truth", or went with the first one because it neatly aligned with your current world-view?

Head over to Shantanu's blog and you'll find many examples of how the Indian media distorts facts.

I think this is one of the perils of blogging - knee-jerk reactions abound from eager "activists" based on one single version of "truth" with no analysis that includes taking a step back and considering all angles, like the untrustworthy media.

Just to clarify, I am not saying that the TOI version is not the truth, but to base analysis and response only on a single report (and considering it as the correct version of facts) is fraught with danger.

A Hindu Atheist

Ajita,Sorry, mate. Don't have time to go on a pars...

" I am having serious doubts about both your readi...

It must be fun to make up shit about people, putti...

Ajita:I haven't indulged in any ad hominem attacks...

@Joker: "Reading your comment addressed to me, I a...

Ajita wrote:And to be fair, Charlie Chaplin's cont...

Ajita,Reading your comment addressed to me, I am h...

Here is an interesting scenario: I find myself sid...

Brilliant post!

Hi, I'm from Nepal and I find this an interesting ...

1. I can see every argument amply substantiated wi...

You may also like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

@Joker 1. I can see every argument amply substanti...

A problem ? Problems with installing statues of...

Some thoughts.1. How did Carvaka arrive at the con...

@HA,I doubt that we are working under the same fra...

My understanding is that Chaplin was baptized in t...

Very interesting indeed! As nitwit said, sounds li...

Amazingly insightful.I saw a couple of books on Am...

Hey Guys, Thanks for waiting for my response! @Jok...

quoting Shadow Warrior:"despite the spin put on th...

But what can you expect from a state where some cr...

Those who have such demands, they are not even wor...

Check this out:http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/...

HA,I could point to many instances in recent past ...