Every religion has its own brand of craziness. None is exempt.
Why? Because the very notion of supernaturalism is crazy, since there is zero, repeat zero, demonstrable evidence that gods, angels, souls, heaven, hell, or any other supernatural entity exists.
When I was younger I used to believe that Hinduism was a bit more appealing than, say, Christianity, because it wasn't as dogmatic a religion. However, as I began reading about Hindu nationalism in India, I came to realize that many fundamentalist Hindus are just as crazy as their counterparts in other religions.
Case in point: a New York Times story, "Her Visit to a Men-Only Temple Went Smoothly. Then the Riots Started." Here's some excerpts that show how bizarre and dangerous Hinduism can be.
KOCHI, India — One morning this month, Bindu Ammini stood at the base of a steep, forested trail in southern India and looked up: She was a three-mile hike away from making history.
Two hours later, at 3:45 a.m., Ms. Ammini and a friend became the first women to enter the Sabarimala Temple, a centuries-old Hindu shrine, after India’s Supreme Court struck down a longstanding rule preventing women of menstruating age from visiting.
In the wake of that ruling, a dozen women tried in October to climb a slippery path leading to the temple. None of them made it, as men screamed in their faces and hurled coconuts.
Video of Ms. Ammini’s journey on Jan. 2 shows two women in long black gowns striding through a gilded archway. They maneuver past mostly placid men. “Our visit has been very smooth,” Ms. Ammini, 40, says to the camera.
A few hours later, the rest of India woke up. Pandemonium followed.
Protesters in the state of Kerala, where the shrine is, threw crude bombs at the police. Over 3,000 people were arrested. At least one person was killed. Dozens more were injured.
Within hours of the women’s trip, a priest had shut down the Sabarimala Temple to sprinkle water for a “purification ritual,” evidence to some that the ban was rooted in a belief that menstruating women were dirty.
Wow. This story makes Christianity look positively tame in comparison to Hinduism. Christians believe in a lot of unbelievable stuff, but at least they aren't prone to rioting when someone supposedly defiles a holy place.
And while the Biblical god can be nasty, at least that divinity doesn't discriminate against women of menstruating age.
Every year, millions of people wait for hours to climb the 18 gold-plated steps leading to the Sabarimala Temple, one of Hinduism’s holiest shrines. For centuries, however, pilgrims say they have observed a de facto bar against women between the ages of 10 and 50, thinking that to allow menstruating women inside would disturb the temple’s celibate deity, Lord Ayyappa.
I found the last part of the New York Times story inspiring. It takes a lot of courage to stand up against religious extremism. I admire the women in India who are doing this.
New challenges await the women. The Supreme Court plans to consider review petitions, though lawyers do not expect a reversal of the verdict. Earlier this week, after the women left a safe house, Ms. Kanakadurga’s mother-in-law beat her so badly with a piece of wood, she said, that she was hospitalized.
Ms. Ammini said she was realistic about her safety, fretting about a recent ominous “silence” in Kerala. But the way forward — “to serve the society, work with Dalits, women, for blacks” — had never been plainer or more urgent, she said.
“They may attack me, they may kill me, but I feel no fear,” she said. “I am struggling for existence.”
This sort of stuff is crazy, but I feel like humans only have the choice between different types of craziness. And to these people who are angry about the women at the temple, it's about protecting culturally binding traditions and a social order, not the sanctity of ritual purity. And the women probably just like attention. There are 10,000 other temples they could walk to.
Here in USA the prevailing religion is that of "science," freedom and individuality, and this has morphed into this weird cult that celebrates a major magazine publishing pictures of a 9 year old "drag queen" standing with a naked man. We're told that we have to accept this, and like those women going to the temple, any resistance to the sexualization of small boys will be met with harassment, maybe violence, and likely loss of livelihood because "bigotry is bad" or something.
The protests here usually involve insane women with genitalia imagery attached to their heads ranting about their choices. Not their choice to abstain from sex or to have sex with who they want, but to kill the consequence of sex and actually avoid the responsibility of choices. Another insanity of the modern world.
Sure, we are no longer a religious people, but we're equally insane, and we don't even have a social order we're trying to protect anymore. It's just an insane asylum whose inhabitants have tons of money and weapons to try to force everyone else to live like us. Or else.
Posted by: Jesse | January 19, 2019 at 08:42 AM
Another thing that I find interesting is that while there are numerous women-only spaces all over India and the whole world ,including temples on various occasions, why is it that men aren't out protesting for rights to enter those temples, or to enter the women-only trains?
Pretending like it's a fundamental human right for women to enter any space they want is retarded. This is especially true when it comes to religion. If these women are so religious, why are they going out of their way to contact media and make a show out of flouting the rules of their own religion?
In Canada, feminist activists went out of their way to shut down a shelter for men who were victims of abuse, and when speakers came to universities to talk about similar issues of men being abused, attendees were physically attacked, bomb threats were sent in, and the events often got shut down.
