• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hindu extremists protest 114 foot tall Jesus statue

Should this statue go up or not?

  • Yes, it should go up

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • No, it should not go up

    Votes: 20 80.0%

  • Total voters
    25

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
How are these extremists? The article mentions they are in India, but does not indicate they are among those protesting this statue,
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Reading other sources because I assumed the source in the OP is biased, it turns out that the ones protesting include the right wing BJP 114-ft Christ statue planned in Shivakumar bastion sparks BJP, RSS protest

The equivalent in US terms is a group of Muslims wanting to create a gigantic mosque in Alabama. I know what would happen here.

Do they have the right to put up that statue - yes according to the laws of India. Will there be severe violence if they continue? That's the question I have.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
Of course the website - The Christian Post - is biased. And while that single village might be Christian majority, Karnataka itself is 84.2% Hindu.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Of course the website - The Christian Post - is biased. And while that single village might be Christian majority, Karnataka itself is 84.2% Hindu.
So are you proposing Hindu statues should not be allowed on private lands in non-Hindu countries?
If you are you are still calling for the end to pluralism and coexistence with all the downsides of such a call but at least that would be consistent of you
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
So are you proposing Hindu statues should not be allowed on private lands in non-Hindu countries?
If you are you are still calling for the end to pluralism and coexistence with all the downsides of such a call but at least that would be consistent of you
Hey, do me a favor and don't put words in my mouth. Or make baseless accusations of what is or isn't "consistent" of me. Ad Hominem isn't really the greatest way to start a discussion, daniel.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
The fact that the majority of the state is not Christian, and opposes a 114 foot tall statue of Jesus. Point being that the Hindus are not the extremists in this incident, and rather the article should be titled "Christian Extremists plan to erect imposing statue". What happens in other countries is neither here nor there to this discussion, so your red herring / strawman is absolutely invalid. Nor have my views ever been to oppose pluralism and coexistence, so your ad hominem is baseless and unwarranted.

It's really sad when logical fallacies get thrown out this early in a discussion/debate, yet here we are.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The fact that the majority of the state is not Christian, and opposes a 114 foot tall statue of Jesus. Point being that the Hindus are not the extremists in this incident, and rather the article should be titled "Christian Extremists plan to erect imposing statue". What happens in other countries is neither here nor there to this discussion, so your red herring / strawman is absolutely invalid. Nor have my views ever been to oppose pluralism and coexistence, so your ad hominem is baseless and unwarranted.
It's really sad when logical fallacies get thrown out this early in a discussion/debate, yet here we are.
Actually proposing that the majority get to dictate the religious usage of private land is to - in practice - oppose pluralism and coexistence.

The relevance of what goes on in other countries is to see if you would have your own standards applied consistently even in situations where such standards would go against you.

Ad hominem is a character attack and I have not attacked your character, only what I perceive to be your arguments.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
Actually proposing that the majority get to dictate the religious usage of private land is to - in practice - oppose pluralism and coexistence.
Firstly, the Archdiocese does not legally own the land. Land Records show that the area in which the statue is proposed to be built is designated as grazing lands owned by the state. The Archdiocese has simply used the land for centuries, but this does not make it theirs.

Secondly, let's look at some definitions. Pluralism: "A condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, sources of authority, etc., coexist." Coexistence: "The state or fact of living or existing at the same time or in the same place." I want you to find me where I said that Christians shouldn't live there, because that's the only statement that would be in opposition to the two ideologies. But good luck with that, as I've never stated it.

Thirdly, an entity having private land does not guarantee that they are able to do whatever they want with that land. Construction efforts in particular must often be up to regulations and government-outlined guidelines. Even if the Archdiocese owned the land - which again, legally they do not - they do not become sovereign territory.

The relevance of what goes on in other countries is to see if you would have your own standards applied consistently even in situations where such standards would go against you.
You're assuming on my standards, and the divergence of this red herring is irrelevant to the discussion currently. If you'd like to start another thread on the topic, be my guest. But I won't be entertaining it further here.

Ad hominem is a character attack and I have not attacked your character, only what I perceive to be your arguments.
Uh, no. You said that opposing pluralism and coexistence would be "consistent for me". An odd accusation, as I can't remember the last time we've interacted, and it's been months if not a year since I've been really active on this forum, daniel. So all in all it's a baseless, blindly shot character attack not relevant to any argument I've made. Try again. Or better yet, don't.
 

Jedster

Well-Known Member
India is hostile to non-HIndu religions. It needs to pick up on the idea of religious freedom as an aspect of modern democracy. This statue is to be on private land. If it were a statue of Khali they would have no problem. 'Nuff said.

Your first sentence surprises me, coming from a Jewish person. Haven't you ever met any Indian Jews.?
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Your first sentence surprises me, coming from a Jewish person. Haven't you ever met any Indian Jews.?
I've not met any Indian Jews. But the persecution of Muslims by Hindus (and vice versa) is well known. Wikipedia has an entire page devoted to the persecution of Christians by Hindus.
 
Last edited:

Jedster

Well-Known Member
I've not met any Indian Jews. But the persecution of Muslims by Hindus (and vice versa) is well known.

One of the first friends I made when I went on aliyah, was with an Indian Jew(who could read feet as well as palms!).
I have known and know many Indian Jews, who have never complained about living in India.
I hope you get a chance to meet some Indian Jews to ask them if Hindus have been hostile.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Firstly, the Archdiocese does not legally own the land. Land Records show that the area in which the statue is proposed to be built is designated as grazing lands owned by the state. The Archdiocese has simply used the land for centuries, but this does not make it theirs.
But it makes them lawful tenants with the right to decorate as they see fit. The owner knew they were allowing a church to be there.
 
Top