• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

First official Diwali?

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
Could you provide sources for these left wing extremists please.

Maya

Hello, Maya. I haven't said anything about left-wing extremists. I was pointing out to Kalidas that I wasn't talking about extremists (since he articulated in one of his responses that extremists are bad, to which I would have to agree since extremists of any kind are bad). I believe the confusion arose when my statement about anti-Hindu encroachments currently coming from mostly leftist circles was taken as referring to left-wing extremists. I wasn't talking about far-left or far-right extremists of any kind.
 

Kalidas

Well-Known Member
Hello, Maya. I haven't said anything about left-wing extremists. I was pointing out to Kalidas that I wasn't talking about extremists (since he articulated in one of his responses that extremists are bad, to which I would have to agree since extremists of any kind are bad). I believe the confusion arose when my statement about anti-Hindu encroachments currently coming from mostly leftist circles was taken as referring to left-wing extremists. I wasn't talking about far-left or far-right extremists of any kind.

And this is where we differ. I feel the groups that target HAF AND Hindus in general I would call them extremist. I don't lump them in with your everyday liberals, because well I'm apart of that group and I never got the email lol
 

Maya3

Well-Known Member
Hello, Maya. I haven't said anything about left-wing extremists. I was pointing out to Kalidas that I wasn't talking about extremists (since he articulated in one of his responses that extremists are bad, to which I would have to agree since extremists of any kind are bad). I believe the confusion arose when my statement about anti-Hindu encroachments currently coming from mostly leftist circles was taken as referring to left-wing extremists. I wasn't talking about far-left or far-right extremists of any kind.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood you.

But could you provide sources for what you mean by leftist circles and how you come to the conclusion that it is coming from the left?

Maya
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
And this is where we differ. I feel the groups that target HAF AND Hindus in general I would call them extremist. I don't lump them in with your everyday liberals, because well I'm apart of that group and I never got the email lol

But that's white-washing tangible realities: they are not extremists. Kalidas, do you know what is implied by the term "left-wing extremist"? It refers to insurrectionists, anti-establishment anarchists---it's used to characterize individuals of the revolutionary fringe. Sure, there are anti-Hindu left-wing extremists: in India, we call them Naxalites. But that's not who I'm talking about. A good example would be the Ford Foundation. Have you heard of it? And please keep in mind, nowhere am I lumping such encroachments in with one's everyday liberals. I have never articulated such a thing. Instead, I have only stated that most anti-Hindu encroachments these days are usually from the left, not the right.
 

Kalidas

Well-Known Member
But that's white-washing tangible realities: they are not extremists. Kalidas, do you know what is implied by the term "left-wing extremist"? It refers to insurrectionists, anti-establishment anarchists---it's used to characterize individuals of the revolutionary fringe. Sure, there are anti-Hindu left-wing extremists: in India, we call them Naxalites. But that's not who I'm talking about. A good example would be the Ford Foundation. Have you heard of it? And please keep in mind, nowhere am I lumping such encroachments in with one's everyday liberals. I have never articulated such a thing. Instead, I have only stated that most anti-Hindu encroachments these days are usually from the left, not the right.

Currently I'm at work on my phone(ssshhhh don't tell my boss lol) but when I get home I will have more to say.
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
I'm sorry, I misunderstood you.

But could you provide sources for what you mean by leftist circles and how you come to the conclusion that it is coming from the left?

Maya

Hi, Maya. Please, when you have the time, read the following links in depth:


And the following photo should help clarify:

Bfbr0A6CcAA_nNZ.jpg

Keep in mind, however, "leftist circles" in the Indian context are largely different than those to be found in the West. But the links, hopefully, will make that clear. Once again, I'd like to reiterate that it is not the left that causes anti-Hindu development, but that currently it is mostly coming from the left. This in no way is to be seen as a lambasting of leftist ideology in general. Right-wing encroaches have done the greatest considerable harm, if tangible, than anything else---and those encroaches have been occurring ever since the Colonial Era. Therefore, if you ever find my point still unclear, I have made a few earlier posts in this thread that should help clarify the matter. Once again, I repeat: most of the current criticism largely comes from the left, not the right.
 
Last edited:

Maya3

Well-Known Member
Thank you Poeticus. I will look closer at these tomorrow. Now it's 10.36 PM here and I'm getting sleepy.
Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I understand better now even though I'm sleepy.
Goodnight for now everyone.

Maya
 

Kalidas

Well-Known Member
Okay I am home now! This will be a fairly long post so bare with me lol.

