#common struggles faced by Hindu PEOPLE and jews | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

nijjhar · 2 years ago

Video

youtube

John 6v16-21:- Without the Bridegroom Christ Jesus, people suffered TRIB... John 6v16-21:- Without the Bridegroom Christ Jesus, people suffered TRIBULATIONS IN LIFE but as soon as Christ Jesus appeared in their lives, they reached their DESTINATION "REST called RESURRECTION" as depicted in the First Fruit Lazarus. https://youtu.be/Tdoy0oZVyU8 Holy Gospel of our Supernatural Father Elohim, Allah, Parbrahm, etc., delivered by the First Anointed Christ, which in Punjabi we call Satguru Jesus of the highest living God Elohim that dwells within His Temple of God created by the demiurge Potter, the Lord of the Nature Yahweh, Brahma, Khudah, etc., the Greatest Artist of all and it is called Harmandir or ��Emmanuel” according to Saint John 6,16-21.When it was evening, the twice-born Brethren, Talmidim and not the once-born disciples created by the super crook Messianic Jews who took over the Church of God with the written Torah under their arm-pits and established the thrown-away Temple Practices that killed Jesus and His Labourers later on, of Jesus went down to the sea, embarked in a boat without the Bridegroom Christ Jesus or no Christ in their hearts but the Christians of the dead letters as they are today. The Greatest Blasphemers killed Saddam Hussein under the blasphemy that he has WMD but none were found. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not Forgivable but punished by God through the tribal sons of Man found in Russia. So, the super Hitler Putin will punish them now. Israel should attack Iran to celebrate its 75th Birthday and start of the war that will last six months and in the 7th Month of Elohim will be the Judgement Atomic War. And they went across the sea to Capernaum. It had already grown dark referring to this Dark Age of Christ within your own heart and not the dead letters of the Bible in your head. And Jesus had not yet come to them. That is they were without Christ in their hearts and suffered tribulations. The sea was stirred up because a strong wind of “Falsehoods sweeter than honey” was blowing as the politicians tell a pack of lies from the cores of their hearts during the elections. The clever psychic wins the election and not the one who speaks the Gospel Truth that not a single Jew died during the Holocaust. When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they began to be afraid. But he said to them, "It is I. Do not be afraid." They wanted to take him into the boat, but the boat immediately arrived at the shore to which they were heading. That is in the solitary company of Christ Jesus, we need not struggle as in the Royal Kingdom of God you are protected by the Hand of God. A Testimony:- Youtube channel - Truthsoldier I served in the satanic Iraq war. I openly am shamed for that and I asked for forgiveness for taking part in that war. I actually had my awakening while over in Iraq. My eyes were opened to the injustice of that war. The Iraqi people loved Saddam; they had whole stories with nothing but Saddam’s face on everything. Since then I have been speaking out against the US and ISRAEL on my Youtube channel. Here is my contribution:- Holy spirit, common sense, shatters the fetters of the dead letters, the Holy Books. If we have One God, our Supernatural Father of our souls, then there should be one Faith. In Christianity, Jesus said One Fold called the Church of God headed by One Shepherd, our Bridegroom Christ Jesus/Christ = Satguru Nanak Dev Ji, the Second coming of Jesus. So, these hireling Dog-Collared Priests and Mullahs, cannot give your account to God as the Rabbis used to give at Passover. So, they are "ANTICHRISTS" that have a following of the spiritually blind Super Bastard Fanatic Devils - John 8v44 -, Hindu, Jew, Sikh, Christian, Muslim, etc. Outwardly, and not spiritually inwardly. These spiritual selves Hindu, Jew and Christian, are never born like Christ, the Title and they never die but the tribal selves Judah, Levi, Jatt, Tarkhan, etc. were born and they will die. Thus, Jesus was born and Jesus died on the Cross and rose on the Third Day and NOT CHRIST, THE TITLE. Greatest Blasphemers and Killers Blair and Bush https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qHdTpTXHvE&list=PL0C8AFaJhsWz7HtQEhV91eAKugUw73PW1 Christ Jesus was killed by the Temple High Priest Hypocrite/Blasphemer against the Holy Spirit and so are these Bush and Blair. Blair and Bush’s blasphemies against Holy Spirit https://youtu.be/0WBYOmpDuCs American Jews are today – http://www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/GrimReaper.htm Destroying one country after the other. Also, do not forget the partition of India and how the dirty hearted-British divided the homeland Punjab of the brave Jatt soldiers. My Kindle. ASIN: B01AVLC9WO Full description www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/Rest.htm My Books:- ONE GOD ONE FAITH www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/bookfin.pdf Punjabi www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/pdbook.pdf John's baptism www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/johnsig.pdf Trinity:- www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/trinity.pdf

