No Wonder Sita Sings the Blues…

It’s pretty sickening how much they oppose the first amendment. People can express themselves however they want, that’s what allows them to even have their religion.

They aren’t protected from being offended. Maybe they should grow up and learn to take criticism, instead of expecting everyone to respect their beliefs.

They can criticize it all they want, but to call for the government to do something about it is just idiotic.

(You want anti-Hindu sentiment? The Ramanaya is full of made-up stories and no one should take it seriously. Booya.)

Wrong. That’s anti-Hinduism sentiment, not anti-Hindu sentiment. Anti-Hindu sentiment would be something that denigrates the people who follow Hinduism, and that type of sentiment is uncalled for. Anti-Hinduism sentiments are words and actions that view Hinduism as a religion in a skeptical or cynical light.

Because we’re constantly accused of going after believers when we go after beliefs, I think we need to be much more careful in our wording regarding Hindus vs. Hinduism, Christians vs. Christianity, Muslims vs. Islam, etc.

This film can’t catch a break.  I first heard about “Sita…” back in 2008 or 2009 when the producers were struggling with music licensing issues in regard to the 1920s era recordings they wished to use.

A really fun movie, and it made me more interested in Hinduism.  But the reaction from the fundies makes Hinduism seem as tired and boring as all the other religions.

It reminds me of the time some nuts threw a fit over an episode of Xena: Warrior Princess that featured Hindu gods, and they ended up having to film a special segment where the actors talked about how great Hinduism is to appease the whiners.  One of the  things they complained about was the humorous portrayal of the monkey god.  How the hell do you worship a monkey god and not have a sense of humor about it?

Um, they do realize that Christians (and Muslims and several other religions) are probably pretty peeved about “respectful” portrayals of Hinduism, considering it a form of idolatry or demon worship, right? And so by this standard they ought to be forbidden from speaking positively about their own religion, because it’s offensive to somebody else’s? I would think that members of an extreme minority would be more sensitive to these sort of concerns, but evidently not.

So, the reason you don’t like Roger Ebert is because: “Oh no! He criticizes the video game industry, but he’s never himself played a video game! The horror! I’ll never listen to any of his other opinions on things not related to video games at all!”

I think he’s wrong about 3D movies, but that doesn’t mean I don’t ignore his other views. Grow up.

Wow…didn’t expect to hit such a nerve. I wasn’t quite so intense about my views.
Simply put, I don’t particularly like his opinions on the gaming industry, therefore I don’t expect to like his opinions on another entertainment media.

But have you actually tried to read his views on other media? I don’t agree with his opinion on video games, but I quite enjoy his movie reviews and he has some very entertaining blog posts.

Thing is, you don’t have to take everything someone says as Truth or UnTruth. That’s one of the freeing things about atheism and skepticism.

This was beautiful – [tears stream down cheeks]

It does kinda humiliate the Hindu religion, not in a truly offensive way,I mean, it dosent really directly, but in a lot of little ways. the main problem is the narrators, they purposely mispronounce and misspell the names showing and caricatorize the characters actions. It’s still beautiful, but I understand why it might be taken offensive, and maybe also the nonchalantness of almost all the characters towards slaughter. I think it makes hinduists fear that someday people who are to lazy to read the original text will study mythology via that movie, it’s a good movie though.

The Denigration of Hindu Images

David Frawley (Pandit Vamadeva Shastri)

Dear all,
I would like your opinion on this
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=185618045715

Oh! yes, well then why don’t we break all rules of civility call each other names. That’s why we have other provisions in the law, so people have some checks. Try to say N-word in african-american neighborhood and you’ll get taste of freedom of speech — Capt. America.  Also, your last point is really confusing, are you implying laws or traditions? Either-way, yes, there is freedom of speech and yes, there are large majority of population that have sensitivities around religious and social issues. Why mess with it?

Indeed, why not?  Because of the rules of civility.  There is no law that says we can’t call each other names, but you’re right – it wouldn’t be civil.