First we have to break down and look at what is "left" and "right" in the USa (if were going to look at the Hindu American Foundation)

Left Wing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics: "Left wingers" by and large support equity (not equality but equity http://theequityline.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/equity.jpg) which basicly means support of those in need to life them up, are pro raising taxes, like social programs (EBT, universal healthcare, social security,etc tc etc) and increasing funding to these programs, but want to cut from other palces such as military, corporate "welfare"(subsidies). They are by and large "socially liberal" with support for ideas such as gay marriage, borders, female body rights (contraception and abortion). This group is mostly represented by Democrats but also se Socialists, Green party, and "left Libertarians")Libertarians are weird and will have their own paragraph)

Right Wing
Right-wing politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"right wingers" believe in cutting taxes and cutting spending (not entirely true). they view laws restricting corporations as negative and want to continue to "conserve" the current social hierarchy. though they want to cut taxes and spending to social programs they want to increase spending for military and corporate subsidies. Socially they believe in keeping with tradition and avoid social change. this side is dominated by the republicans but can also see support from "right with libertarianism", and The tea party.

Libertarianism: Libertarians are weird and need their own paragraph. Liberaltarianism Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia by and large support, well liberty sometimes to an anarchistic state. They support ideas such as legalization of drugs, prostitution, along with many of the social ideas that right wingers support. Libertarians want to reduce or eliminate the power the government has allowing citizens to largely have control over their actions (within reason of course). Right Wing libertarians (such as Ron Paul) view the government's "meddling" with corporations to be a detriment to capital growth and fight against it. While Left Wing Libertarians (Noam Chomsky) view the government as corporate puppets and want to see the government no longer being funded or "controlled" by the rich. Then there are what's known as Anarchist Libertarians, they pretty much go with "everyone is responsible for their own actions, no government is the best government". Libertarians: Left, Right or Neither? | Independent Political Report

From this we can see that both sides can and have had their issues with Hinduism and even HAF. From the Left you see groups like what Poeticus posted taking their liberalism to (in my opinion ) extreme sense, lambasting anyone that may not agree with everything they say. It has become increasingly popular to slam Religion (as a whole) with lefties (I get an plenty of argument explaining that just because Christians believe something doesn't mean ALL religions are like that) and thus many religious organisations are being pegged as " bad conservative groups" (despite the fact that HAF appears mostly liberal in the US). While from the right we get the "It's not Christian it's going to burn in hell" ideas. But even here the conservative churches can have some sway over their "left wing enemies" by providing false information (as Poeticuses chart shows), thus riling the left wingers into action.

The reason I call those groups "extreme" is they are not the majority of "left wingers" or liberals. Sure maybe most of the VOCAL assaults come from naive liberals but they only represent a small portion. While the "right wing" has been at this "destroy Hinduism" for THOUSANDS of years , they just recently started using their "opposition" as a weapon. There is one group I found directly attacking HAF (very often mind you) are The "CAG" Hindu American Foundation fails to counter mounting evidence of links to violent Hindu Nationalist Movement - CAG, http://hafsite.org/HAF_responds_to_allegations_by_radical_south_asians(whom HAF themself call radical). I find groups like this to be very extreme in their views. The main reason I find these groups to be extreme is "left wing" philosophy is based in the idea of being fair and equal to all. To attack an entire religions and the people belonging to it with little or no evidence in my eyes is extremism. These people take "Liberal" ideas and turn them into bigoted actions and that to me is extremism and not at all representative of the "left wing" or liberals at all.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
All the critics of HAF are just that .. critics. They aren't coming up with some other 'better' organisation of their own.
Hinduism has till now managed with any official representatives, why should we have to have one in the US now. HAF, as I surmise is a Bengali 'Progressive' Hindu organization (somewhat of the Raja Ram Mohan Roy's Brahmo Samaj type), and I am suspicious because of that.
It's like saying every mosque on America is actually sending money to ISIS.
Talking of Sunni mosques, this may very well be true for all you know.
No, but the west works differently than the east. Without some kind of special interest group to speak on your behalf your voice won't be heard, I don't like it but it is "how the game is played".
Hindus have votes, money and brains. It is not because of HAF that Hindus get respect.

@ Thanks, Poeticus for the image, which, if someone understands, gives the correct picture.
 
Last edited:

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
HAF, as I surmise is a Bengali 'Progressive' Hindu organization (somewhat of the Raja Ram Mohan Roy's Brahmo Samaj type), and I am suspicious because of that.

HAF is in no way a Bengali only group. It has members right across the entire Hindu spectrum. :) Same for HMEC.
 

Maya3

Well-Known Member
Excellent post Kalidas!



