All religions are invented.

The true one was revealed.

That's what they all say.

Papaya:

No, they don't.

Which is the true one?

OJ's is the true one. Just ask him.

OK, I suppose all religions don't claim to be "revealed." Wiccans and Greek and Roman paganism, for instance. But Judaism, all forms of Christianity (including wacky offshoots like the Mormons), Islam, and every nutcase street preacher all claim to be the one true revealed religion, and yet contradict one another on crucial points. Which was my point.

Papaya:

Yes, only the true religion is revealed, the Abrahamic faiths.

Isn't Islam also an Abrahamic faith?

erp:

Yes, that's why Islam can be Reformed and made the basis for decent societies.

of. Reformed by whom?

us

The Caliph lives in Washington, DC.

David:

That's the best comment I've seen in a while. But don't tell Osama or Zawahiri - it might upset their digestion.

I hope I live long enough.

Heck, Christ didn't live long enough to see Christianity. Just getting Reform going is an ample achievement for our lifetimes.

My article has been selectively quoted. I was indicating that there indeed is another way to define Hinduism in the modern world- a way that does not rely on reactions against colonial interpretation.

We need to realise that having a book, "one God, now and for ever" and the idea of believers and infidels does not constitute the only definition of a religion. Hinduism and its offshoots, Buddhism and Jainism, among others, are world religions just like their Abrahamic counterparts.

But not the bases for decent societies, which requires monotheism and messianism.

Says who? Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism were the bases of societies flourishing with material and spiritual prosperities until the age of empire. True, certain aspects such as the caste system have been distorted from their original intention to a hierarchical system, but such distortions are even more rife in Abrahamic religions.

In the modern world, would you argue that the problematic juxtaposition of religion per se and extremism in the Islamic world is more precarious than any Hindu or Buddhist country?

Think before you speak!

No, they weren't. None of them were recognizably decent societies based on the God-given dignity of each individual.

You are making precisely the same mistake as most "Orientalists" do. Hinduism is not a homogeneous concept. Indeed the mind boggling diversity within the creed, stretching from Brahminical insistence on ceremonies to the aethist Carvaka sect, bears testimony to the choices conscious individuals made. Have you ever heard of the idea of "Rajdharma" which sought to put in checks and balances in the body politik of the state hundreds of years before John Locke came along with his defence of individual rights? The "varna" system, as I read it, was a system of division of labour and contained extreme flexibility, written thousands of years before Adam Smith. For example, the authors of the classic Hindu epics- The Ramayana and Mahabharata were both from rather humble backgrounds. Meritocracy and scope for individual empowerment was very much present in ancient Indian society.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones at others. A "recognisably decent society" would not enslave other individuals for centuries (European empires), and nor would it have to wait until 200 years after its formation to grant equal rights to its citizens (even that thanks to Martin Luther King).

Sure it would, men are slow learners. The point is that just as Judeo-Christianity required that all men be recognized to have God-given dignity so too did it end up reforming the Orient, whos religions don't contain such doctrine but instead support caste and the notion of inferior grades of humans.

As Gandhi understood it was the Judeo-Christian ethos of Britain that would require it to liberate India.

And, the relativistic nature of the many Hinduisims that you note is why just another reason it could never be the basis for a consistent and decent morality.

So you are insistent on making points without reading their refutations?

Read above, the "varna" system was not a hierarchical social compartmentalisation system, but was instead a horizontal system of division of labour. Just as profit making was banned by the Church, and entrepreneurial minorities like the Jews and religious minorities like the Catholics have been prosecuted through what you argue to be the "slow learning" of men, similarly such distortions in the Hindu philosophy is also due to erring men.

Read again the examples I gave in the earlier post. The claim to monpolise "God-given human dignity" by Abrahamic religions is off the mark. The past problems with Christianity and Judaism, and the current problems in the Islamic world are all part of the dialectic of religions.

Do you really think it is feasable to argue that following a certain book and believing in the homogenous view of God is consistent with the liberalism that the West espouses? Isn't liberalism about maximising social choice for individuals? Hinduism is a far more "free" religion, whereby I am not bound by third party customs just to prevent myself discarded to the category of "infidels" or non-believers. Hinduism is more than a religion, it is a way of life. We can modify Hinduism to bring it in line with modern needs far more efficiently, unlike the problems Islam and Christianity has faced in interpreting their scriptures.

You mentioned Gandhi. His saying that "I am a Muslim and a Hindu and a Christian and a Jew and so are all of you" has a distinctive stamp of Hinduism on it. No Abrahamic religion could ever tolerate to share space with another religion.

Problems remain in all contemporary societies- don't try to sweep yours under the carpet. Attributing these to the philosophies which espouses them is indeed correct, but your selective method is dangerous and breeds prejudice.

No, maximizing choice is moral relativism and antithetical to a decent society, which is why you have to have monotheism, thereby you make my point.

The varna system classifies men by their births, not by their characters and is reprehensible. Even today it is quite racist:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/145/story_14568_1.html

Gandhi was an Anglophile and borrowed his best ideas from british culture. His worst were sadly distinct to his social milieu:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2002/04/mugging_mohandas.html

The point is that our judeo-Christian/Anglo-American ideas are universal and there's no reason Hinduism can't be Reformed to conform to them. They are the ooposite of prejudicial.

