Hindu extremists protest 114 foot tall Jesus statue

[Vinayaka]

I mention my religion and I'm accused of evangelism. The closest I've come to converting anyone was when a friend asked me out of nowhere 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.


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.

Personally, I think it rather unfair to make generalisations about individuals within any religion. In the end, we're all individuals.

Having said that, this article from 20 years ago might indicate why Hindus are skeptical of the Catholic Church. Skip down to the second last paragraph, and read that last sentence.

Pope stresses conversions on visit to India

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

How do you figure?

Because you're a religious minority, obviously. You're basically saying that you shouldn't be allowed to do something if the majority don't want you to. So if Christians in America don't want you building a temple, even on your own private property, you shouldn't be allowed according to your logic.

 

[Vinayaka]

There are land use laws everywhere, and they are different everywhere. Many smaller religious organisations who have been unaware of them have had building permits refused because of zoning by-laws. I know of a few Hindu temples who purchased land without the 'subject to rezoning' clauses and had to sell the land. I'm sure it's happened to other faiths as well. You need things like neighbour approval, the proper infrastructure, and more, before getting a building permit.

It sounds like this land was zoned agriculture, and somehow, with a corrupt government official, may have been switched to something like multi-use. No wonder it's on hold.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Because you're a religious minority, obviously. You're basically saying that you shouldn't be allowed to do something if the majority don't want you to. So if Christians in America don't want you building a temple, even on your own private property, you shouldn't be allowed according to your logic.

No, not so. Firstly, I very clearly stated that "what happens in other countries is neither here nor there" in regards to this incident specifically. However, a church or a temple - as a religious building of worship - is much more protected by both American and Indian laws regarding freedom of religion and worship. Yet even here in America there is protest against the building of Pagan temples, Muslim mosques, and even sometimes Jewish temples.

Further still, and this is where your objection goes sideways, a church, temple or mosque is absolutely not the same thing as a 114 foot tall f**k-off statue of Jesus. It's already bad enough driving through the Midwest that I've got to see 200 ft tall crosses dotting the landscape but hey, we're apparently a Christian nation despite various laws to the contrary. Absolutely doesn't mean that I approve of them, and if I could successfully oppose them I would. Such ego-strokes are not necessary for worship or the freedom thereof. And, just to balance the table, if someone proposed a 300 ft tall statue of Thor, on their own land, I would oppose that too.

 

[loverofhumanity]

India: Hindu extremists protest 114 foot tall Jesus statue amid escalating persecution

Hi Shaul.

I’m wondering if this is not just a specific Christian problem that Hindus feel they have with Christians in their country and not prejudice or religious intolerance because we Baha’is have the Lotus Temple in New Delhi and it is a landmark having attracted over 100 million visitors and I don’t see any protests from Hindus at all not when it was being built or since then and we are not a Hindu religion.

Just as the Jews have been tolerant to us in Haifa so too the Hindus have been accepting of our Temple in Delhi and it stands out extremely significantly more than the Jesus statue ever would. But no opposition from Hindus at all.

Which leads me to believe it has nothing to do with intolerance or prejudice from Hindus but more to do with problems they might be having with Christians. I personally don’t think the average Hindu is anything but tolerant and accepting unless they are taken advantage of.

 

[stvdv]

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.

I mention my religion and I'm accused of evangelism.

I am sorry if I gave you that impression. Clearly my mistake. I used the wrong words.

Thank you for the feedback though, as I see now where I made my mistake. I tend to have a problem asking the other a simple question, and instead I launch my conclusion at them, hoping to get a response. Very strange behavior I see now. Good lesson. Thanks. RF is a great opportunity for me to learn this kind of lessons.

My point was "It's morally wrong to belittle someone's (non) faith ... as you trample on their heart/soul, which I call the worst transgression".

You danced around this issue (was my feeling), and did not give your opinion on this. I should have just asked "Do you think it's morally wrong to belittle someone's (non) faith"? Instead I siad "You are a Catholic giving up evangelism you can't". I meant "because you are a Catholic, you cannot give up the concept of evangelism". It never crossed my mind that you were doing evangelism yourself, honestly. R-reading what I wrote, I see now how clumsy I worded this. I should have just asked

So, thanks again for the feedback. Sorry I offended you. I will make sure not to forget this lesson, and not make this mistake again.

I don't doubt aggressive Evangelical proselytism is often distasteful, and they target Catholics as readily as they target non-Christians.

I was "fishing" for something like this.
I agree this is often distasteful. I even call it immoral when they belittle the other's (non) faith in the process. Would you call it immoral?

 

[Augustus]

Do you mean some laws should not be applied to the minorities.

No, pretty much the opposite: you can discriminate against minorities by making it impossible for them to be legally compliant in the first place, or arbitrarily revoking that which makes them legally compliant.

Whether that is true in this situation I don't know as there is not enough information to judge, but it's worth pointing out to people who may not be be aware that legal systems don't always work the way they do in the West.