It has become increasingly popular to slam Religion (as a whole) with lefties (I get an plenty of argument explaining that just because Christians believe something doesn't mean ALL religions are like that) and thus many religious organisations are being pegged as " bad conservative groups" (despite the fact that HAF appears mostly liberal in the US). While from the right we get the "It's not Christian it's going to burn in hell" ideas. But even here the conservative churches can have some sway over their "left wing enemies" by providing false information (as Poeticuses chart shows), thus riling the left wingers into action.

I completely agree. I get very frustrated when I'm discussing something and people say that; "ALL religions are the same, they ALL think that their way is the only way!!" They lump all religions in with Christian superiority. I know that Hinduism is not like that obviously. But there must be other religions too?
There are a lot of religions out there, just because the abrahamic ones are very exclusionary it doesn't mean that the rest of them, including Hinduism are.

Maya
 

Kalidas

Well-Known Member
Excellent post Kalidas!





I completely agree. I get very frustrated when I'm discussing something and people say that; "ALL religions are the same, they ALL think that their way is the only way!!" They lump all religions in with Christian superiority. I know that Hinduism is not like that obviously. But there must be other religions too?
There are a lot of religions out there, just because the abrahamic ones are very exclusionary it doesn't mean that the rest of them, including Hinduism are.

Maya
Of course their are others! In MY world religious class we learners about Zoroastrianism which (contrary to Christians belief) the first ever monothematic religion. Here is where it gets cool. The religion was founded by Zoroaster a Hindu Brahmin. He was given a vision of course"the master God". .ge taught of heaven and hell (so far not good I know) well he taught of heaven"the three knots" good thoughts, good words, and good actions are they key to heaven. Hehaven or he'll Ian attained by worshipping the one master god but by being good. Their idea of worship is less about ritual and more about good deeds. Next time you get in those arguments bring Zoroastrianism up they won't know what to say.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
HAF is in no way a Bengali only group. It has members right across the entire Hindu spectrum. :) Same for HMEC.
I am wary of the so-called 'progressive' Hindus. They do not respect traditions. If there are other 'progressive' Hindus other than Bengalis, I would be just as wary of them.
The religion was founded by Zoroaster a Hindu Brahmin.
Zoroaster was an Aryan brahmin but not Hindu. I wonder how he arrived at the conclusion that there is only one God and not many. Spitama Zarathrushta. I checked, no Vedic sage with that name is mentioned. I think he belonged to was the line of sage Atharva and not Angirasa. That is why the evil spirit became Angre Mainyu.

"The Ṛig-Veda mentions a number of ancient sacrificers styled “our fathers” (II, 33, 13; VI, 22, 2), who instituted the sacrifice in ancient times and laid down, for the guidance of man, the path which he should, in future, follow. Thus the sacrifice offered by Manu, is taken as the type and other sacrifices are compared with it in I, 76, 5. But Manu was not alone to offer this ancient sacrifice to the gods. In X, 63, 7, he is said to have made the first offerings to the gods along with the seven Hotṛis; while Aṅgiras and Yayâti are mentioned with him as ancient sacrificers in I, 31, 17, Bhṛigu and Aṅgiras in VIII, 43, 13, Atharvan and Dadhyañch in I, 80, 16 and Dadhyañch, Aṅgiras, Atri and Kaṇva in I, 139, 9. Atharvan by his sacrifices is elsewhere described, as having first extended the paths, whereupon the sun was born (I, 83, 5), and the Atharvans, in the plural, are styled “our fathers” (naḥ pitaraḥ) along with Aṅgirases, Navagvas and Bhṛgus in X, 14, 6. In II, 34, 12, Dashagvas are said to have been the first to offer a sacrifice; while in X, 92, 10 Atharvan is spoken of, as having established order by sacrifices, when the Bhṛigus showed themselves as gods by their skill. Philologically the name of Atharvan appears as Athravan, meaning a fire-priest, in the Avesta, and the word Aṅgiras is said to be etymologically connected with the Greek Aggilos, a “messenger” and the Persian Angara “a mounted courier.” In the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa (III, 34) Aṅgirases are said to be the same as Angârâḥ, “burning coals or fire,” (Cf. Ṛig. X. 62, 5). Whether we accept these etymologies as absolutely correct or not, the resemblance between the different words sufficiently warrants the assumption that Atharvan and Aṅgiras must have been the ancient sacrificers of the whole Aryan race and not merely of the Vedic people. Therefore, even though Manu, Atharvan, Aṅgiras be not the names of particular individuals, still there can be little doubt that they represented families of priests who conducted, if not originated the sacrifices in primeval times, that is, before the Aryan separation, and who, for this reason, seem to have attained almost divine character in the eyes of the poets of the Ṛig-Veda."

