Inviting Clooney for dialogue is an invitation to ambush of tigers to wildebeest
by
Dr. Kalyanaraman
The issue is dialogue. I don't see why anyone should be upset when someone says 'inviting Clooney for dialogue is a mistake' if the issue is simply a dialogue but the current situation is far more complex than that.
Indian tradition has always allowed room for expression of differing views. Someone says he/she is a non-hindutva Hindu. Fine. He or she is entitled to such a view. I may not agree with such differentiation between hindutva and non-hindutva hindus.
There have always been differing views on the meaninglessness of dialogue with people of any faith which indulges in violence, deception and fraud claiming their right to conversion through such devious means. As Swami Dayananda said: conversion is violence. "Religious conversion by missionary activity remains an act of violence. It is an act of violence because it hurts deeply, not only the other members of the family of the converted, but the entire community that comes to know of it." http://www.swamij.com/conversion-violence.htm
Right to practice one's own religion in a secular democracy and the right to worship any God/Goddess as one pleases to conceptualize Him/Her, with attaining the social maturity to peacefully coexist in a multicultural and multi-ethnic democracy, with full understanding of what is meant by "separation of Church and the State" does not include the right to convert others and violate their right to maintain the integrity of their own society and traditions. The corrupt practice of invading other cultures to harvest souls for any aggressive proselytizing religion under the name of "freedom of religion" should be declared unconstitutional and an antiquated practice in a secular democracy.
Why invite someone for a dialogue, someone who would not concede that conversion is violence?
I don't see that the dialogues have promoted any change of heart among Christian evangelists nor resulted in changing their views on conversion, let alone giving up that process. Russian Orthodox Church for example like some Orthodox Syrian Churches, does not promote conversions. Will Vatican ever follow suit?
Clooney should not be allowed to use a dialogue for discharging his Dominus Jesus responsibilities as SJ.
Anyone is entitled to his right to try a Hindu-Christian dialogue but he/she should also introspect and see if he or she is supporting the cause of dharma by getting Hindus converted to Christianity to come back to Hindu dharma and stop future conversion. I think the focus should be on promoting an understanding of dharma among the youth who are likely to be led astray by the bells and whistles of modernity, ignoring the debt all of us owe to our pitr-s who have given us our identity.
The key issue to be decided upon by everyone for himself or herself is this. Is a dialogue helping or hindering the cause of dharma? Depending on the answer, one can feel free to express his or her views. There are no easy answers for promoting a clear understanding of a tradition which has just taken 11 volumes to produce a new Encyclopaedia of Hinduism, edited by Kapil Kapoor, Rupa & Co (2012).
In summary, inviting Clooney for dialogue is an invitation of an ambush of tigers to the annual Serengeti-Masai-Mara wild-beast migration since dialogue is used as one additional forum for promoting 'inculturation' agenda of Dominus Jesus, an initiative of Ratzinger, an initiative in which Clooney is an active functionary. Stereotyping Hindus into hindutva and non-hindutva categories is clearly a divisive wedge.
Different folks, different strokes.
Kalyanaraman
by
Dr. Kalyanaraman
The issue is dialogue. I don't see why anyone should be upset when someone says 'inviting Clooney for dialogue is a mistake' if the issue is simply a dialogue but the current situation is far more complex than that.
Indian tradition has always allowed room for expression of differing views. Someone says he/she is a non-hindutva Hindu. Fine. He or she is entitled to such a view. I may not agree with such differentiation between hindutva and non-hindutva hindus.
There have always been differing views on the meaninglessness of dialogue with people of any faith which indulges in violence, deception and fraud claiming their right to conversion through such devious means. As Swami Dayananda said: conversion is violence. "Religious conversion by missionary activity remains an act of violence. It is an act of violence because it hurts deeply, not only the other members of the family of the converted, but the entire community that comes to know of it." http://www.swamij.com/conversion-violence.htm
Right to practice one's own religion in a secular democracy and the right to worship any God/Goddess as one pleases to conceptualize Him/Her, with attaining the social maturity to peacefully coexist in a multicultural and multi-ethnic democracy, with full understanding of what is meant by "separation of Church and the State" does not include the right to convert others and violate their right to maintain the integrity of their own society and traditions. The corrupt practice of invading other cultures to harvest souls for any aggressive proselytizing religion under the name of "freedom of religion" should be declared unconstitutional and an antiquated practice in a secular democracy.
Why invite someone for a dialogue, someone who would not concede that conversion is violence?
I don't see that the dialogues have promoted any change of heart among Christian evangelists nor resulted in changing their views on conversion, let alone giving up that process. Russian Orthodox Church for example like some Orthodox Syrian Churches, does not promote conversions. Will Vatican ever follow suit?
Clooney should not be allowed to use a dialogue for discharging his Dominus Jesus responsibilities as SJ.
Anyone is entitled to his right to try a Hindu-Christian dialogue but he/she should also introspect and see if he or she is supporting the cause of dharma by getting Hindus converted to Christianity to come back to Hindu dharma and stop future conversion. I think the focus should be on promoting an understanding of dharma among the youth who are likely to be led astray by the bells and whistles of modernity, ignoring the debt all of us owe to our pitr-s who have given us our identity.
The key issue to be decided upon by everyone for himself or herself is this. Is a dialogue helping or hindering the cause of dharma? Depending on the answer, one can feel free to express his or her views. There are no easy answers for promoting a clear understanding of a tradition which has just taken 11 volumes to produce a new Encyclopaedia of Hinduism, edited by Kapil Kapoor, Rupa & Co (2012).
In summary, inviting Clooney for dialogue is an invitation of an ambush of tigers to the annual Serengeti-Masai-Mara wild-beast migration since dialogue is used as one additional forum for promoting 'inculturation' agenda of Dominus Jesus, an initiative of Ratzinger, an initiative in which Clooney is an active functionary. Stereotyping Hindus into hindutva and non-hindutva categories is clearly a divisive wedge.
Different folks, different strokes.
Kalyanaraman
The Tiger digests the Deer; Tiger gets stronger but the Deer turns into a pile of shit!
ReplyDeletehttp://digestingveda.blogspot.com/