PDA

View Full Version : The end of religious tolerance



mohanty
15 February 2011, 12:43 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/hypocrisy-of-tolerance_b_792239.html

In the above article, the writer makes a strong case for abandonment of "tolerance" because it is an offensive value. We tolerate those we consider inferior. The appropriate value should be mutual respect.

So Christianity and Islam are tolerant and Hinduism is not. :)

sm78
15 February 2011, 02:08 AM
So Christianity and Islam are tolerant and Hinduism is not. :)

Lol....

Sahasranama
15 February 2011, 04:14 AM
Here I think Rajiv Malhotra is just playing with words and not saying anything substantial.

mohanty
16 February 2011, 02:22 AM
I think he is making a very important point. Concept-wise, we know where Hinduism stands vis-a-vis Abrahamic religions. But in normal discourse, we tend to blur the lines regarding who stands for peace and who does not.

It is common to say that Islam is a religion of peace or that Christ taught tolerance. And then Hinduism's turn comes and they say that Hinduism is tolerant too. But this is just semantic nuttery.

Christianity, when in a good mood, tolerates others. Islam, even in its most liberal form, tolerates others. Tolerance isn't a high value, it is something to be ashamed of. It shows that they can't respect others.

By pointing out that tolerance has to be replaced with mutual respect, Malhotra takes the fight to them. He mentions in the article that when he brought the matter up, the most liberal,Christians and Muslims had trouble accepting that they could respect Hinduism.

A very potent message I should think.

yajvan
16 February 2011, 02:00 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~



namasté

It seems to me tolerance is aligned with sāhitya - agreement , harmony.
Yet tolerated is a bit different - more aligned with sahiṣṇuš or 'putting up with'. So toleration is different then tolerated.

Tolerance we know is is fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own.
Yet to tolerate is to put up with, endure. Example: I am not in agreement with your views, but I will tolerate them.

In the first case (tolerance) one's mind remains balanced and unperturbed in the differences. In the second case ( tolerated) one is enduring the differences and the mind can lose it's balance ( gritting one's teeth as they say).

In the first case one is accepting; in the second case, one is tolerating the unacceptable.

praṇām

words

sahiṣṇu सहिष्णु patient , forbearing ; bearing , enduring , putting up with ( also in the masculine gender is another name for viṣṇu)
sāhitya - agreement , harmony

Eastern Mind
16 February 2011, 02:30 PM
By pointing out that tolerance has to be replaced with mutual respect, Malhotra takes the fight to them. He mentions in the article that when he brought the matter up, the most liberal,Christians and Muslims had trouble accepting that they could respect Hinduism.

A very potent message I should think.

Vannakkam Mohanty: This is tricky. I think if we ask the Christians to respect us, it is only fair that we respect them in return. I don't. I can't. I won't. On this I am only referring to the fundamentalists who go way out of their way to disrespect us, even harm us via stealthy conversion tactics, open criticism, and more. From a deeper perspective I love them all, but as children. So if its going to be a one way street only, where we're demanding or asking for respect from them, but not returning the favour, then I want no part of it.

I must say I do have utmost respect for the other type of Christian who practices respect and tolerance for ALL of humanity, much like we attempt to do, given the above dharmic exception, never criticizing our faith, being kindly in word and action, and all that stuff that makes a person be a decent person regardless of creed.

I think most of us know both kinds, although the determination of which is sometimes rather grey.

Aum Namasivaya