So maximising social choice to individuals is “antithetical” to welfare and is not a base for a decent society? This may well suit the definition of a “well-ordered” totalitarian dictatorship, but in a modern civic society this seems unthinkable.

I have never argued that the caste system has not been oppressive through out centuries. Your comment, and the link to go with it, depicts the shallowness of your analytical skills. My entire argument was that every religion, including Abrahamic ones, have given rise to many social evils, and it is unfair to single out Hinduism for this. In any case, my personal reading of the original varna system, as mentioned earlier but ignored by yourself, is that it was merely a system of horizontal division of labour. Many of our ancient scriptures were written by de facto Brahmins who moved into that caste by changing professions from fishermen and robbers.

Gandhi was indeed influenced by many Western theorists. As such, Hinduism has always been an inclusive religion, learning and assimilating traits from all over the world. However, Gandhi’s spirituality was deeply grounded in Hindu philosophy.

Hinduism needs to be reformed, sure. But not to “conform” to any non-existent universal standard of Judeo-Christianity. Hinduism will evolve and form the basis of a new kind of society.

In any case, why don’t you visit the “Anglo” side of the ocean and look at the fate of Christianity in the British isles? Religion is on the retreat in the West, and is nearing marginalisation.

Exactly. Giving people the choice to murder their girl babies in favor of boys is giving them freedom at the expense of decency.

The point isn't that all systems don't have bad points, but that only one can achieve relative decency. You are, of course, right that the secularization of Europe is returning it to indecency.

Infanticide steps onto the realm of inalienable human rights, and it could be argued that a freedom maximising system would not allow such practices. The concept of negative liberty ensures that the lowest common denominator of control is maintained in society, so that the remainder can be equally shared by all citizens.

The problematic aspect in your vocabulary is that of “decency”. Now who is A to determine what decency stands for in B’s life? If you are referring to returning to the books, there have been- and are- numerous debates over the interpretations in the Bible, Quran and Tanakh underline the point vividly that there can never be completely objectivity even within a seemingly homogeneous religious creed. It is better to let the people decide for themselves as much as possible how their lives should go, albeit within certain guidelines.

No it isn't. Given the opportunity--freed from morality--he people will decide based on their own convenience. But you demonstrate why the book is required for a decent society.

I marvel at how you fail to see the vicious circle in your own argument- the inherent cul-de-sac in it. Even if we assume the clergy’s interpretation of the Bible to be constant (a very incorrect assumption, but taken for argument’s sake), there is nothing called “the clergy” in the first place. The mind boggling diversities within Christianity, especially in the United States, and in the various Sunni and Shi’a law schools of Islam depict without failure how diverse human readings of something that is believed to be divine is.

What you assume to be a “Judeo-Christian” consensus is in fact non-existent This is how it should be- as acknowledged by Hinduism. There are certain moral guidelines that can be mulled over by a democratic civic society, but religion needs to be very personal as there are various paths to the “Brahma” (the supreme self). Practical situations have nullified the effects of the narrow readings of the texts, while Hinduism does not have such rigidities even in its theoretical framework.

If you think I have been advocating for “the book”, then you need a re-read of the arguments above.

Yes, as you're saying, the speific danger lies in many interpretations. That ends the very idea of morality. The peoples of the Book uniquely have a set reference they're always drawn back to.

No disrespect intended, but you’re rapidly losing the art of reading and comprehending an argument. Where did I mention that there is a “danger” in plural interpretation of religion? In fact, I have been arguing for the same through out. You have uttered the same line without defending your argument with analysis and evidence which shows myopia.

What I have been disputing is this “reference” you seem to harp on about. Take a line from the Bible, hop over to your next door neighbour and talk about it. You’ll see how different your opinions can be on the most trivial of issues. Why pretend the institutionalism when the reality is so different?

Because reality will never be what we wish it to be, but is changed by those wishes. Humans imperfectly implement the mortality that God gave us, but that doesn't change it and so long as we aspire to realize it we can improve our culture. Without monotheism and the resulting absolute morality there is no such uniform aspiration and inspiration.

Now you’re obliterated all arguments ever made by anyone and uttered a dead-end abstract statement. But even here lies the fault of your understanding. If we are erring humans, how on earth can you assume that the word of God is in fact correctly interpreted? As I repeated innumerably, the very fact of intra-Abrahamic sectarianism is because of the impossibility of the objective Christian/Muslim/Jew.

Realise this and then you will be able to progress to the next level of spirituality. Morality can be realised through maximising freedom of ways to get to God. As I said, I am not talking about unfettered anarchy, but respecting the individual’s unique ideas of God. General moral principles are rather similar in all religions- whether be it in the Bible or the Quran or the Bhagvad Gita.

The point is that the Word obliterates everything else. We can't be sure we interpret it correctly, but we know what it is. And without it there can be no morality, only opinion. By keeping it always before us we make it what we try to achieve in all ages.

It is this that makes the Anglo-American/Judeo-Christian ideal:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
so universal as to represent the End of History and why India is organized around our principles today rather than Hindu ones.

Words are mere alphabets- the most trivial conclusions drawn from them that bears any significance has to go through human interpretation. E.g., “Life a good life”. See the fallacy? Its not like live life as God willed it, but life as I think you should live it.

Ah, so you are arguing for complete moral relativism?

Absolutely not. I am merely taking my argument to the extreme to show you how shallow your own position is, and how unsustainable it is in both theory and practice.