#youtube

0 notes

rumandtimes · 3 years ago

Text

Does Cultural Appropriation Apply to Natalie Portman?

Sean Ezersky

Assoc. Fantasy Contributor

Does appropriation apply to the worst parts of European cultures?

Today, I want to discuss cultural appropriation. Yes, the issue of the times. But what exactly is cultural appropriation? Well, nobody knows. Starting at the first word, it claims to be some kind of appropriation. And it has something to do with culture.

Firstly, it should be said that this article has nothing to actually do with cultural appropriation. That is because cultural appropriation is essentially defined by racism. The term first appears, so it goes, as a description of how racist citizens of England marginalised and exploited the peoples of the Caribbean, and attacked sections of the working class schtick, for fun. Sounds evil enough.

The term cultural appropriation cannot be used as a mild term or played around with much, because it is by definition a form of misconduct. The term cultural appropriation is defined by the words “inappropriate,” “racist,” and “commercialist.” There is no redeeming quality to cultural appropriation because cultural appropriation is used to describe exclusively irredeemable activity, markedly opposite to cultural exchange or respect.

Consider the worst perpetrator in the United Kingdom and the United States: hip-hop / rap music, curly hair, or a summer tan. Racists always attack these music genres and human characteristics un-European, placing them into the same box on the fringes of their minds, but at the same time view themselves as ‘cultured’ for dipping into the same music, view themselves as ‘interesting’ for factory curling their hair, or view themselves as ‘unique’ for getting a spray-on tan. There is a murderous and delirious sense of bad irony, that racists altogether marginalise, demonise, and lust after perfectly normal traits and human practices, which the racist calls exotic, for fear of being labelled as freaks themselves. That is cultural appropriation.

Another bad actor is the billion-dollar yoga industry in Western nations as well, which attempts at every corner to steal Indian culture then mutilate the original concept, taking the yoga gurus off the cover and planting in some body-bleaching whores, or some wavy Italian guy, to appeal to the racist American, à la youth female target audience. All the while, Hinduism, inextricable from yoga’s origins while not necessarily the same as yoga in any way, is viewed as a false and inexpiable religion by most people in the West. Yoga was not learned from the Hindu, it was looted, and replaced with a shallow, cruel, commercial, and disgraceful attempt to Europeanise and trivialise the hobby while selling it the crude sex markets. That is a form of cultural genocide and religion-sacking. That is cultural appropriation.

But this article is not about cultural appropriation, in a way. The distinction was only added to please those offended by the comparison. This article is about movies, as part of a series of Star Wars critiques, and it’s about Natalie Portman.

Long have I harboured a question about Natalie Portman’s career, as it is so vapid yet so prolific, so vain yet so ubiquitous. This is just the opportunity. Natalie Portman got her start in acting as a 16-year-old leading actress on Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. She returned three years later as a 19-year-old lead on Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, where her character dies. After moving on from the Star Wars prequels, she used that resume to enrol at Harvard University to study psychology.

She has actually commented on this, as all Harvard associates eventually do, saying she and her peers felt she was only enrolled because she was in Star Wars, and this insecurity led her to push harder than her friends in her classes and challenge herself by picking ‘harder-than-necessary’ classes. Still, psychology is the most common undergraduate degree major among women, so hardly original. Whether or not Natalie invites the assessment or feels it is correct, this is undoubtedly true; She, as most people, never would have been looked at by Harvard if she did not have some kind of bank of riches or wealth of limelight that could be mined by the admissions board. Natalie might want to be viewed as a genius of “Hebrew literature” who stood out among the crowd, but that is just impossible parlour speak. Not that she deserves to go to Harvard any less than anyone else, no one deserves to go to Harvard, as Harvard in the 20th Century existed for the sole purpose of excluding people who were not rich, famous, or connected: not academics, so Natalie’s lie to herself merely parrots Harvard’s lie to the world.

