• 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

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
In my mind, the question is not whether the congregation has the right to erect the statue, but whether it is tactful to do so. In a climate of growing Hindu fanaticism I would advocate for something much more modest. Needlessly provoking non-Christian majorities is something that should be avoided in my opinion.

I agree with the Hindus for below reason:
“We will not allow a statue of Jesus to be erected at Kapalabetta. They are trying to make it a Christian land just like Pakistan is a Muslim state,” he added.

Statue of Jesus is no problem
Christian intention is the problem = proselytizing
According to the link, the statue is the problem though. On the basis of a suspiciously convenient belief that a Hindu deity happens to dwell on the proposed site. Regardless, the notion that the presence of Christianity is somehow a threat to the India's Hindu majority is a paranoid fantasy. Christianity has been in India for a very long time and has converted but a tiny sliver of the population. Islam has had more success due to centuries of political dominance, but that's hardly the fault of the Christians.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
There has been a rise in atrocities against the lower castes ever since the hindu nationalist government came in. There are also issues with Christians and muslims.

However there is also a violent past between the Hindus and Christians in the form of the Goan Inquisition and others. This is the main issue.

The Bahai's imposing Lotus Temple in Delhi did not meet any resistance even though they are a prosleytising religion because there were no such past issues between the Hindus and Bahais.
 

ajay0

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.

India is the only nation on earth along with Turkey, which has never persecuted its Jewish population, which has found refuge and thrived in India for centuries.

Similarly the Zoroastrians were granted refuge in India by the Hindus after the arab invasion of Persia, and they and their temples and culture exists to this day intact in India.

Similarly with Bahai refugees escaping islamic persecution in Iran have found refuge in India.

Having said that I must say that there is a strain of intolerance in Hindu society as well.

The Arya Samaj and Buddhism faced heavy resistance from orthodox Hindu society for their teachings proclaiming the equality and fraternity of all human beings and criticizing casteism and casteist discrimination.

The Prajapita Brahmakumaris also faced heavy resistance and violence from chauvinistic Hindu society for their teachings that empowered women as leaders and teachers in religious society, rather than being confined to the four walls of the house as illiterate and submissive child rearing machines.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
It could be a sign from god. Afterall....

Exodus 20:4-6
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Just saying.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
According to the link, the statue is the problem though.

No. This is the major problem.
"We want to stop (the statue), since it goes against the spirit of communal harmony and encourages religious conversions which is rampantly carried out by Christian missionaries," Prabhakar Bhat, a top RSS functionary, told Indian media.

I was in India for 10 years in an Ashram. They had a stadion with all kinds of statues. Christians wanted Jesus, so the Master gave Jesus statue. Buddha, Shiva, Zoroaster and other statues all together in a huge stadion.

No problem for the ca. 1 million Hindus who came there every birthday celebration. The teaching of the Master was simple "all Religions can lead to God". Such teaching makes all the difference.

Christians evangelizing cause irritation and aggression in the world. That is a fact,
 
Last edited:

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
In my mind, the question is not whether the congregation has the right to erect the statue, but whether it is tactful to do so.

I agree. It seems like erecting a huge statue is more of a form of proselytizing. They may have a right, but that doesn't mean they have the right intention.

I mean, this thing would be bigger than the Christ the Reedemer statue. It would be unnecessarily visible for a small Christian village.

The article suggested there was a cross previously on the site. Seems like that would be a fair compromise. Folks gotta be good neighbors.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Christians evangelizing cause irritation and aggression in the world. That is a fact
Look, I agree that such a large statue is untactful, especially in the current climate. But I don't buy the hysterical claims that Christians (with or without missionaries) are a threat to Indian Hinduism. What is causing irritation and aggression is the tacit approval of fanaticism by a government in thrall to Hindutva ideologues.
 