My own position is what I believe a Hindu one (not “the” Hindu one, crucially). We should take guidelines from our scriptures, not least because some very clever people sat down and thought about the world around us and we need to pay heed to them. We should have moral guidelines that apply universally. However, the emphasis in my social ordering would be to let the citizens largely determine how they would like to pursue their spiritual lives. It is not for the state to interfere in.

I personally would like to see a religious society, but also one that is tolerant and pluralistic. The concept of “kafirs” or “infidels” need to be removed. Edward Said’s “other” has lived long enough.

You aren't taking them to the extreme at all, that is your argument, that there can be noi morality because all is mere interpretation. Such belief can not form the basis of a decent society. To the extent that Hinduism lacks a single God and a siungle morality it partakes of that problem.

On the contrary, the natural allowing of various religious practices in Hinduism have led to the flowering of many religious traditions in the Indian sub-continent. For example, Sufism flourished as a hybrid between Hinduism and Islam as an extremely mystical, flexible and d-y-i religion in India, whereas it turned into a rigidly codified and inflexible system coming under the influence of the Sunni law schools in the Middle East. The resulting freedom and choice for their followers was far greater in the former vis-à-vis the latter. Sufism is associated with an entire romantic generation in the middle ages in India.

The problems in Hinduism, namely its caste system and the current rise of Hindu nationalism are essentially because people have tried to artificially codify a flexible way of life. The insistence on one God (Rama), one book (Gita) and four hierarchical castes are where the problems lie. These problems are worryingly similar to those currently present in the Islamic world, and have haunted Christianity to one degree or the other over the years. Currently there is a thaw in the Christian world because of a decline in practising Christians in its core areas of worship.

Wake up and smell the coffee!

There are no great Sufic nations. The rise of India coincides with this reform of Hinduism to conform to the required monotheism.

You’ve run out of logical arguments. Sigh!

If there isn’t a Sufi nation in the sub-continent, is there one in the Middle East where it was codified? Your statement’s preposterousness baffles me. Nation building has more to do with the warped sense of the imagined communities associated with the Westphalian idea. It is diametrically contradictory to here about Western governments talk about political pluralism, and some of the interpreters of Western theology talking about religious homogenisation.

And since when did Abrahamic religions lay claim to nation building? As far as I remember, they have been the single greatest source of supra-national allegiances the world has ever known. Try telling Osama that!

If India is to become a superpower in the truest essence of the word, it needs to get over its identity crisis by trying to ape the Abrahamic faiths and look deep within its own philosophy to identify its inherent pluralist and tolerant self and devise its new political philosophy.

I recommend a book- “The Argumentative Indian” by Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen.

I'm not aware of one.

Religious pluralism works well so long as the Founding of the state is Judeo-Christian.

India is becoming great by becoming more like us.

Can you not understand simple arguments? It is not humiliating to accept ones mistakes but it is so to stick to long discredited positions. I am treating you with respect- most people would laugh at your immature rants.

Here’s the recap-

- You have failed to argue that having one rigid doctrine somehow solves the interpretation problems.
- You have no answer to the argument that inherent problems in Hinduism are because they resemble Abrahamic traits.
- You are speechless when presented with the fact that the Abrahamic religions are the single greatest threat to nation building with their supra-national tendencies.
- You cannot provide a defence of individual liberty and Enlightenment ideals (both Western) with your reading of Christianity. In fact, both these movements grew as an antithesis to clerical rigidities.
- You have no solution to solving the “other” problem that is conspicuous even among followers of Abrahamic faiths.

How on earth you can repeat the same old statements without catering for their refutations baffles me. Is it because you prescribe to a one-time reading of the texts disallowing further deliberation? If so, then that is the problem with your ideology.

I suggest quit making slogans if you have nothing to say, and leave the debate. In your entire slogan which sums up as "Hinduism should be like us", you exemplify my point about the "other" inherent in Abrahamic religions. You cannot live for your own sake- you need an other.

Once again, the entire argument is here:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1002

I agree that America is the single significant threat to sovereignty, because we insist that every society be organized according to our standards.

The Enlightenment was a mistake and has produced most of the evil in the modern world.

"Others" are tolerable to the degree that they conform to Judeo-Christian standards.

"...to the degree they conform to Judeo-Christian standards" translates into not at all. The extreme elements (like yourself) in Christianity cannot even tolerate their counterparts in the Islamic world and vice versa.

Something that appears quite hilarious in the context of your preposterous claims is that Christianity and Hinduism have actually enjoyed a far more peaceful coexistance, as have Hinduism and Islam vis-a-vis inter-Abrahamic conflicts that dot history since the time of the Mur conquests.

Go and do some reading on Indian philosophy, and you will realise that it is Hinduism that gave Christianity and Islam their relatively tolerant avatars in the sub-continent, and it is the latter that gave Hinduism its more militant and homogenising elements. That was one of my arguments in the book review, and it is based on common sense observations, nothing else. Just read up on the slogans of a few Hindu nationalists, and compare them to the Muslim or Christian extremists- the resemblance is uncanny.

If you say that the Enlightenment was a mistake for the West, then so was the industrial revolution and the resultant prosperity. The clerical rigidities would have been in place, women and the poor would have no rights and entrepreneurship would have been penalised with death. Democracy would be a no brainer.

Gauge the dangers inherent in your statements. The only thinking that needs any serious reform around here is yours!