Yet nobody in the mainstream decried these women as crazy extremists. It was all packaged with labels of "progress" and whatever keywords the news attaches to its pet projects.
“They may attack me, they may kill me, but I feel no fear,” she said. “I am struggling for existence.”
Would she have died had she gone to one of the other trillion temples within one mile of that one? It's doubtful that this was about "existence."
In short, I don't buy this story at all. Totally manufactured and fake, like the entire social justice movement is, along with its fake black people like Shaun King
Posted by: Jesse | January 19, 2019 at 09:02 AM
As I understand the issue of women not being allowed to enter Sabarimala Sree Dharmasastha Temple of the God Lord Ayyappan is to do with women being unclean during menstruation – and of course religious patriarchy. Women and men are devotees of Lord Ayyappan but unlike many pilgrimages for devotees around the world does not allow women of menstrual age to pilgrimage and enter Sabarimala.
This is not a new issue for Sabarimala, it started around thirty years ago after a complaint that women were entering the temple and followed by a petition.
It all smacks of the struggles here in the west regarding women's right to vote, become clergy etc. Sadly – even in western countries – women are considered inferior and have always struggled for their rights. We're a very long way from living together intelligently, even though we know the reasons why not.
Posted by: Turan | January 20, 2019 at 05:00 AM
Hey, Jesse. Good to see you backing up your position with clear cogent argument this time round.
At one level what you say makes sense. A superficial reading of the situation does seem to throw up a double standard.
However, you seem to overlook the obvious resolution to this apparent double standard: namely, the centuries of oppression that lends context to these things. Women have been oppressed by us men over centuries, millennia, not just individually but systemically, and our patriarchal systems reflect this abuse. Similarly, whites have oppressed blacks and people of color over the last few centuries, again not just individually but systemically, and many of our systems reflect this organized abuse. A correction has been long due, and well deserved.
Do these corrections overcarry at times? Sure they do! Are there never instances of imbalance on the other side? Of course there are! You rightly point out some instances in your arguments. But it is important to view these instances of overcarry and/or imbalance in context of past systemic abuse. Not doing that presents to us a fractured and incomplete picture.
It is context of this background that I myself -- for what that is worth -- fully support women's efforts to win back public space from patriarchy, no matter where in the world they do this. And it is this same context that makes me far less vocal in supporting occasional areas where there seems to have occurred an overcarry and/or imbalance -- even as I recognize that your argument does have substance, at one level.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | January 20, 2019 at 07:14 AM
Oh, moderation's back here, is it? Last time I'd commented here, a couple weeks back it was I think, there had been no moderation. The crazy comments came back again when you lifted the filters, is it, Brian? My sympathies! I'm sure having to moderate/vet each and every comment must be a pain!
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | January 20, 2019 at 07:20 AM
Quote, from the article in Brian's post:
"as men screamed in their faces and hurled coconuts"
Hilarious!
Why the f*** coconuts, of all things? Sure, a coconut hit to the head can do real damage, so sure, the people doing this should be locked away for attempted assault/battery/murder/whatever-might-be-appropriate : but still, this description presents a hilarious picture!
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | January 20, 2019 at 07:32 AM
AP, you're so stupid it hurts me. Everything you say is like a recital of school books and whatever TV deems to be the proper opinion du jour. How are women physically attacking men and preventing them from having a shelter to escape abuse examples of them somehow dismantling this non-existent patriarchy? I'll answer myself- it doesn't. You just want to say that line because you hear it everywhere and your quiet brain says "people say this is right. Therefore I also think it's right."
Don't ever respond to anything I say. I seriously and truly hate you and think you should be imprisoned for your dangerous ability to not think about anything, and instead follow state orders from the television.
Simply saying the word "systematic racism" in this context is like losing all points immediately. Everything you say after that is void. You're an NPC, a non-thinking, non-sentient bag of meat.
Jesse
Posted by: Jesse | January 21, 2019 at 07:15 AM
Quote Jesse:
“AP, you're so stupid it hurts me.”
Projection much, Jesse? You are unable to understand ‘X’, therefore ‘X’ must necessarily be wrong, hm? You are unable to parse my argument, therefore my argument must necessarily be wrong, and that in turn must necessarily be because the person presenting the argument is stupid, eh? That’s how it functions, right, the thought process within what passes for a brain with you?
Wow, you’re, like, a living breathing illustration for the Dunning Kruger meme!
Quote Jesse further:
“How are women physically attacking men and preventing them from having a shelter to escape abuse examples of them somehow dismantling this non-existent patriarchy?”
It isn’t.
It is the Hindu women that Brian writes about in his post, who are attempting to wrest back that temple from the Hindu patriarchy, that would be the textbook example of this. That is what I support, despite the contrary examples you yourself proffer. For reasons already explained, very clearly, in my original comment.