Last edited:

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
But I don't buy the hysterical claims that Christians (with or without missionaries) are a threat to Indian Hinduism. What is causing irritation and aggression is the tacit approval of fanaticism by a government in thrall to Hindutva ideologues.
Christianophobia and Islamophobia have the same root, populism or the abuse of human fears to gain political power. India is not another Israel that only Hindus should belong there and the rest should be discriminated against. Besides that, it goes against the deeper spirit of Hinduism to discriminate along religious lines.

On the other hand, religions should stop building ever bigger houses of worship or statues, they serve no spiritual purpose and detract from what true spirituality is about.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Look, I agree that such a large statue is untactful, especially in the current climate. But I don't buy the hysterical claims that Christians (with or without missionaries) are a threat to Indian Hinduism. What is causing irritation and aggression is the tacit approval of fanaticism by a government in thrall to Hindutva ideologues.
You underestimate the damage evangelizing does
It is not about a threat to Hinduism
It is about belittling other religion
Telling others they go to Hell

What you tell someone who tells you "You can (or worse you will) go to Hell"
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Besides that, it goes against the deeper spirit of Hinduism to discriminate along religious lines.

As does religious exclusivity.

On the other hand, religions should stop building ever bigger houses of worship or statues, they serve no spiritual purpose and detract from what true spirituality is about.

Correct.

The only reason I see that any religion would erect a statue of such proportion is to display superiority.
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
You underestimate the damage evangelizing does
It is not about a threat to Hinduism
It is about belittling other religion
Telling others they go to Hell

What you tell someone who tells you "You can (or worse you will) go to Hell"
You cannot stop religious dogma by force, but only by education.
Groups of people have also converted to Buddhism and Christianity in India because they were belittled and disadvantaged by Hindu caste discrimation.
Of course I would rather see those people join a caste-free Tantra-Yoga group rather than become dogmatic types of Christians, but people follow their own samskara's.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
YOU ALL ARE MISSING A BIG POINT.

It is a political donation.
Sivakumar was a Congress minister. He is involved in various money scams and is under investigation. In December, there was a crucial bye-election in Karnataka for 15 constituencies. The so-called Hindu party, BJP, had to win 6 seats to retain a majority, it got 12. The land was donated at that time to influence the elections. Now that the state is ruled by BJP, the party will oppose what Sivakumar did.

First thing is to know whether the land belonged to Sivakumar and it was not acquired from the proceeds of his scams. If that is proved, then his donation will be ultra-vires and the ownership of the land will revert to the government. So, jumping to conclusions is not correct.

And as Ragin Pagan said if the land is listed in the records as grazing land, then how come Sivakumar donated it? Sure, we have land use laws also. Village grazing land (Gram Sabha land) is unalienable. And finally, if the ownership of the land is proved to belong to the Church, the courts will permit it to build the Jesus statue. No government can go against the court order. India is a law-abiding country.
 
Last edited:

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
YOU ALL ARE MISSING A BIG POINT.

It is a political donation.
Sivakumar was a Congress minister. He is involved in various money scams and is under investigation. In December, there was a crucial bye-election in Karnataka for 15 constituencies. The so-called Hindu party, BJP, had to win 6 seats to retain a majority, it got 12. The land was donated at that time to influence the elections. Now that the state is ruled by BJP, the party will oppose what Sivakumar did.

First thing is to know whether the land belonged to Sivakumar and it was not acquired from the proceeds of his scams. If that is proved, then his donation will be ultra-vires and the ownership of the land will revert to the government. So, jumping to conclusions is not correct.

And as Raging said if the land is listed as grazing land, then how come Sivakumar donated it or even permitted its use by the church?

Reading up on him, it appears there was some illegal granite mining by this guy. The statue happens to be made of granite...
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
You underestimate the damage evangelizing does
It is not about a threat to Hinduism
It is about belittling other religion
Telling others they go to Hell
If Hinduism is compelling on its own terms, then that Christianity makes exclusivist claims is a non-issue.