Yes, India and America are getting along famously now that India has gotten over its silly flirtation with Communism and reverted back to the Anglo-American model. Similarly we are Reforming Islam so that the Middle East is beginning to conform to our standards too. The End of History is just conformity to Judeo-Christian standards and it's coming to everyone.

You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If the current Anglo-American socio-economic-political model is stemming from the Enlightenment, and you oppose that, then there is little sense in associating yourself with that model. See the dual fallacy?

Second, India's problematic elements in its relations with the US is its nationalist elements, as the US has condemned India over the religious rioting, and has refused visa to a prominent nationalist politician. As I mentioned, these nationalist elements resemble the Abrahamic religion, and have little to do with Hindu traditions.

Third, you are not really talking about Abrahamic religions when you claim that you want to reform the Middle East according to your priorities. Are you suggesting that only the Christian model be emulated? What makes you so different from other Abrahamic religions? Nil.

Yes, it doesn't stem from the Enlightenment. The French Revolution, Rationalism, Masrxism, Darwinism, etc. stemmed from the Enlightenment and have been disastrously anti-human.

No, Judaism and Shi'ism are likewise monotheistic, messianic, and separate Church and State and therefore fit for Founding theologies.

Lest you forget, the Enlightenment also gave rise to the philosophes like Voltaire, Montesquieu and David Hume, whose writings inspired the later generation of individuals who were to be proponents of Western liberalism.

It was in the Anglo-Saxon world that this was more effective, as continental Europe swung between pendulums of French Revolution and Napoleonic conquests and German conservatism.

So now you are rejecting the Anglo-Saxon model as well?

What do you prescribe to? Zionism or the ideology of the Shah of Iran? I suppose you reject revolutionary Iran's ideology since he allied with the USSR.

Let me tell you what your views boil down to. Zilch.

About your preposterous comment about the division of Church and State, the Reformation, which was inspired by the secularism of the Enlightenment, managed it.

Look even further back in the history, and the original "varna" system, as I read it, is decisively deleanating the contours of theology and politics. Even then, the flexibility of the Hindu system comes in as sometimes it may well be necessary for the "Rajan" (ruler) to take advice from the Brahmin. The image of the Brahmin holding the svetta-chattra (White Umbrella) of wisdom over the King goes a long way to underline and bolster Hinduism's claim to an effective and flexible division between religion and state.

Separation of Church and State traces to the oppressed status of Jews and Christians and Christ's admonition to "Render unto Caesar..." as well as to the messianism of Judaism, Christianity, and Shi'ism, which antuicipate the establishment of just government only when the Messiah returns, not under mere men.

The Enlightenment, of course, began hundreds of years after the Reformation. Its insistence on Rationalism has been disastrous.

The Anglo-American model, in which rights come from God instead of being derived rationally has beat it up one side of the street and down the other.

Yes, the Ayatollah's years in France warped the Iranian Revolution and led him to impose a Theocracy that orthodox Shi'ites, like Sistani, reject as heretical.

Look, you have no understanding of the Anglo-American model, and this is evident in nothing but your own writing. You say that the Anglo-American model is where the world should concur, and then we see that this same model rejects pre-Enlightenment ideas about the role of religion. We also see that ideas of religion are being rejected in many Christian countries which are being secularised. So when it boils down to it, it is mainly a socio-economic model which again, you reject.

So basically you are accepting something which you have already rejected and vice versa. You’re at a cul-de-sac.

Even if we concede that Judaism and Christianity mentioned division of state and religion, it has been practised and championed by ancient Hindu kingdoms many years before the Abrahamic religions even came onto the planet. You may be quick to point out that they became distorted with time, but we need only to look at the fate of religious orthodoxy in medieval Europe to gauge that this problem has been universal.

If you would have been a supporter of neo-liberalism (which is the essence of the Anglo-American model), I would have little to argue against it. However, your own rejection of rational materialism inherent in the Western models make your position look like a blank.

On the discussion about religion, you did not come back on earlier refutations about your prejudices against non-Abrahamic religions. I suppose you take my point there.

Of course I'm prejudiced against non-Abrahamic religions and against secularism--that's my entire point. The Anglo-American model works because it is explicitly Judeo-Christian, with rights granted by God preceding the state.

You've really lost the plot! First you are speechless to the refutations about your "model" and the inherent contradictions in your own statements which reject the Enlightenment and at the same time adopt the "model" which is based on ideas emerging from the same. Second you have the audacity to repeat like a parrot what has just been rejected by yourself and my own refutations. Then you say you are not prejudiced against Abrahamic religions, but when pointed out the violent history and present of these religions, you conveninently side-step those points. When pointed out that rights and division of power existed in non-Abrahamic societies much before these came about, you again are speechless are ramble on about your old assertion.

Are you sure you don't require medication?

The Anglo-American model does not derive from the Enlightenment--note the "endowed by their Creator"?--the French model does.

I quite clearly stated, and the point of the post is, that I am prejudiced against the non-Abrahamic religions and against rationalism. Morality requires monotheism and a decent society requires a basis in it.

The division of power is worthless unless the State is liberal democratic and the Church is montheist.

I quote the first article of the Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789)- "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights".

Don't forget- both the French and American republicanism around the late 18th century were inspired by similar ideals of Locke, Hume, Rousseau, etc. While mentioning "God's" relation with inalienable human rights, these thinkers defended their system through Enlightenment rationality, not morality.