Just the same, you can say the N-word wherever you like because of freedom of speech, and reactions to it could be protected speech – or not.  Just the use of the word, however, is not illegal.  The checks that exist are, as you so aptly noted, rules of civility, not rules of law.

In my final point I am talking about tradition – a tradition of ours that also happens to be ensconced in law – as evidenced by my use of the word “traditions.”  I am comparing an American tradition to the traditions of people who choose to live here.

In short, though, neither I nor the law gives a damn if you’re offended by something I, or anyone else, says.  Civil society may be up in arms, and that example of free expression is their right – protected by the very same constitutional amendment that protects the offensive speech in the first place.

So where is the evidence for an army of monkeys and a bridge built by squirrels? 

And if bows were that powerful how the hell did India get ruled by the british? My ancestors must have been bloody morons to lose the technology to make bows that could fire shots that could “end all creation”. 

It’s a nice movie, its actually the retelling of the Ramayana from a BUNCH of different Hindu cultures. The story of the ramayana is mainly spread orally rather than by reading the original so many changes occur in different civilisation.

If you like I can even show you a Muslim interpretation of the Ramayana. 

A lot. I presume you are from India?

Your entire nation is on a strong footing because of Dr. B. R Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru. Do you really think Gandhi had any idea of how to run a country or plan out economic theory? Nope. Those two guys did though. They were actually enamoured with the american constitution so they wrote up a lot of pre “In god we trust” stuff into it such as the obvious secularism of the consitution.

They were atheists. Go check it out. It’s why India has so much secularism listed there. 

The original Hanuman was said to be rather mischievous and but most of the mischief making is saved for Krishna’s stories. 

Thanks Tom, that was a well-defended argument.  However, I’ll make two points on law/tradition
and its usage. Police/military use (major percent of the time) fire-arms to
protect & serve, whilst, anti-social elements use it to disrupt.
Anti-social elements defy civility and hence, tools used become anti-social.
Similarly, it is human to be civil and not hurt fellow human’s basic rights
through civility. Second amendment, recognized an individual’s right to bear
fire-arms for protection but how often we see a society damaged by use of these
weapons for selfish purpose — quite often. My points basically convey that provisions
in the constitution are like a tool, use it for just purpose and there will be societal
progress otherwise there will be conflicts. It’s human to understand this
difference and act appropriately. Also, law is above individual or a position,
but so is, its interpretation. Laws protect everyone minority and majority. I think, one should keep their views civil (including this one) and if disruptive, to themselves instead of expressing them to the general mass. Using first amendment to defend this anti-social movie is wrong.

 BTW, I had an
opportunity to visit Capitol building, National Archives. I was amazed by
foresight and astuteness of our (US) founding fathers in crafting bills, laws, amendments,
towards forming three tenets of our bearing – individual liberty, justice and pursuit
of happiness. As I gazed at the Rotunda dome, noticed Greek gods depicted as if
helping with this constitution formation process. I am bit surprised our right-wing
friends preaching Judeo-Christian as founding principles as well as atheists
who live in this great nation,  who hold
law dearly to their chest; have conveniently missed this fact!

So there is no evidence of Giant Sentient Monkeys or Squirrel Bridges? Well then I am going to have to say “I don’t think it’s real and it’s just a story”. Consider that there is a Platform 9 and a Platform 10 in King’s Cross. Does that mean that Harry Potter is real?

And no, there is no one at that level because it doesn’t exist. No one has any magic powers and there are actual atheists (for example the Periyar foundation) in India who go around busting myths of these magic tricks by showing people how it’s done.

And this seems to be something that would be awfully hard to forget. I am going to go with “this is just people making stuff up”.

A simple little thing to remember is that there was no “India” prior to the 1947. The Idea of India is actually a british one when it founded the Indian National Congress to help govern the land it designated as India. Prior to that it was a bunch of kingdoms and empires that squabbled much like say the Italy of the city states era. And are you seriously suggesting that a nation of 30 million people “tricked” and ruled 500 million people? 

