• 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

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
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.
There's many on this forum in thrall to such ideologies, as well, unfortunately.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If they put up a 114 foot tall Jesus, then the Hindus should put up a 214 foot tall Krishna right next to it, covered with many more colorful garlands.
Since it is on private property that does not seem to be possible.

Now I could see an argument based against this on aesthetics. If there are limitations on what can be built in that area they might have a valid complaint. If it is just based on religion then they do not.
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known 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.

Really you know do you? In 2012 there were 31 mosque in Alabama
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Since it is on private property that does not seem to be possible.
When it's 214 feet tall, "next to", could be all the way across town. :)

Now I could see an argument based against this on aesthetics. If there are limitations on what can be built in that area they might have a valid complaint. If it is just based on religion then they do not.
I can't see any reason other than religion they would build such a statue. Unless they plan to have a radio tower protruding from the top of the good Lord's head? In which case, that might fall under some sort of building guidelines.
 

wandering peacefully

Which way to the woods?
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.
I don't understand why their Jesus statue needs to 114 feet high? All the people whose land it is on would always be looking up Jesus' nose.

No one else's view should be distributed by a giant proselytizing statement like that.

If they really just wanted a statue for their own worshipping purposes and not to invade everyone else's view which they don't own, they should be happy with a 10 foot Jesus. If it were in my view without my consent, I would find a way to remove it.

They shouldn't be asses about their Jesus.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I don't understand why their Jesus statue needs to 114 feet high? All the people whose land it is on would always be looking up Jesus' nose.

No one else's view should be distributed by a giant proselytizing statement like that.

If they really just wanted a statue for their own worshipping purposes and not to invade everyone else's view which they don't own, they should be happy with a 10 foot Jesus. If it were in my view without my consent, I would find a way to remove it.

They shouldn't be asses about their Jesus.
Agreed. My only problem is that a religious belief is being opposed by another religious belief. There are other ways besides appealing to one's own religion to stop this rather blatant proselytizing.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
Personally, I am all for the statue as long as reports that it is being built on a holy site of the Hindus are proved to be baseless.

It can generate employment, help in creating a tourist destination and develop tourism, and highlight the role of Christ in modern Hinduism as taught by the likes of Ramakrishna, Sai Baba, Yogananda and Prajapita Brahmakumaris.

It can also help in creating a more openminded and unconditioned Indian society.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I deeply dislike Hinduvita, based on what I’ve heard about them.
As for this Jesus statue, it does seem a bit on the nose. But I don’t know what the legality is like. So I dunno.
As long as it’s not on anyone else’s holy land, whatever I guess. But weren’t Christians originally supposed to be against idolatry?
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
It isn't built yet, it's on hold, upon further investigation, court orders, and other red tape.
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
I deeply dislike Hinduvita, based on what I’ve heard about them.
As for this Jesus statue, it does seem a bit on the nose. But I don’t know what the legality is like. So I dunno.
As long as it’s not on anyone else’s holy land, whatever I guess. But weren’t Christians originally supposed to be against idolatry?
Erecting a statue for someone you admire very much is not the same as idolatry.
If there are huge statues of Shiva, Rama and Buddha in India, I don't see why there should be an exception in this case.
The thing is, there is an anti-Western and anti-Islam sentiment in India which is understandable from a historic viewpoint but undesirable when it comes to freedom of religion.

Over here there is a heated discussion whether muslims should be allowed to shout their call for prayers very loudly with amplified speaker sound through whole neighbourhoods. I am against that because this call for prayers was only needed in times when people had no private clocks, watches or smart phones and is an unncessesary intrusion on the peace and quiet. It feels like a deliberate provocation just like building huge minarets that dominate the sky line. Perhaps this statue is also felt like that.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Over here there is a heated discussion whether muslims should be allowed to shout their call for prayers very loudly with amplified speaker sound through whole neighbourhoods.

At 3 in the morning. (Or so it seemed like)
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Erecting a statue for someone you admire very much is not the same as idolatry.
If there are huge statues of Shiva, Rama and Buddha in India, I don't see why there should be an exception in this case.
The thing is, there is an anti-Western and anti-Islam sentiment in India which is understandable from a historic viewpoint but undesirable when it comes to freedom of religion.

Over here there is a heated discussion whether muslims should be allowed to shout their call for prayers very loudly with amplified speaker sound through whole neighbourhoods. I am against that because this call for prayers was only needed in times when people had no private clocks, watches or smart phones and is an unncessesary intrusion on the peace and quiet. It feels like a deliberate provocation just like building huge minarets that dominate the sky line. Perhaps this statue is also felt like that.
Uhh to erect a statue of someone who you literally pray to is the very definition of idolatry. I don’t take issue with it, some denominations of Christians do. Don’t shoot the messenger.

This seems more like a power play, but I don’t live in India, so I wouldn’t know.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
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.
I mention my religion and I'm accused of evangelism. The closest I've come to converting anyone was when out of nowhere a friend asked me how to become Catholic. I discouraged him of the notion as his rejection of some of the most basic tenets of Catholic doctrine would have made his conversion dishonest and morally dangerous.

I don't doubt aggressive Evangelical proselytism is often distasteful, and they target Catholics as readily as they target non-Christians. But at the end of the day you're not a victim whenever someone who happens to have been Hindu changes his religion. My suspicion is that Hindu hardliners are increasingly using claims of proselytism (both real and contrived) as a means of targeting religious minorities.

As long as it’s not on anyone else’s holy land, whatever I guess. But weren’t Christians originally supposed to be against idolatry?
Idolatry in the Catholic tradition is to give divine honours to the creature over God. In and of themselves, statues and icons of Jesus, Mary, the angels and the saints are not seen as violating this principle. An Indian Catholic keeping a statue of Christ as an act of religious devotion is fine and commendable. If he were to perform some kind of puja before it then he would almost certainly be crossing the line into idolatry.
 
Last edited:
Top