Tell me something without repeating ANY of your earlier gibberish and taking into account ALL points that have been raised in refuting your prejudices-

Is your continuou prejudice a sign of myopia?

Every concept which you ascribe to Abrahamic religions has been mastered by Hinduism many centuries before Jesus came to Earth according to Christians.

When European minorities such as Jews were being prosecuted for their faith, Indians were dealing with the concept of allowing people to inter-change religion and prescribe to any faith they wanted.

Before civilisation dawned on Europe, Indian philosophers were discussing "Vasudaiva Kutumbakam"- the whole world is one family. Quite frankly, I prefer such ideals to those that espouse theories denouncing "infidels" and "kafirs".

All monotheism does is fan supra-nationalism and prejudice, as you so evidently portray. Freedom is curtailed.

Exactly. The French root it in nothing but the state, which is why the French system has never succeeded anywhere. The difference between rights that come from God and rights granted by the state is the whole ball of wax.

Toleration is not a worthwhile value except within the narrow bounds of Judeo-Christian morality and the norms of liberal democratic society.

For instance, here's where tolerance and immorality gets Hindu culture:

In India, Celebrations Are Back for the Birth of Girls: This, anyway, is the joint proposal of the government and the Church. But the reality is the opposite. Infanticide and selective abortion have eliminated 60 million women (Sandro Magister, November 24, 2005, chiesa)

The Indian government has publicly asked the Church for assistance in preventing abortions and reducing their number.

The abortions that most concern the Indian authorities are the ones aimed at selecting the sex of the child to be born, eliminating the female children. Since 1994 there have been laws in place against that sort of selection. But they are widely circumvented. “The only way we can combat selective abortion is by changing the way the people think,” health and family minister Anbumani Ramadoss said in a speech in mid-October. “And this change in mentality can take place only with the help of those who have the public’s ear, the religious leaders. In November we will meet with all of the religious leaders in Delhi to plan a common effort that concerns all of India.”

The Catholic Church has responded favorably to the invitation. [....]

In its State of World Population report for this year, the UN agency that deals with demographics estimates that there are 60 million “missing girls,” the young women of Asia not reflected in the statistics, many of whom are attributed to India.

Everywhere in the world, the natural average for conception is 103-107 females for every 100 males. But when you go to count the births, there are significantly fewer girls in India.

In 1981, there were 962 girls for every 1000 boys, under the age of 6. In 1991, there were 945. And in 2001, the year of the most recent census, there were 927.

If you then look at where the decline has been the steepest, you find that the lowest ratio of girls is found in what are relatively the more affluent cities and states: Haryana, Gujarat, and Punjab. In these places, there is an average of 800 girls for every 1000 boys.

In the capital, Delhi, there are 821 girls for every 1000 boys, under the age of 6. But the figures change dramatically if you separate them by religion. Among the Christians, the figure for girls is 988; among the Jains, 935; among the Sikhs, 829; among the Hindus, 817; and among the Muslims, 782.
Religion isn't good--Judeo-Christianity is. It will have to Reform Islam and Hinduism.

Your naive analysis know no bounds!

What you fail to gauge is that liberal political democracy stands in direct contradiction with much of what the Christian theology has to say. I have pointed it out so many times to you that I am beginning to wonder whether you're a robot, capable of only repeating what's been programmed into you.

As far as your article on female infanticide is concerned, no one is denying the current social evils in Indian society. I myself am an opponent of the current form of the caste system. My entire point is that these mistakes were rectified in ages much before the Abrahamic religions even came on the planet, and that goes to show how advanced these thinkings really are.

That colonialism robbed us of our own independent developmental path is the most unfortunate event that could have gripped Hindu philosophy.

As far as missionary activities in India are concerned, much of it is laudable. However, many of them adopt a give-and-take system unlike a good Samaritan and insist on conversion. That is the beauty of Hinduism- you can cherish its teachings without giving up your current system of beliefs. I can be a Hindu and a Christian. But not vice versa.

Bingo! Judeo-Christian society is aspirational, working towards a decent end. Sociewties not based on achieving moral purposes are indecent, by definition.

The question remains- what defines "decent"? You can't agree on what the books (Quran or Bible) says, and this is exemplified by so many divisions within Abrahamic religions. So when it boils down to it, I have to accept what Mr X interprets the Bible as. I should be allowed to do so, but should not be persecuted for refusing to do so.

"Moral purpose" should be broadly defined, and generally left to the individual to cater for themselves. The paternalism has got to stop.

To the contrary, it's rather easy to define a decent society and not especially hard to establish a society that aspires to be one and will have some considerable success:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1002

But as your last comment demonstrates you oppose erven the idea of morality, so of course you don't want such an aspirational society. That's what I said when I said that Judeo-Christianity would have to Reform y'all.

Its "rather easy", is it? Is that why theorists in the West have been- and are- bickering about the right societal order since eternity?

A common aim of a society is an extremely problematic concept, and one that smacks of the arrogance that one person is inherently superior to another. It is no so much different from the "vanguard" mentality that the Bolsheviks had during the 1917 revolution. And you thought you hated communism? Surprise, surprise!

You've come down to outright lying in your last statement when you accuse me of not supporting morality. However, my support is not based on the belief that someone else understands the concept of morality less than mine. If you'd the slightest knowledge of Hindu texts, they outline the broad aims of life and that is the entire concept of the cycle of re-births. While Christianity castigates sinners to eternal damnation, Hinduism gives them another chance, to struggle in their next life and prove their worth, so they can be reborn in a more comfortable state in their further life.