People generally know my source so I need not mention it. :)
 
Last edited:

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I am wary of the so-called 'progressive' Hindus. They do not respect traditions. If there are other 'progressive' Hindus other than Bengalis, I would be just as wary of them.

HAF was formed in part to defend tradition. You're just grasping at straws, and i have no idea why.
 

Kalidas

Well-Known Member
I am wary of the so-called 'progressive' Hindus. They do not respect traditions. If there are other 'progressive' Hindus other than Bengalis, I would be just as wary of them.Zoroaster was an Aryan brahmin but not Hindu. I wonder how he arrived at the conclusion that there is only one God and not many. Spitama Zarathrushta. I checked, no Vedic sage with that name is mentioned. I think he belonged to was the line of sage Atharva and not Angirasa. That is why the evil spirit became Angre Mainyu.

"The Ṛig-Veda mentions a number of ancient sacrificers styled “our fathers” (II, 33, 13; VI, 22, 2), who instituted the sacrifice in ancient times and laid down, for the guidance of man, the path which he should, in future, follow. Thus the sacrifice offered by Manu, is taken as the type and other sacrifices are compared with it in I, 76, 5. But Manu was not alone to offer this ancient sacrifice to the gods. In X, 63, 7, he is said to have made the first offerings to the gods along with the seven Hotṛis; while Aṅgiras and Yayâti are mentioned with him as ancient sacrificers in I, 31, 17, Bhṛigu and Aṅgiras in VIII, 43, 13, Atharvan and Dadhyañch in I, 80, 16 and Dadhyañch, Aṅgiras, Atri and Kaṇva in I, 139, 9. Atharvan by his sacrifices is elsewhere described, as having first extended the paths, whereupon the sun was born (I, 83, 5), and the Atharvans, in the plural, are styled “our fathers” (naḥ pitaraḥ) along with Aṅgirases, Navagvas and Bhṛgus in X, 14, 6. In II, 34, 12, Dashagvas are said to have been the first to offer a sacrifice; while in X, 92, 10 Atharvan is spoken of, as having established order by sacrifices, when the Bhṛigus showed themselves as gods by their skill. Philologically the name of Atharvan appears as Athravan, meaning a fire-priest, in the Avesta, and the word Aṅgiras is said to be etymologically connected with the Greek Aggilos, a “messenger” and the Persian Angara “a mounted courier.” In the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa (III, 34) Aṅgirases are said to be the same as Angârâḥ, “burning coals or fire,” (Cf. Ṛig. X. 62, 5). Whether we accept these etymologies as absolutely correct or not, the resemblance between the different words sufficiently warrants the assumption that Atharvan and Aṅgiras must have been the ancient sacrificers of the whole Aryan race and not merely of the Vedic people. Therefore, even though Manu, Atharvan, Aṅgiras be not the names of particular individuals, still there can be little doubt that they represented families of priests who conducted, if not originated the sacrifices in primeval times, that is, before the Aryan separation, and who, for this reason, seem to have attained almost divine character in the eyes of the poets of the Ṛig-Veda."

People generally know my source so I need not mention it. :)
In just
I'm just going off what little information I was given(it's all one can do) . Either way my point was to show that this idea many people grin the left have taken up(this idea that all religions are one and the same in their idea "evil" ways) is incorrect bad I provided an example that wast Hindu specifically for may should an argument arise that she may have a point ready tomake.

Now back to HAF the point of this thread. Did you know that Hinduism was not considered a religion until the point19th century in America. There are groups (both intellectual liberals and conservative Christians) that would see it demoted to a religion"philosophy" or group of cults and they may be successful without groups like HAF there to defend Hinduism in the west.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Now back to HAF the point of this thread. There are groups (both intellectual liberals and conservative Christians) that would see it demoted to a religion"philosophy" or group of cults and they may be successful without groups like HAF there to defend Hinduism in the west.

If we, or somebody didn't stand up, then people would people would still believe we're a backward bunch of idol worshipers, operating under the oppressive caste system, sacrificing babies and widows, and the only reason we have any civilility at all is because some outsiders (Aryans) brought it to us. HAF has done a great service in dispelling all these myths the western anthropologists made up about us. :)
 

Maya3

Well-Known Member
If we, or somebody didn't stand up, then people would people would still believe we're a backward bunch of idol worshipers, operating under the oppressive caste system, sacrificing babies and widows, and the only reason we have any civilility at all is because some outsiders (Aryans) brought it to us. HAF has done a great service in dispelling all these myths the western anthropologists made up about us. :)

Exactly!

Maya
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
I am a big fan of HAF. We even had one of their council members recently post here on RF a few months ago.
 
Top