But I want to go back just a second. Yes, Natalie Portman said she studied Hebrew at Harvard, even if not intensely enough to double-major in it. That is because her name is not actually Natalie Portman. Her name is Neta-Li Herschlag, and she is Jewish. So, studying Hebrew isn’t impressive knowing she speaks fluent Hebrew at home. That is not to undermine literature, as English-speakers still study English literature, but it’s hardly extraordinary. Hershlag, as I will now be exclusively referring to her, is using her association to Harvard, Judaism, and other, lesser, things to seem smart, yet all of those were gifted to her by either birth or Star Wars.

Now comes the question of cultural appropriation. Neta-Li started her acting footprint as an understudy for the part of Elle Woods in Broadway plays. Yes, that Elle Woods, aside Britney Spears no less. It hardly seems like the right role for a good Jewish girl. But lo, there are some who might point out that Hershlag is an Ashkenazi, and therefore not actually Jewish, that is, not a Semitic person. This is a touchy subject for the Jewish community, particularly since the establishment of Israel: Who actually is Jewish, by means of ethnicity or heritage, and not just language and religion? Is there a meaningful distinction between the Semitic Jewish culture that remained in the Levant, the Sephardic Jewish culture that emigrated to Africa and Iberia, the Mizrahi Jewish culture in Iran and Arabia, the Yiddish Jewish culture that stuck around in Germany, and the Ashkenazi Jewish culture that settled Eastern Europe? Really, who knows, and that is a deeper question; a question, perhaps, for a student of Hebrew literature, wherever we should find one.

Nonetheless, Hershlag is most certainly not British. That Israeli-American nuance is fine for the world of “Naboo” in Star Wars, which ideally would defy every concept of the term “ethnicity,” but works less congruously for Elle Woods. In Star Wars, Hershlag was a doppelganger of Keira Knightly, a dyad which has persisted the entirety of Netali’s 30-year-long career. Here too, we find questions.

Netali gave an interview, which I discuss almost on a daily basis among my social circle, where she firmly wanted to establish herself as a kind of British legacy. She said, of herself, “I iron out my Jew curls” and bleaches/dyes her hair, for no particular reason other than she wants to, and thinks it will make her fit in. Netali also went on to say that no one has naturally yellow hair — which is true, they don’t — implying that a non-Jewish, European actress would not face the same questions about her hair she did. Because the concept of hair straightening and hair bleaching are Nazi holdovers in British and American culture, and as someone who personally hates Nazis, this endlessly infuriates me. All the more so because Hershlag identifies as Jewish!

If Hershlag thinks modifying her hair to make it look ‘more European,’ or, more correctly (since almost all young Europeans have brown hair), to make it look more Hitlerite, more ‘Arianised,’ is acceptable, then she must either view herself as European first and Jewish second, or just care very little about the legacy of antisemitic racism. Why else would a person who calls herself Jewish want to alter her appearance so drastically, in order to look like a posterchild for one of the Hitler Youth?

Many Jewish-Americans feel pressures of Nazi antisemitism and colonial racism in the United States, and many Ashkenazim respond to that by changing their names, Nazifying their looks, and abandoning the Jewish religion. Netali retains a veneer of her Jewishness on the inside, within her own self-perception, while turning into the Arianised version of the Elle Woods archetype on the outside, for the world to see. Is she just playing a part? Is there a real difference in the personality and values of Netali Hershlag vs. Natalie Portman?