Re-read my original comment in light of this explanation, and you’ll realize how stupid was your comprehension error, and how misguided your attempt at a take-down basis your foggy understanding of what is being said here.
“You just want to say that line because you hear it everywhere and your quiet brain says "people say this is right. Therefore I also think it's right."”
You really can’t help projecting, can you? Irrespective, I hope you’ve now understood your elementary comprehension error, now that I’ve explained it for you just now in single-syllable words?
“Don't ever respond to anything I say.”
Yeah, I know, responding to crazies like you is not a very productive use of time. Thank you for reminding me not to get carried away and wasting too much of my time on you, like I’d done in the past.
In my defense, I’d found your original comment here logical. Your POV was unusual and somewhat outre, nevertheless you seemed to be arguing for it quite logically, presenting rational reasons backing your POV. That is what I’d addressed.
It’s been some time since our less than cordial exchanges in the past, and I didn’t think you’d still carry, after all this while, the bitterness from the whipping I’d (figuratively) delivered to your backside then. Bygones be bygones as far as I’m concerned, and I imagined that is how it would be with you as well. You’d presented a logical rational argument this time, and I made a rational logical counter-argument in response, and presented it to you courteously, that’s all.
And now? I’m responding again to you, this time, because I’m enjoying prodding you and seeing you jump.
Except: I don’t really have to prod you at all, do I, Jesse, in order for you to jump? I simply made a perfectly courteous comment last time, proffering a logical counter-argument to you. It is you who read my comment, then yourself did the equivalent of picking up a stick lying near you, then prodding yourself in the ass with it, deep and hard, and then jumping around and howling at the hurt.
That’s both pathetic and hilarious. You, Jesse, present a spectacle that is simultaneously sorry and entertaining.
As long as your hilarity-component outweighs your pathetic-component, I’ll keep responding to you. Until, of course, I get bored with seeing you jump and flail around, and deem your contortions a waste of my time. As long as I find this exchange entertaining, I’ll keep responding to you. I hope you don’t mind? (Not that it matters in the least if you do!)
“I seriously and truly hate you”
You realize, don’t you, Jesse, that this not a very sane thing to feel or to say?
Hatred can be perfectly justified at times. Hatred per se isn’t necessarily insane or irrational. But this crazy unprovoked hatred for random people you exchange comments with online?
You’ve expressed exactly this kind of crazy hatred in the past for Manjit (remember your unbelievable I’ll-go-laugh-at-Manjit’s-funeral comment?) ; and for One Initiated as well ; and for Spencer and Dungeness also if I remember correctly. Not very sane, is it, this sort of thing?
You’re crazy, your realize that, don’t you, Jesse? Maybe not certifiable crazy, but almost certainly not fully sane either.
Perhaps a visit to the doctor? Perhaps some nice soothing meds? Seriously, think about it.
“you should be imprisoned for your dangerous ability to not think about anything, and instead follow state orders from the television”
You’re literally gibbering here. Even in your current unstable and not entirely healthy state of mind, surely you can recognize the above for the literally crazy nonsense it is?
The doctor, Jesse. A visit is more than due.
“Simply saying the word "systematic racism" in this context is like losing all points immediately. Everything you say after that is void.”
Don’t be silly. Of course it isn’t. It only appears that way to you because you’re incapable of thinking this through clearly.
Except: your original comment was logical. That tells me that rational thought per se isn’t beyond you. It is only your insane and unaccountable anger/frustration/hatred/God-knows-what-else, that so clouds your thinking, that probably keeps you from thinking straight.
Read back what I’d said, in my original comment. You’ll find that I’d made perfect sense. You may or may not agree with my POV -- that is a different matter -- but if you continue to think, after re-reading my comment, that simply saying “systemic racism” in this context necessarily nullifies the argument itself, then I strongly suggest, once again, a visit to the doctor, for whatever it is that ails you.
“You're an NPC, a non-thinking, non-sentient bag of meat.”
Your capacity for projection takes one’s breath away. Do you see the irony in your describing me as an NPC?
It is you who have made an elementary error in comprehension, as I’ve clearly shown here just now. And around that blatant strawman you’ve built up this entire edifice of your singularly stupid and misguidedly aggressive rejoinder/counter-argument. It is you who have shown yourself incapable of cogent rational thought, in your comment addressed to me.
It is you who -- as clearly demonstrated -- are the trigger-junkie, responding without cogent thought to things and words and phrases that set off your trigger, as you unthinkingly follow the programming and the modes of thought and response that have been fed to you.
You probably imagine you’re all edgy and radical and everything, Jesse, but all you are is intellectually challenged. You’re nothing but a brainwashed dupe, parroting the crazy dogma fed to you by your racist sexist friends and idols, wholly incapable yourself of cogent thought or rational discourse. In a word, stupid. No matter how hard you try to deflect the issue with your egregious incivility, that is something you cannot hide.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | January 22, 2019 at 04:45 AM