Buy un-islamic

[WTyler]

My issue with the subject matter was rather simple, though it was on a separate page and I'm not sure if it was read. I am only saying that a boycott would leave them homeless, unemployed and hungry which is just as bad, if not worse, as some of the things they do.

[issacnewton]

And that's the last comment I'll make to you, as reading your posts hurts my soul.

bye frank your reductionist posts bother lot of souls....

[TatTvamAsi]

Isn't this the desire of Hindutva, to establish a wholly Hindu nation at all levels? If I'm wrong, for which there is an excellent likelihood, I'm open to correction.

Seemingly all of these are attempts (some completely successful, like Iran, Saudi Arabia) to create theocracies. Right wing Christian fundamentalcases want the same thing in the US. They want a wholly Christian nation.

Don't ever use that word in such a disparaging tone! Hindutva is HINDU-NESS! Every Hindu should be an embodiment of Hindutva or Hindu-tattva! Worthless anti-Hindus have hijacked that word and made it a dirty word much akin to "nationalist". Gandhi, despite being blind to Hindus' suffering, was a consummate nationalist. Scumbags in and out of India disparage Hindus by calling us "Hindu NATIONALISTS" as if that's something 'bad' or something to look down upon! It is absolutely NOT. Hindu-tattva or Hindutva is about Hindu culture.

Please re-read what you've written. Is there anything WRONG or concerning with a nation that is wholly Hindu in culture, practice, and action? India was such a country and is still so in many ways. It is being slowly chipped away by untouchable vermin (Abrahamics and Communists) who can't stand the beauty of Sanatana Dharma.

And, when you say "theocratic state", do you realize that if India were declared a Hindu nation, it would be wholly secular and peaceful? Those who wish to cause us harm (Abrahamics/Communists) will be purged but we have coexisted with everyone for thousands of years. A Hindu country is not the same as a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim country; Hinduism, by nature, is secular. Thus, a "theocratic" Hindu state is exactly what we want. As a Hindu, that is what you should want as well!

India, hopefully sooner rather than later, will be declared a Hindu nation for Hindus, by Hindus, and of Hindus. Those who don't like that can leave.

Regarding "isaacnewton's" post, I think that would be a good idea but it is very hard to implement. Hindus are just too stupid to act together. If we could even get half of the Hindu populace to vote together, as Subramaniam Swamy stated, BJP would come into power with no problems at all. Hindus are too busy watching Katrina Kaif remove her clothes and Salman Khan seduce Hindu women to bother about their country. I would laugh out loud at Hindus if I weren't one.

[Believer]

Don't ever use that word in such a disparaging tone! Hindutva is HINDU-NESS! Every Hindu should be an embodiment of Hindutva or Hindu-tattva! Worthless anti-Hindus have hijacked that word and made it a dirty word much akin to "nationalist". Gandhi, despite being blind to Hindus' suffering, was a consummate nationalist. Scumbags in and out of India disparage Hindus by calling us "Hindu NATIONALISTS" as if that's something 'bad' or something to look down upon! It is absolutely NOT. Hindu-tattva or Hindutva is about Hindu culture.

Hear ye! Hear Ye!

Many Westerners, with no knowledge of the Hindu history, of the Hindu suffering or of the undercurrents destroying the Indian nation, just like to mouth off and post whatever comes to their insensitive simple minds, instead of learning about the ground reality. I could say a lot more, but for now, I will hold my tongue.

[Jainarayan]

Don't ever use that word in such a disparaging tone! Hindutva is HINDU-NESS!

Where's the disparagement? I asked a question and asked to be corrected if I was wrong. I think you should re-read:

Isn't this the desire of Hindutva, to establish a wholly Hindu nation at all levels? If I'm wrong, for which there is an excellent likelihood, I'm open to correction.

Again you took a defensive and snarky tone with me, for which there was no reason.

[Jainarayan]

instead of learning about the ground reality.

That's what asking for correction and education means. And that education and correction can be done without a defensive and a snarky tone.

[zenvicky]

Read this...

Levy on Amarnath Yatra: A faith is being targeted

http://content.msn.co.in/MSNContribu...f-c14358a368f1

Aum

[nitinsharma]

Hindus are too busy watching Katrina Kaif remove her clothes and Salman Khan seduce Hindu women to bother about their country

Hear!Hear!

DEATH TO BOLLYWOOD!

DEATH TO BOLLYWOOD!

[sanjaya]

Isn't this the desire of Hindutva, to establish a wholly Hindu nation at all levels? If I'm wrong, for which there is an excellent likelihood, I'm open to correction.

Seemingly all of these are attempts (some completely successful, like Iran, Saudi Arabia) to create theocracies. Right wing Christian fundamentalcases want the same thing in the US. They want a wholly Christian nation.

Well, let's be careful to make a distinction here. First, Hindus have a fairly solid historic claim to India. India is the birthplace of Hinduism, and until the Mogul invasion the country was populated by Hindus and practitioners offspring Dharmic religions such as Buddhism and Jainism. This is similar (stronger, actually) to European nations which have a historically Christian tradition. Everyone here in America is up in arms about separation of church and state. The legal basis for this can be found in early American documents such as the Constitution. But in nations like Britain, there's no discussion, since Christianity is the official state religion. Indeed, I think that those Hindus who reject pure secularism instead seek for a similar situation in India as what the British have.

In Britain there is a state church, civil ceremonies involve Christian prayers, and public schools teach religion with an emphasis on Christianity. Isn't this what many of us on HDF want for India (obviously with Hinduism rather than Christianity). Nobody here is looking to force Hinduism on anybody in India. But we figure that since our ancestors have historically been Hindus, this should be reflected in modern India. If religious freedom were granted to everyone, I see no great injustice done in the government recognizing Hinduism as the official religion of India. The ancient Indian King Ashoka, though Hindu and Buddhist, set up a policy of religious tolerance which in the West would be considered ahead of his time.

The problem with comparing Hindu nationalism to Islamic nationalism lies in the difference between the core religious teachings. Hinduism teaches us to let each individual explore his own faith; it's difficult to pervert this into intolerance (granted, such has been achieved before). Islamic teaching, on the other hand, contains all that is necessary to breed intolerance and hatred for unbelievers. Furthermore, it teaches conquest. Even ardent Hindu nationals have no desire to convert other nations to Hinduism. Islam, on the other hand, preaches holy Jihad and conversion of unbelieving nations to the Islamic faith. I'll take a Hindu nationalist over an Islamist any day.

[Jainarayan]

Namaste sanjaya, and thanks for the explanation. It's clearer now. If I understand it correctly, it's not totally unlike Israel, Arab and Palestinian conflicts aside. Israel is a completely secular nation, but deeply rooted in Judaism as a culture. Let's forget for a moment the God who wanted all the inhabitants of Jericho massacred, and disobedient children stoned to death. It's not a theocracy and doesn't proselytize, whereas Christianity and Islam advocate theocracies and have no tolerance for other beliefs.

In this case, because India is overwhelmingly Hindu it stands to reason it would be/should be/is a Hindu nation, though secular and not a theocracy. With the different denominations, sects and flavors of Hinduism I dont know how that would be possible anyway. But that's just a thought experiment.