People don’t treat her as such. Keira Knightly, for instance, is an Englishwoman. Knightly claims she is ‘British,’ not English, but she is definitely English. Intriguingly, Knightly never went to school, reportedly a dyslexic, while Hershlag, in the Jewish stereotype, went straight to Harvard College. I wouldn’t say Hershlag seems like a nice person, she seems like an ordinary person. Remember that she is part of the Star Wars pantheon of small-time actors who were lifted by George Lucas to notoriety, like Mark Hamill (despite him being my favourite Star Wars actor, I can never remember his name), Harrison Ford, and of course, Sir Alec Guinness CBE.

Jokes aside, with all the classically-trained, upper-class, heavy-hitters from Britain — Peter Cushing OBE, Sir Christopher Lee CBE, and Sir Alec — not to mention the affable nobodies from Hamill to Ford, most Star Wars people are considered likable, especially by fans of nerdom.

That is not to say anyone was struggling, as every lead character in Star Wars was already documented as rich and famous by the time they were cast, but they were “nobodies” in the sense they were not household names until after the film became one of the first Hollywood summer “blockbusters” in history.

Most of all, it is undeniable that, other than Lucas, no one defined the Star Wars films as much as Carrie Fisher, if not for a want of contrast. Fisher was the only female character in all three of the movies, and both the predecessor and counterpart to Hershlag’s character in the Star Wars prequels. Does Hershlag meet the comparison?

The two are very different, both personally and on-screen. Fisher at the age of 19 had sex with numerous middle-aged members of the cast, often the only female and only teenager in a room of dozens of men, forbidden to wear a bra or choose her own hairstyle but allowed to partake in the rumoured plethora of drugs on the set. Hershlag, part of Star Wars from 16 to 19, was entirely unremarkable, both in life and profession, not a very impressive actor or much of a hoot. Again, the good Jewish girl. Some blame Netali’s poorly role on the weakness of the prequels compared to the originals, just as some blame Carrie’s bipolar diagnosis for her eccentricity. Both of these are half-truths, as personality and talent can never be substituted for anything other than what they are. Nonetheless, Fisher and Hershlag were both made rich and famous. While Hershlag is the lesser in terms of her performance, she probably got in the end a much better long-term deal.

A boring role meant Netali would not be immediately typecast, though she went on to play exclusively the girl-next-door leading female interest for a male protagonist, much the same as in Star Wars: Episode II. Coming into acting younger meant she could largely leave acting after childhood, then return to it later as an adult experience. Moreover, we never got to see teenage Netali chained to a bed in a gold bikini.

Our good, Jewish girl.

So, if Hershlag is playing roles given mostly to British, or Hitlerite, actresses, is she not taking away from the British actor? There are too many actors in the world. They are overexposed and over paid, seen too much and given too much, as they are in the same camp as clowns, entertainers, and comedians. But, people like to be entertained, and in the world of capitalism where only money is worship in lapse of dignity, anything people like sells, and anything that sells can make people rich, and riches are a substitute for class, if only a thin one. Just as the weak-minded can be fooled by the Force, so are they easily bought and sold. The British or American actor suffers for nothing, and there are too many of them as it is.

But, does Hershlag have a place in displacing them, or moulding in to become one of them? And would it be cultural appropriation? Undeniably, Netali is conforming to something objectionable when she plays simple roles as sex objects and Hitlerite women, embracing if not embodying the racism and problematic nature of Hollywood casting. But then again, it is with her very body that she represents this trend. One could defend Hershlag, saying she is made to do these things, that she is not so much appropriating Western culture for her ends, but more so that Western culture is stifling her true self, at least if she wants to continue to have a role in acting.

An interesting counter-point, but undermined by Hershlag’s particular brand of coy self-promotion, and eagerness in taking on such roles. And are the Jewish people entirely exploited by Hollywood? In many respects, so-called Europeans are exploited by powerful Jewish moguls in media more often than the other way around, even if they are Jewish Europeans themselves. Harvey Weinstein, a Jewish millionaire who sexually assaulted non-Jewish Western women in order to get them roles, his Jewishness hardly made a ripple.

