that all semitic religions (incl marxism) suck big time is well known.
there is basically no difference among them all. the oldest ones have mellowed a little because they have been beaten and bruised so much by their more recent offspring, that's all. otherwise jews are quite bigoted, and i suspect zoroastrians would be, if they were not oppressed by mohdans.
i categorize them as:
paleo-semitic: zoroastrianism, judaism
meso-semitic: christism, mohammedanism
neo-semitic: marxism, maoism, 'dravidianism', 'arjun-singh-ism', 'dalitism' etc etc etc
in fact, inventing a new neo-semitic religion is a surefire way of making money these days. just ask paul dhinakaran, that detestable, oily bloke who appears on indian tv.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Indian elixir for the world as 'saffron evil' in India
Does monotheism -- belief in a single, omniscient God - impede globalism? If it does what other kind of religion or God will be compatible with globalism? Here is likely an interesting debate.
For over a decade the world has been debating about clashes among civilisations powered by religions. Samuel Huntington triggered this debate in the year 1993 foreseeing clashes emerging between orthodox Islam and modern West.
For many in the West the Islamist attack on the World Trade Centre was validation of Huntington eight years later.
The West viewed 'illiberal' Islam as incompatible with 'liberal' West. And this incompatibility was seen as the source of the emerging civilisational clashes.
Since the 9/11 terror, this debate, premised on Islam as the bad boy and the West as its victim has dominated the world, particularly the West.
But this debate now seems to be moving up, logically, to another level. Slowly some in the West seem to feel that the debate should not be limited to merely examining the clash between the 'liberal' West and the 'illiberal' Islam.
Says Jean-Pierre Lehmann, the advisor to Dr Supachai Panitchpakdi, the previous head of the World Trade Organisation, that organised, monotheistic religions as a class - that is not just Islam but also Christianity - are incompatible with globalism.
Presently Professor of International Political Economy at the International Institute of Management Development in Switzerland, Lehmann heads the Evan Group, a global think-tank composed of government, industry and opinion leaders from Asia, Europe and the US.
Asserting that there is link between monotheistic religions and violence and intolerance, Lehmann points out that 'monotheistic religions have caused so much turmoil throughout history - and continue to do so even now'. He sees 'a new global ethical and spiritual model' as today's need.
He sees - what will shock, even shame, the seculars here at home - India as the best candidate to supply that model to the world!
In a provocative article in 'the Globalist', a daily on-line magazine, he makes some profound points on globalisation and religions.
He says that both Christianity and Islam, the fountainhead of monotheism, have been hijacked by fundamentalists.
He argues that for progress of human civilisation all organised religions have to be eradicated by persuasive secular humanism, but admits that people cannot live without God or religions.
His suggestion is 'rather than eradicating religion per se, 'we should instead eradicate monotheistic religion in favour of polytheistic religion'.
Why prefer polytheism - the worship of many Gods - over monotheism?
He answers: 'If you have only one god, and you believe that god is all powerful and omniscient and you come across someone who does not agree, then you may feel it is your duty to kill him.
If, on the other hand, you believe there are hundreds, indeed thousands of Gods, and that none can be totally almighty or omniscient, then you are likely to be far more tolerant'.
Precisely for this, Lehmann looks to the only surviving polytheistic society in India as the hope for the world.
For him India because of 'its remarkable ability to have managed multiculturalism to such a brilliant extent' is a living illustration of how globalisation can work.
What has made this possible is obvious. Hindus have millions of Gods to worship. Divergent Gods are inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable.
Hindu Gods are related by marriage and other relations. Such vast range of inter-related Gods to worship itself has ruled out clashes among the followers in the name of the only God without a second.
Lehmann admits that 'India is not a Utopia' and has its own problems of inequality part of which, he says, is sanctioned by religion.
Yet asserts that the 'global environment is desperate for ideas, philosophy and religion'.
'India is the most prolific birthplace of all three' due to 'the great synergy of democracy and diversity' and greater degree of 'self-confidence' in Indians now'. He adds 'Indians and members of the enormous Indian Diaspora are thought leaders in economics, business, philosophy, political science, religion and literature'.
He asserts that 'the Indian religious and philosophical traditions can provide' the 'sense of moral order, spirituality and an ethical compass' which the world desperately needs.
Recalling his conversation with an Indian religious guru Lehmann says, 'I could adhere to his religious tenets' and still 'maintain my secular convictions', which, he says, 'no imam or priest would allow'.
For him Indian philosophic traditions are secularism-compatible and monotheism is not.
Lehmann asserts that the planet needs an alternative geographical force to the American Christian fundamentalist thinking that drives the Bush establishment. Who could be that alternative?
Europe being 'spent force' and China 'dictatorship', he rules them out as alternatives. He disqualifies the Islamic world as it is going through, putting it mildly, an 'awkward moment'.
That is how he zeroes in on 'the important role India must play both because of its innate qualities and also because there no other serious contender'.
He hopes that 'the 21st century better becomes the century inspired by the virtues of Indian polytheism'.
Else, he warns, 'We are headed for disaster'. This is precisely what Arnold Toynbee, the famous historian, said decades back.
But, ironically, as Lehmann looks to Indian polytheism to save the world, the 'seculars' here condemn it as 'saffron poison'.
Thus what according to Lehmann is the elixir for the survival of the world is evil for India and the world according to our seculars! How positive he is and how perverse they are.