What you tell someone who tells you "You can (or worse you will) go to Hell"
Millions of people around the world believe I'm liable to end up in Hell for being Catholic. But I have confidence in the truth of my own faith, so I'm not bothered.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium 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.
Hostile? It welcomed Christians really early, has been safe refuge for many persecuted groups for a very long time, even granting these groups special rights. What Hindus want is fair play, not special rights.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
If Hinduism is compelling on its own terms, then that Christianity makes exclusivist claims is a non-issue.


Millions of people around the world believe I'm liable to end up in Hell for being Catholic. But I have confidence in the truth of my own faith, so I'm not bothered.
I see now why you avoid the point I was making. You are a Catholic giving up evangelism you can't. I told my mother (who could not believe a non Christian person could ever be happy) age 10, that evangelism is not correct . I never read the Bible, nor interested in Church; I just felt it inside.

So, I agree to disagree on this one.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
You underestimate the damage evangelizing does
It is not about a threat to Hinduism
It is about belittling other religion
Telling others they go to Hell

What you tell someone who tells you "You can (or worse you will) go to Hell"

It's causes so much pain, all over. Divorces, pitting brother against brother, son against parents, neighbour against neighbour. The subtle side effects of it are visible all around you in Indian society. The sad thing is that when two cultures clash, the most aggressive one wins, and in this case it's been very one sided, as the Christians allow aggression (in proselytising). Fortunately there are some Hindus who have finally seen through it, and thought "Uh-oh, what have we done?" and are now taking more defensive steps.

Sadly, the root of the problem has been that Hindus have been too nice.
 
Last edited:
Christians evangelizing cause irritation and aggression in the world. That is a fact,

It is also a fact that there are massive differences between different groups of Christians when it comes to evangelising in the developing world.

By far the worst offenders tend to be evangelical Protestants, often with ties to US groups, and it is true that they are not always particularly ethical in this regard.

I don't know anything about the Catholic Church in India, but thinking in terms of a singular unit of 'Christians' when it covers many diverse groups with completely different approaches is somewhat misleading.

"We want to stop (the statue), since it goes against the spirit of communal harmony and encourages religious conversions which is rampantly carried out by Christian missionaries," Prabhakar Bhat, a top RSS functionary, told Indian media.

I would also be highly sceptical of taking quotes like this at face value. This is exactly what someone would say were they a hardliner who was wanting to stop it out of prejudice (and the RSS is a hardline group).

"Communal harmony" is often a euphemism for "this is our land, not yours", and isn't part of a reciprocal arrangement of mutual respect. It requires the minority to accept the will of the majority at all times, often underwritten with an implicit threat of violence.


The article in the OP certainly has some Christian spin applied to it. Educate yourselves, people.

Unholy Row

I don't know anything about this case specifically, but laws like this are commonly used to discriminate against religious minorities in developing countries:

Revenue minister R. Ashoka has flayed the 'illegal' construction of the statue. "They (the trust) have laid a road to the site without approvals. Electricity to the site has been supplied without permission. A probe has been ordered into the matter. We will initiate action based on the findings," he says.

In general, such laws tend to be very rarely enforced, and massive numbers of buildings violate numerous codes as legal compliance can be very difficult due to arcane bureaucracy.

With minority religions, the local authorities may simply refuse to process requests that otherwise meet all of the legal criteria. Later on they claim the building is illegal, and so can legally tear it down while being able to claim it is nothing to do with discrimination. Usually there are countless building of the majority religion that violate numerous codes, yet funnily enough these are never enforced.

n my mind, the question is not whether the congregation has the right to erect the statue, but whether it is tactful to do so. In a climate of growing Hindu fanaticism I would advocate for something much more modest. Needlessly provoking non-Christian majorities is something that should be avoided in my opinion.

I tend to agree with you on this.

People have to deal with the realities as they exist, not as they would like them to be. A massive Jesus isn't likely to be well received, and doesn't seem like the smartest idea given potential consequences.
 
Top