The biggest names in Hollywood: Steven Spielberg, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jerry Seinfeld, Paul Rudd, Marta Kauffman, J.J. Abrams, Scarlett Johansson, Harrison Ford, John Stewart, Louis Szekely, Mila Kunis, Daniel Radcliffe, Rachel Weisz, Gal Gadot, Roseanne Barr, Judd Apatow, Marcus Loew, Lauren Bacall, Adam Sandler, Amy Schumer, Larry David, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cassidy Freeman, Stanley Kubrick, Jennifer Connelly, Richard Dreyfuss, Samuel Goldwyn, Julia Garner, Elijah Allan-Blitz, Kirk Douglas, Ellen Barkin, Ingrid Pitt, Darren Aronofsky, Eva Green, David Geffen, Lesley Ann Warren, Paul Newman, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ben Stiller, Louis B. Mayer, Alison Brie, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Chuck Lorre.

As Conan O’Brien jokingly stated: “The Cash-ews run Hollywood.” Almost every major production in Hollywood has a massive Jewish section of development. The United States, for whatever reason, is a majority “Christian-identifying” country, but Judaism plays a much more massive role in the culture than Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism combined. Even most of the agnosticism in ‘progressive’ Hollywood values comes largely from material secularism, or Jewish incredulity of Christianity, not an ideological pull towards atheism. Is this cultural reproachment why Jewish people are pulled towards media and entertainment, theatre being a known haven for outcasts and oddballs? The Judeo-Protestant alliance of the Hollywood ilk would seem to disqualify the established Jewish community — rich, interconnected, secular Jewish communities of New York, Los Angeles, and DC — from being an oppressed mass.

An important editor’s note is that the actors listed are: Jewish people who adopt non-Jewish appearances or non-Jewish values to a borderline-racist degree (i.e. Eva Green: Jewish actress who plays roles bookmarked for non-Jewish Europeans), thoroughly Jewish people who refuse to identify as Jewish (i.e. Julia Louis-Dreyfus: Jewish billionaire heiress who plays Jewish characters on TV), or regular observers of Judaism who are really, really famous (i.e. J.J. Abrams: co-director of the controversial Star Wars reboot).

More often behind the scenes than on-screen, but usually leading the show when taking a starring role, the Jewish imprint is inseparable from American movies, media production, television, the comedy scene, finance, and screenwriting. Is Jewish not the ruling order of Hollywood? And then would Europeans be the group on the margins? But why, if Jewish people write, pay for, and put on the shows, are there so few Jewish actors, and of those who are, why do they not look Jewish, or a better question would be, why do they try to avoid looking Jewish, and actively attempt to look Western European? That gives the impression that Jewish people are still marginalised in media, even if they are overrepresented in media, and generally more affluent, interconnected, and educated than those non-Jewish counterparts. Why do Jewish people go out of their way to appeal to racist audiences, and in the process erase their own Jewishness.

Maybe it is because the Hollywood Jewry isn’t actually Jewish. Nothing about their jobs or their behaviours embodies the Jewish religion. Most people in Hollywood in general consider themselves as nonreligious, yet that too, might be an influence of a markedly Jewish trait. Non-Christians in the United States are much more likely to turn to atheism and agnosticism on the one hand or fanatical extremism, likely due to being outcast by the mainstream Protestant dialogue, with liberal Jewish people often going agnostic and conservative Catholics often going supercharged while Muslims live on somewhere off in the shadows of public perception.

Yet nonreligious Jewish people still identify as Jewish, separating the religion of Judaism from the ethnic mark. Faith has nothing to do with appearance, and appearance is the base of antisemitism. Enter non-Jewish-looking Jewish people, usually women with heat-flattened hair, like Netali Hershlag and Gal Greenstein Godot. That is not to say they don’t look Jewish, as in an equal measure they all do and at the same time no one does, since what a Jewish person “looks like” is a narrow heuristic based on problematic cultural expectation. That is not to say they are or aren’t Jewish. But are Jewish people like Natalie Portman being forced to conform to racist society, or are they jumping on the bandwagon of racist society and using it to their advantage? Is there actually a difference between the two?

There is a deeper question lying beneath the surface here: The questions of “Jewish complicity in racism?,” “Jewish participation in neo-Nazism?,” and “If ‘Jew’ is a ‘race’ and ‘White’ is a ‘race’ then why are there ‘White’ and ‘non-White’ Jews?,” which other people have asked before. This article is not to address those questions, but they are acknowledged.