I am not denouncing Christian morality, but accepting it as one of the many possible definitions. Hinduism does not breed prejudice and arrogance in this way.

No, the right form was settled by the end of the 18th century--the Declaration and Wealth of Nations both being published in 1776. No one is tajken seriously any longer who argues against the liberal democracy of the Judeo-Christian/Anglo-American model.

Your argument that each individual gets to define his own morality is mere advocacy of amorality.

There's only one morality.

Do you know Adam Smith did not foresee the Industrial Revolution? His Wealth of Nations is based on a pre-industrial mercantalist economy. So should we return to such days? The American Declaration, for all practical purposes, is a socio-economic-political model rather than a theological one. While mentioning God in many of its tracts, it borrows heavily from English constitutional government outlined by John Locke. In any case, Smith and Locke marked the serious beginning of Western political and economic theory as a field of debate, which continues to this day.

The inalienable rights of man have been highlighted many long years ago in the "Manusamhita", which outlined "Rajadharma", i.e. the duties of the King towards his subjects to legitimise his rule.

"There's only one morality"- and where does it lie? Don't keep referring to the Bible and Quran, since a thousand different priests or muftis will produce a thousand different answers.

Whether you accept or reject pluralism in interpretation of faith- Abrahamic or Hindu- it exists. Denial means a) You're harbouring dictatorship; and b) You're an ostrich.

Take your pick!

The proper social arrangements for men--democracy, protestantism and capitalism under Judeo-Christian morality--are not dependent on what's being manufactured or how. Smith is eternally applicable.

It lies in the Commandments and Christ's admonition to love one another as He loved us, and depends very much on their being Commands from the One authority.

Not dictatorship, just extreme conformity, which is what we have in America.

Ironically, if you had read Max Weber's "The Protestant Ethic", you'd find that this permier theorist was espousing rather different reasons for the success of Protestantism vis-a-vis Catholicism in generating the modes of production compatible with capitalism. Weber's argument was essentially that the lack of rigid restrictions on entrepreneurship in Protestantism was the driving force behind their rise.

However, even he could not help but distinguish between Calvinists and Lutherans because the available evidence was too scattered. So what does all this prove? That even within the venerated Protestantism, there is no homogeneous argument that can be made. It all comes down to the ancient Vedic maxim Ekam Sat Viprah Bahuda Vadanti (there are different paths to the truth).

First you were generalising about Abrahamic religions, then you came down to Christianity, and then to Protestantism. Will you sub-divide your argument further? Does that not show the inherent pluralism in your own religion?

If you're talking about conformity, I have been to America a few times and yes, people are more religious than in Europe. However, the innumerable divisions within Christianity which somestimes boils down to different localities, different sects, displays that in reality the beliefs are mind-bogglingly diverse.

However, if there is a land which is more religious than even the Islamic countries and America, surely it is India. However, what we have in India is an acknowledgement of these diverse creeds, not an artificial pretence of homogenity.

Yes, the Anglo-American model proved so successful and so powerful that it reformed all of the Christian and the one Jewish states and moved on to the Confucian, Hindu, and now Muslim ones. The model is so basic and universal that everyone can and will ape it, but those societies that don't develop and retain its moral underpinnings won't thrive in the long run. Shi'a Islam is much closer to Judaism and Chistianity than Sunni, so is likely to do much better. The various polytheisms will have a more difficult time still, but can likely be transformed into monotheism in the long run.

What's striking about America is that all of those various sects conform to the core religious principles outlined in the Declaration/Constitution:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Which gives us a form of civic religion that is conformist in the extreme. It's why we so easily assimilate immigrants.

Lots of fallcies in your post, as usual-

1. The core principle which you cite is at once anti-clerical and stemming from Enlightenment ideas (which you reject). This is because Christianity, like all religions, has been instrumental through out the ages in restricting rights. So you're still stuck in your own cul-de-sac.

2. When you're talking about Sh'ite Islam, I suppose you're ignoring all the law schools that developed under them corresponding to the Sunni law school? You see, diversity is the essence of humans as individuals, and it will emerge, whether one likes it or not.

3. The difference between Abrahamic religions and Hinduism- fundamentally- is that we recognise that other individuals like us may have their own unique path to God, and we should not coerce them to submission. Isn't this the principle of "inalienable rights" and "self-regarding actions" which you so cherish? The thing is, we had them millenia before you became civilised.

4. The traditional teachings of Christianity are under attack in your own backyard, with rising divorce rates, pre-marital pregnancies, shattered families, rise of homosexual tendencies, etc. And you will "reform" World theology? Even the American foreign policy analysts talk in terms of democracy and freedom, concepts which stem from the Enlightenment and which are anti-clerical in nature.

5. If you're trying to misquote my review and suggest that I claimed that Hinduism is created by colonialism, I pity your intellect. Hinduism "as the homogenised contemporary" form is invented by colonialism, not Hinduism per se. After all these discussions, even you should know that homogenity and Hinduism do not go together.

The future of Hinduism lies in rediscovering the polity that lies unearthed in its ancient scriptures and creating a discourse that corresponds to today's realities and forge an updated version of the Indian way of life. At the moment it is extremly unarticulated.