Yeah, we know that laws were/are violated in India, but which side of the law you would be on? With the violators or with the law abiding?

It's often not possible to be completely law abiding. As I said, I'm not familiar with India specifically, but I am with places that have reasonably similar levels of corruption.

There are places where you can't even get a driving licence without breaking the law, never mind carry out complex building projects (where you are completely beholden to the whims of local officials).

When protests against construction carried out by a minority group lead to it being deemed 'illegal', I'd be quite sceptical that this was simply an example of consistent and fair-minded application of the law in an impartial and non-discriminatory manner.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Whether that is true in this situation I don't know as there is not enough information to judge, ..

It's often not possible to be completely law abiding. As I said, I'm not familiar with India specifically, but I am with places that have reasonably similar levels of corruption.

There are places where you can't even get a driving licence without breaking the law, ..

When protests against construction carried out by a minority group lead to it being deemed 'illegal', I'd be quite sceptical ..

So, you presume. I would suggest that you should not presume anything. Higher judicial system in India is one of the best in the world.

If someone does not comply with the laws, then the person has to face the consequences when called for. I agree that at the lower level the law is manipulated. But it is very difficult to escape when cases go to State Courts or the Supreme Court.

India is a free society and its people have their constitutional right to protest. When Delhi police tried to designate a particular place for protest so as not to allow disruption of traffic, the Supreme Court disallowed it. With the result that there is a mass protest at a particular place in Delhi/Uttar Pradesh (the post populous state of India with 225 million people) High Way for the last 15 days which requires diversion of traffic.

The Karnataka case has not gone to court. If the Christians are doing what is permissible by law, then no one can stop them.

 

[Marcion]

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.

I don't think so, people tend to pray for their deities in temples, I'm not sure what's behind people wanting to erect huge free standing statues of Buddha, Shiva or Jesus. I know my own guru had several statues in his large garden but these were certainly not erected for any type of worship.

 

[Augustus]

So, you presume.

No, I made a general point which I specifically noted may or may not be true in this case, but was relevant in the specific context it was posted in.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

Wikipedia has an entire page devoted to the persecution of Christians by Hindus.
Violence against Christians in India - Wikipedia

 

[Shaul]

Hi Shaul.

I’m wondering if this is not just a specific Christian problem that Hindus feel they have with Christians in their country and not prejudice or religious intolerance because we Baha’is have the Lotus Temple in New Delhi and it is a landmark having attracted over 100 million visitors and I don’t see any protests from Hindus at all not when it was being built or since then and we are not a Hindu religion.

Just as the Jews have been tolerant to us in Haifa so too the Hindus have been accepting of our Temple in Delhi and it stands out extremely significantly more than the Jesus statue ever would. But no opposition from Hindus at all.

Which leads me to believe it has nothing to do with intolerance or prejudice from Hindus but more to do with problems they might be having with Christians. I personally don’t think the average Hindu is anything but tolerant and accepting unless they are taken advantage of.

That could be. Or it could that Christians are more aggressive proselytizers. Which Hindus dislike.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

Does that mean it doesn't persecute Christians, and Muslims? I've even seen articles about Hindu hostility towards Buddhists.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Decorating is not building a 114 foot tall statue.

It certainly is. And they have every right to do it. And I'm not even their religion and I say it is so.

 

[ajay0]

Does that mean it doesn't persecute Christians, and Muslims? I've even seen articles about Hindu hostility towards Buddhists.

I have only said that Hindus have never persecuted the Jews in the way the Christians and Muslims have persecuted the Jews in the past and present.

I have not stated that the Hindus have never persecuted the Christians and Muslims .

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It certainly is. And they have every right to do it. And I'm not even their religion and I say it is so.

Ridiculous, and I think you're saying it just to say it. Decorating is placing, well, decorations around an already existing building or structure. Incurring building codes, zoning laws, and land use laws (which building a 114 foot tall f**k-off statue of Jesus - or anyone - would do) is not decorating. It's construction and building. And it's foolish to pretend otherwise.

 

[Samael_Khan]

India: Hindu extremists protest 114 foot tall Jesus statue amid escalating persecution

Why do they even have to erect a statue in the first place? Is it that important to cause conflict?

 

[Vinayaka]

Why do they even have to erect a statue in the first place? Is it that important to cause conflict?

I believe that is the entire point ... to cause conflict.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I believe that is the entire point ... to cause conflict.

Yeah. Or to actually show that Jesus owns the land as a brag to non christians.

It is completely unnecessary. They should have known that they would provoke the hindus.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yeah. Or to actually show that Jesus owns the land as a brag to non christians.

It is completely unnecessary. They should have known that they would provoke the hindus.

It involves a long term strategy I think. The western press is decidedly anti-Hindu, and the long term goal would be to have India being equivalent to Pakistan or Iran in the minds of the west. Different religion, same label. (terrorists, fundamentalists, extremists) So provoke, watch the Hindu reaction, then call in the press to come in and 'report' on what a nasty business these crazy Hindus are.