Certainly, there are some Jewish people who attach themselves to racist tendencies and Hitlerite habits out of personal advantage in the racist countries in which they might live. In this narrative, the notional collaborator Jewish community would blame the Europeans for racism and cast themselves as convenient survivors. That is not a uniquely Jewish trait, it is a flawed human trait, bystanderism, which defies religious teachings. Why there is such a prevalence among rich, secular Jewish people, of racism mixed with liberalism, is a concern. It could be as simple that, at a certain point, the trait “rich” might start to cancel out the trait “religious.” Old guard antisemites would be unforgiving regarding hatred towards ‘ethnic Judaism,’ and contemporary racist sentiments would reject Jewish people from the points of heritage and beliefs, but it is not immediately clear if Western neo-Nazis would target non-religious Jewish people who, quote, “pass” as Euro-Christians.

If Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahim join Western cultures, ideals, and appearances while abandoning the Jewish religion, are they functionally Jewish at all? In the absence of different brands of generational antisemitism, what is holding back an atheist Ashkenazi from becoming a Nazi themself? The Jewish community and Israel critics have been ablaze with debate about the Eurocentric, Ashkenazim-focused account of Judaism in the West, drawing attention to the issue of inter-Jewish racism and inequality among the diaspora of the Jewish faithful. This question is debated separately for Jewish communities because unity is their faith. Followers of Christianity have always cut one another down over heresies and infidelities, but discourse and diversity have defined the post-Rabbinic tradition. The notion of one Jewish diaspora being more powerful than another, based not even on secularism such as in Christianity, but based solely on racism and adjacency to Christian empires, causes non-Ashkenazi Jewish communities to question that proximity in values and appearance Western Ashkenazi populations have with the goyish counterparts. Even the terms Ashkenazi and Mizrahi have taken fundamentally racist connotations, particularly in the advent of Zionism, to separate the ‘European Jewish’ from the ‘Arabian Jewish,’ in a kind of wartime apartheid of academia; a conflict emblematic of larger paradoxes in modern Israel.

This is not the focus of this article. Obviously, Jewish people living in Western Europe and urban America are more “Western” than people who live somewhere else. And obviously, Western nations have a serious and prolonged issue with racism. However, welding those two facts together, then conflating them with Judaism in some sense, would be a mistake.

There are some racist people in Hollywood who identify as, or are identified as, Jewish. That is not the question. The question is: How does the concept of cultural appropriation contribute to that complex dynamic, of conformity and exploitation in Hollywood, even amongst the big names?

This all comes back to the perceptual balance of power. Just as the term cultural appropriation is defined as a group being in a oppressive position and exploiting something that that group itself has made derogatory.

Is Netali Hershlag appropriating Western culture? In a way, yes. As a rich, powerful Jewish actress, she could hardly be said to be put at a disadvantage to Keira Knightly (Harvard versus dropout, remember), or the millions of aspiring brown-haired actresses who are shunned from Hollywood castings. And yet, she decides to look more like them. Obviously, as an ordinary woman herself, she has been victim to the usual sexism and obsessive demands of producers and directors concerning appearances, but that is hardly so say she is a victim. At any moment, she could deign to take a different part or produce her own movies (I would balk to call them films), rather than be typecast as the sexy and innocent girl-next-door. She lives the life of the good Jewish, girl, but never takes on those types of roles, opting instead for Princess Amidala, ballerina Nina Sayers, valley girl Elle Woods, comic book Jane Foster, or Englishwoman Anne Boleyn. Hershlag could at any moment leave acting to climb the ladder a Harvard A.B. clears the way for. How could Harvard Law School, or subsequently the California Democratic caucus, say no? Who wouldn’t pay for a doctor’s visit with the woman from V For Vendetta?