As far as your "reform agenda" is concerned, after secularisation of Europe, breaking down of Christian values in America, bloodbath in the Middle East and selecting amalgamation of capitalism with Maoism in China- prospects look bleak.

Don't embarass yourself by talking about immigrants- the title "immigrant" and the history of a mere 230 years fades in comparison to a long list of communities including the Bactrians, Greeks, Muslims, Christians, Chinese, Tibetan, and many more whose path took them to India, and who consequently ended up being Indians. Therein lies the beauty of the pluralism that is India's soul.

The beauty of India is that it it apeing its former British rulers and current American allies and becoming a modern liberal democratic, capitalist, protestant state while retaining as much of its own past and traditions as is consistent with those ends. To the extent that Hinduism can be Reformed to focus more intently on its ultimate monotheistic grounding this process will be easier and more likely to succeed.

In what way have we precisely "aped" the British? Our system is federal- theirs unitary, our constitution is written- theirs unwritten, ours is a republic- theirs a constitutional monarchy, their secularsim is excluding all religions, ours is including all religions in the discourse.

In what way are Americans "allies"? US is much closer to Pakistan, the US Congress resists moves to transfer technology and armaments to India, the US opposes India's bid for a permanent membership of the UN Security Council, and the US is directly opposing India and the G-20 at the WTO.

You're proving with your every post your ostrich type mentality- your immunity to other people's arguments and sticking to a certain point in a debate. This is done merely to hide the emptiness of your own position.

How in the world is India Protestant? That must be one of the most hilarious statements I've ever heard of. Come and visit India- even the Christianity is India-nised.

With the capitalist bit, I cannot disagree. However, that cannot be attributed to Christian theology since entrepreneurship is one of the beneficiaries of the Enlightenment. As I said, you are rejecting and defending a model at the same time.

However, whether India will become a superpower or merely a great power will determine on our ability to forge a new ideology, the capacity of which is inherent in India.

Yes, we aped them in that way too.

We're allies against the Chinese and radical Islam as well as economically bound:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/india/

protestant with a small "p," not Protestant.

Note that the states influenced by the Enlightenment rather than the Reformation--France and those that folloewed its model--were not capitalistic, democratic, or protestant. They elevated Reason above faith.

India will become great if it follows its current path of becoming more and more like Anglo-America, but runs an obvious risk of devolving into its constituent parts.

Since you never read posts and just keep rambling on lines which have been long refuted and appear childish, let me suggest- Stop!

"We're allies against the Chinese"- This is a hilarious epitome of your foreign policy knowledge. Some Pentagon hawks would want India to be that way, yet it is too soon to tell whether India will play ball. A lot depends on your Congress, and whether it agrees to pass the law on nuclear co-operation.

So now you're against radical Islam? What made Islam radical? Is there a moderate form of Islam? So an Abrahamic religion CAN BE PLURALISTIC after all? Is that why the Reformation took place?

The place of theology in American polity is symbolic- the entire system works on the rationale which has its origins in the Enlightenment. Religion is but an electoral card.

So India's "current path" is Anglo-American, is it? What is that "path", when you yourself have rejected it and then adopted it? You've gone crazy.

China threatens India--it's an ally of the U.S. whether it wants to be or not. Ditto against Islam.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2005/08/eagle_tiger.html

Yes, the Reformation will change Islam just as it has changed Judaism and Catholicism and is changing Confucianism, Hinduism, etc.

Neither morality nor human dignity is rational. They are faith-based. That's why Judeo-Christian America has succeeded where rationalist Western Europe is a dump.

Yes, India is becoming more democratic, more capitalist and more protestant, even under the formerly Frenchified/rationalist/socialist Congress Party.

So India is a "forced ally"? Are you serious or delusional? I fear it may just be the latter.

The India-US partnership can be torpedoed by none other than your Congress. In any case, politicians in India are all-too aware of the cards they hold for America in Asia, with an increasingly hostile China and uneasy South Korea. Japan and India are the two countries the US is looking to work with. However, there is a long time to go before we start jumping to conclusions.

"Reformation will change Islam"- tell me, are you God? How can you predict things?

The Hindu Reformation- if thats how you call it- took place long before Christianity dawned on this planet. Buddhism and Jainism were the first movements that divulged from Brahminical orthodoxy, and in any case, the Loksatta and Carvaka sects (materialists) always existed. Then there were the "Dharma" movements of the middle ages. I am not ruling out the possibility of future movmenets- indeed it needs some- but to usher in the paternalistic call that "It will happen" is arrogant and illiterate.

Western Europe's failure can be attributed to economic policies and not theological ones. Britain's success is also explained by economic policies and the country is secular. Lest you start jumping up and down about Adam Smith, let me underline- AGAIN- that most of the economic rationality including Smith's came straight from the Enlightenment.

THERE IS NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE

And Taiwan, Mongolia, Russia, Australia, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Israel, Turkey, etc. There's a whole Axis of Good and India is a key part of it.

Because History has Ended.

Yes, Hinduism is readily reformable and will be Reformed.

The socialist economic policies are a function of following Enlightenment rationalism instead of the Judeo-Christian Anglo-American model. If you choose reason your society fails.

Your knowledge of geopolitics is worse than an illiterate. If Russia is part of an American axis, then I doubt that you even live on planet Earth. How do you account for increasing authoritarianism under Vladimir Putin? What about the close proximity Russia enjoys with Middle Eastern nations and China? Indonesia has its problems with fundamentalist Islam.

