To my friend and correspondent, Don

Submitted by iasius (India), Dec 6, 2005 at 07:56

To my friend and correspondent Don,

You state: "Though Indian-Hindus have a right to their worship places, there are still many Hindu-Indians who say that destruction of the Barbri Masjid was done in a "bad taste" and was "un-Indian" in every way." It is unbecoming of a doctrinaire ‘believer' to concede to others their right to free choice of worship, for the very act of granting the concession is anathematic acceptance that there CAN be other equally valid paths! Not being a staunch Christian, perhaps not even nominally so, therefore, I harbor no grudge about anybody's right to his opinion. That, as you know, is a typically ‘Christian' prerogative, where rationality and resulting adverse ‘opinion', irrespective of merit, are abominations. If "Hindu-Indians" are opposed to what "Indian-Hindus" (pray tell us what is the ‘fine' distinction between the two) think is correct, so be it. It makes no difference this way or that. Even as an outsider, I feel the demolition, per se, was clearly incorrect. It might have served a better purpose to have retained the blot on the landscape intact and prominently display a legend stating how and why Babur demolished the then extant temple and built a mosque from its debris on the same site. Nevertheless, anyone's opinion may be faulty, but his or her right to an opinion is, as it must be, perfectly legitimate. And, as we know only too well, for some weird reason the ‘Hindu' loves to flaunt his reputation of being the epitome of tolerance and can go even to preposterous lengths of actually tolerating intolerance. ‘Intolerance' can only exist if it keeps reminding ‘tolerance' of its traditional global image!

Further, you state that: "In that case Mahatma Gandhi was not following democracy!". Don's thinking processes amaze me. There was no "democracy" in Gandhi's time, so he couldn't have acted "democratically" even if he wanted to; nor did anyone expect him to! (Moreover, every person has his own method of dealing with situations. I know from hearsay that Gandhi's was non-violent, at least in policy if not in principle, because his non-violence was glaringly selective: he pampered Muslims for their violence, which he called pious zeal.)

You ask me: "I will ask you one question Mr. Iasus: had Gandhi been alive what would have been his reaction to the destruction of Babri Masjid?" Frankly, I haven't the foggiest. It is likely, though, that he may have drastically altered his views about intolerant faiths (short of damning missionaries, he had already said enough during his lifetime about the Church anyway) on the basis of their intransigence despite his extreme non-violence and tolerance.

You accuse me: "Mr.Iasus in his quest to thrash Christianity is advocating anything, even "evil" to score a point! What a sad soul you are!" What you are referring to as "my advocacy of evil" is the act of overwhelming participation, in the demolition, of a demographic majority, oppressed no end by step-motherly treatment (à la Agnes?) of its own government. Will you be as fastidious about calling equally "evil" the purported ‘word of god' in which He advocates His ‘chosen' mobs to subjugate, alienate and kill people who ‘serve other gods', and to destroy their places of worship [e.g. Deut. 7:1-6; 12:2].

About quotations from ‘Thus Spake Yechury': Your reliance for history's facts on people like Sitaram Yechury, who are being exposed as rather slick distorters (not in the same class as Saul/Paul, though, but close), does no credit to your otherwise clearly identifiable erudition. Obfuscation of ‘philosophical principles' with ‘religious practice' is the game they have been playing by their own rules, and it is a pity so many of us fail to see through it. Isn't is unfortunate that so many of us seem to swallow all they have to propagate as ‘history' (without bothering too much about any hard evidence, by the way) and then use it to base our arguments? If, as I trust, you have independently examined those stories to ascertain whether it was doctrine or greed that led to the episodes he mentions, please let us know. That would make a big difference to our view of acts of demolition he claims happened.

About film stars: I am not claiming to be "smarter" than anyone, much less film stars who certainly are quick enough to make most of their charisma while it lasts. Perhaps, your suspicion that they may not be "dumb" is well founded, but the fact that they certainly aren't in the business for anything even remotely resembling scholarship is undeniable.

My "agenda" is news even to me. I am sorry if discussing obvious untenability of ‘our' Jesus and exposing the machinations of a Church that is built on massive fabrication and hypocrisy, which uses human vulnerability for promoting its vile commerce, appear undesirable to you. I can't do much about it except, perhaps, try praying to the ‘real' Jesus Christ (IESAPL) to bestow on you a goodly portion of his grace.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".