This is not to say that Jewish people are appropriating or imposing themselves upon Westerners, but it is to say that there is a distinct group of Jewish people who draw from Western or Hitlerite practices while entirely avoiding ‘Juden-haus’ or ‘Euro-trash’ rhetoric that hampers people on both sides of the racist conflict. Portman is Netali’s grandmother’s name, so she does have some kind of loose claim to it, if her cousins are still go by that name and she is close with them, while Natalie is a form of the name Neta-Li, and plenty if not most actors use stage names. Many people do racist or questionable things because they are in fashion. But altogether, one must ask the question why the self ascribed curly-haired Netali Hershlag is appearing is French wig and makeup commercials. Is it raw, unidealistic money? Is it Maybelline? Or it is fake hair, fake lashes, and a fake identity?

Natalie Portman is hardly an inspiring figure for women, playing roles subservient to men, often murdered by her lovers or terribly afflicted herself. This is true in Star Wars, Black Swan, Thor, V For Vendetta, and when she played the wife of wife-killer Henry VIII. Where is the liberty in being bedded by an uxoricidal maniac, be it a tired British period piece, or the obsessive Anakin Skywalker? Body modification of any type is not the product or respect or exchange, and can only be looked down upon as unnecessary and insecure. Acting is lying, but that does not mean the actress must change their looks or change their self to read some lines to a camera.

#Natalie Portman #Hollywood #Judaism #Cultural Appropriation #Star Wars

5 notes · View notes

theliberaltony · 6 years ago

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

For the past four decades, the notion that religious beliefs should guide voters’ decision-making has been largely monopolized by the Republican Party. But the partisan “God gap” hasn’t gone unnoticed by some religious Democrats, who have urged candidate after candidate to make appeals to religious values and beliefs in the hope of turning the “religious left” into a politically relevant force. And as the 2020 Democratic primary ramps up, there’s already speculation that the right candidate could tap a long-dormant reserve of religious energy among Democratic voters.

First Cory Booker — who was literally anointed by his pastor ahead of his presidential announcement — was touted as a possible candidate of the “religious left.” Then Pete Buttigieg stepped in to claim that mantle, telling reporters that the left “need to not be afraid to invoke arguments that are convincing on why Christian faith is going to point you in a progressive direction.” Meanwhile, several other presidential hopefuls, including Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand, are all talking openly about their religion on the campaign trail, even making arguments for why their policy positions — whether it’s abortion rights or income inequality — are linked to their faith.

And to some extent, forging connections between faith and politics makes sense for Democratic candidates — a majority of Democratic primary voters are religious. But there are several big hurdles facing any Democrat looking to use the language of faith to marshal voters in the primary. For one thing, the Democratic coalition isn’t dominated by a single religious group. And Democrats don’t prioritize religion the way Republicans do — in fact, the Democratic Party has been growing steadily less religious over the past 20 years. Certain groups of religious voters — in particular, black Protestants — will likely play an important role in the primary, and there may be some room for candidates to appeal to religious moderates. But in a diverse and increasingly secular party, religious rhetoric alone may not get the candidates very far.

Democrats are religious, but religiously diverse

Religious Democrats may not get as much attention as their counterparts on the right, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. About 65 percent of Democratic primary voters in 2016 reported having some kind of religious affiliation, compared to 84 percent of Republican primary voters. But as the chart below shows, religious voters in each party may not have much else in common. Republicans are fairly racially and religiously homogeneous: In 2016, the vast majority (70 percent) of Republican primary voters were white Christians, according to the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.1 Religious Democrats, by contrast, are much more diverse — 31 percent are white Christians, 22 percent are nonwhite Christians, and 12 percent belong to a non-Christian religious group (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.) or say that their religious affiliation is “something else.”

The result is that Democratic candidates are trying to reach a smaller and more splintered religious audience than Republican candidates are targeting in their own primary. “Talking about religion is a much more complicated task when you’re trying to simultaneously address white Catholics and black Protestants and Muslim and Jewish Americans,” said Robert P. Jones, CEO of PRRI, a research organization that studies religion and politics. “They may not have all that much in common, other than the fact that they identify as religious, which makes them harder to appeal to and organize.”