You fail to provide any reasoning behind your assertions even after they have been comprehensively refuted by arguments above. The Enlightenment and its insistence on rationality drives much of the capitalist economic thinking that developed out of it. Marxism and capitalism essentially have the same origins- they divulged as they developed. Remember Marx accepted conclusions drawn by Smith.

To call you an idiot is an understatement.

After seventy years of Bolshevism the Russians may need an authoritarian period to establish the kind of legal order and civil institutions that undergird democracy. Putin can be their Franco or Pinochet.

Marx believed all men were equal in fact and must remain equal throughout life, depending on the State to make them so. That is indeed rationalist and is the French/Enlightenment model.

The Anglo-American model proceeds from Judeo-Christianity instead--that all men are created morally equal by God but then chart their own paths through life by the exercise of their free will and moral choices.

So the Russians must have authoritarianism until you say so? Note that the Bush administration has been urging Moscow to reform itself politically. This puts you at odds with your own government which you venerate. So now you do concede that you consider yourself God.

God endowed rights has been mentioned equally strongly in the Declaration of the Rights of Man as well as the Declaration of Independence. The roots of both philosophies are the same- in the secular, rationalist, anti-clericalism that emerged out the Enlightenment. The current French model owes more to the de Gaulle's nationalism in the 1950s than to some early divergence that occured in the 18th century.

As far as I am concerned, checks and balances on rulers, and therefore rights to citizens have long been granted in Indian political philosophy through the idea of "Rajdharma".

No, the Russians will have a more authoritarian government until they feel secure.

You've stumbled into an insight again though. Jews and Christians don't venerate the state because the Messiah doesn't lead it. That's why the Anglo-American model works so well.

Russians "will have" dictatorhip "until they feel secure". How on earth can you stutter around with this kind of arrogance? Russian political system is taking its course, and there isn't much Washington can do at the moment.

Who said Indian philosophy venerate states? Checks and balances on rulers form the heart of the so-called Anglo-American model as well, only it came several millenia after its Indian counterpart. A check on the state is venerating the state?

There can be no greater individual God-given right than to allowing someone to choose his/her own path to God.

So when George W Bush won with less votes than Al Gore in 2000, the American system was "working"? What explains the lack of interest among voters which leads a mortal blow to the government's legitimacy in both Britain and the US? Surprisingly, a far poorer India has exceedingly high turnout rates, especially in rural areas.

Yes, our system worked exactly as it's designed to.

If you think your rights come from the state rather than God then you do venerate the state--that's the French model. India follows the British.

If your system is working exactly how it is designed to do, then is it faulty at the design? Surely the Foudning Fathers did not mean for more people to NOT have their representative as President. You make me laugh- at least reflect on what you're saying before you post.

We may or may not believe rights come from God, but for all practical purposes it is the state that protects or violates them. God hasn't intervened to prevent state-led draconianism so far, and he wouldn't do that in the future too.

Just so you know, if you translate the Sanskrit word "Dharma" into English, it means religion or a set of moral beliefs. If "Rajdharma" is the duties of the King, then it naturally follows that he is meant to protect the rights of his citizens to maintain the divine blessings on his rule.

So essentially democracy is inherent in India's past, long before people left caves in Europe.

Yes, they did. They didn't give women the vote for instance and set up a republic of representative, not direct, democracy.

By the way, I stronly approve of the way you reread Indian history to make the Anglo-American/judeo-Christian system seem oirganic--it's exactly what I was suggesting by Reformation.

So what am I supposed to understand from your defence of the Founding Fathers' ideals? That slavery and deprivation of women is justified? If not, then you will perhaps argue that it is the essence of the American system that has allowed these evils to be corrected over the years. Even if we concede that, it in no way establishes the American model as a first attempt at a socio-political model. For example, women in ancient India were actively engaged in debating important issues of law and philosophy with leading scholars (male) of society. Even self-declared bigots were forced to argue with women due to the laws that prevailed in the land.

While I am re-reading Indian philosophy, I am not in any way defending the Anglo-American model. I do recognise that there are certain attractive features of this system, but I also believe that there are certain flaws. My aim is to point out that such qualities readily championed by neo-cons like yourself existed much further in history- earlier than even Greece and Rome- in India.

You're preaching to the choir, buddy. India was at the End of History a thousand years ago and just needs to return there.

That is another commonly held misconception. India (and China too) was in no way behind- technologically or otherwise than the European powers until as late as 1800, after which the Westphalian state system proved too strong for China's ancient emperors and India's bickering monarchs. The Industrious Revolution (precursor to Industrial Revolution) was experienced in India many long years before the Scientific Revolution in Europe. Proximity to coal and ready annexation of colonies by Britain provided it with the engine with which to drive forward its industrial machine.

Indian philosophy and politics has been largely ignored thus far because of the commonly held perception of the extreme religiosity associated with India. While that is true, these religious doctrines are inextricably intertwined with complex political philosophies that no one has bothered to study thoroughly.

Keep in mind- you still haven't been able to refute numerous arguments which prove the emptiness of the universal concurrence of belief systems around the so-called Judeo-Christian ideal. It is an empty concept because in your own arguments lies the contradiction.

However, if you are not prepared to revisit your earlier fallacies, we should call it a day.

At the point where you're arguing that Judeo-Christian beliefs just adopt Indian ones I agree it's time to stop. I approve your project wholeheartedly.

Be well.