Good one british people! All you have done is insulted the Indians. No the british conquered India because India was fractitious and not organised. The british simply played the political game and weighed in favour of weaker states versus stronger ones using them as allies but then making them vassals as they grew in strength till they ruled India and Pakistan  and Bangladesh. They weren’t stupid they were smart and they actually fielded a lot of indians as soldiers as they didn’t encourage the caste system and they treated the lower castes relatively well. It wasn’t conquering “one state” it was encouraging 3 states to gang up one then to betray each other while it cleaned up. They also built infrastructure that meant their armies were well supplied while we were running frankly medieval nonsense and they encouraged a lot of scientific thought and adaptation of technology. It’s a little wonder they won. Gun and Drill beats spear and bravery. For a long period of time they actually were in India and just used the knowledge of what they learnt to improve their own society. 

Tell me, are you familiar with Chola Bronze statues? Big and amazingly compex things with beautiful details. Real works of art from south India. It’s  actually a form of wax based casting that allows you to forge large pieces of metal with astonishing accuracy and for cheap. 

Do you know what the british did with it? They built a series of standardised cannons. This meant that they could use each other’s parts and ammunition. This meant that they could produce one mould and actually use the mould to produce more moulds and more guns while we still building them one by one (they never mention that Indians had guns. It makes us sound less brave when they do. Guns came to India with Babur) with different calibres which required special parts and special ammunition. The british built technology while we were building idols. And that is why they won in the end. 

You mean the ancient Hindu holy texts that people refuse to translate into other languages to prevent it’s purity being reduced? Yes, of course no one understands them since the texts were maintained as a simple way to ensure the cultural dominance of the caste system. Can’t be a good hindu if you ignored the holy texts and the only people who can read them are the brahmin priests so you had to do what they told you to do. 

Damaging to Islam’s existence? I think of all the religions out there Islam is the one that no one wants to annoy so I am quite certain they are safe. 

The Indonesians were once Hindu, so they adopted a lot of Hindu myths and legends such as the Ramayana as cultural stories. So, the art of shadow puppetry in Indonesia often tells the Ramayana, except everyone involved in the production are “muslims”. Thus creating a “muslim ramayana”. 

I am an ex-hindu, I disagree on the basis of history on this one. Even the british Raj had pockets of India which were vassal states such as the Nizam of Hyderabad, the Raja of Kashmir, the Lucknow Nawabs and the various small kings dotted around the landscape. There was no India prior to that since India also included Indo-China, Bangladesh, Burma, India and Pakistan. 

http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/Campus/His135/Media/India1947.jpg
http://www.anglonautes.com/hist_uk_ind/uk_india_map_indian_empire.jpg
This is what india looked like, just after the partition. All the yellow bits were “indian kingdoms”, basically the british didn’t defeat indians. It defeated Mughals and Marathas, Cholas and Cheras. And sigh, remember if it weren’t for the british India would still be a series of political kingdoms each fighting each other rather than the only country close to China in development and growth. They gave India a lot of things and in WW2 british soldiers fought and died alongside indians to ensure India’s freedom and vice versa. It cheapens human valour when people say nonsense like this. Everyone did their duty and everyone did it well. And remember, the Indians don’t remember Nov. 11th. The british still remember Indians who died on that day and they remember every nation that served under the commonwealth. From Australia to Zimbabwe. Indians don’t like remembering that they fought in WW2 because it means accepting that SC Bose’s victory would have been the destruction of India, and it is better to have an ideological hero than face the facts that the british were better than the Japanese. 

The british did India a favour in producing the system to be a Cohesive and strong democracy with well educated leaders. By contrast Pakistan just plain sucked due to the lack of cohesive force, nationalism (India was formed under the ideological grounds of INDIA not various states and kingdoms) and the fact that India is supposed to be secular. Reality speaks a more sensible tune than “magic powers defeated british”. More like “bankruptcy of running a world war forced the UK to cut loses and go back home because it couldn’t afford to police India anymore and this way it would look good doing so”. Not Karma, common sense. It’s not bad accepting reality.