And while talking about religion can be a good strategy for gaining media attention, there’s little evidence that it’s translating into actual gains among religious voters — at least, not yet. A Morning Consult tracking poll conducted May 20-26 among Democratic primary voters found that Joe Biden, a Catholic, has a commanding lead among all major religious groups, followed in all but one case by Bernie Sanders,2 who may be the only candidate in the race to say he doesn’t participate in organized religion.

“It’s hard to go up against Biden because he appeals to moderate Catholics and Protestants — he’s from their world,” said Ryan Burge, a political science professor at Eastern Illinois University who studies religion and politics. And according to the 2016 CCES survey, moderate Democratic primary voters are more likely to be religious than their liberal counterparts, so if Biden is also appealing to moderates, that could compound the challenge for his opponents. “If Biden is capturing most of the moderates, there just aren’t that many religious voters left to scoop up,” Burge said.

Democrats have gotten a lot less religious

And even though a substantial number of Democrats are religious, they have come to make up a smaller and smaller subset of the party. Over the past two decades, the share of people in the Democratic coalition who don’t identify with any religion doubled, from 14 percent in 1998 to 28 percent in 2018, according to the General Social Survey.3 The result is that today’s Democratic Party is increasingly secular, which complicates and limits traditional forms of faith outreach. “This emerging group of secular Democrats coexists a little uneasily with the more religious wing of the party,” said David Campbell, a political science professor at Notre Dame and the coauthor of “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us.” “It’s a sizeable portion of the electorate to ignore, but I think the party has yet to figure out how to appeal to these people.”

Now to be clear, most of the religiously unaffiliated don’t reject religion outright, so candidates who focus on faith may not run any serious risk of alienating these voters. In fact, according to the 2016 CCES data, only 9 percent of Democratic primary voters said they were atheists, while 8 percent said they were agnostics and 18 percent identified as “nothing in particular.” And notably, voters who fell into this last category were still surprisingly connected to organized religion. About half of these Democrats said they still attend church occasionally, and 37 percent said that religion is at least somewhat important in their lives.

However, the fact that Democrats are becoming less religious does mean that religiously-based appeals might not take candidates very far in the primary, or at least not as far as they once might have. Plus, like so many other aspects of our personal identities, there is evidence that Americans’ religious selves are increasingly shaped by our partisan allegiances, with Republicans becoming more religious and Democrats less so. Michele Margolis, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “From Politics to Pews: How Partisanship and the Political Environment Shape Religious Identity,” found that white Democrats are drifting away from religion because of their politics, which means religion may not be as influential politically as it was in the past. “Religion hasn’t evolved to be a cue for religious voters on the left the way it has for religious voters on the right,” Margolis said. “If you live in a world where being a Democrat is equated with being less religious, and religion also isn’t central to your life, why should someone using religious rhetoric appeal to you?”

Religion may not rule Democrats’ vote choice

If there remains an obvious opportunity for some version of the religious left to emerge, it would be among black and Hispanic4 Democratic primary voters, who were significantly more likely than white Democrats to say that religion is somewhat or very important in their lives in the 2016 CCES survey.

And black Protestants are already quite powerful in the party. As FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver wrote earlier this year, black voters (who are overwhelmingly likely to be Christian) constitute about one-fifth of the Democratic electorate and have a long and deep alliance with the Democratic establishment, making them a key constituency in the primary. According to the CCES, the vast majority of black Protestants and nearly three-quarters of Hispanic Catholics voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

And while it’s possible to imagine some kind of religious coalition emerging among Democrats of color, there aren’t any obvious issues that could unify black and Hispanic voters who are driven by their religious convictions, the way that abortion and same-sex marriage united white Protestants and Catholics on the right. Campbell also pointed out that many white Christian conservatives are motivated by a shared sense of religious embattlement or alienation — or the idea that their Christian values are being shoved to the margins or stamped out entirely by a rising tide of secularism. “They’re driven to get involved in politics because they see their Christian identity and Christianity’s place in American life as being under attack,” he said. “On the political left, certainly there’s a lot of talk of values being under attack, but it’s not framed in terms of an existential threat to your religious identity.”

But Democrats still ignore their party’s most religious voters at their peril, said Michael Wear, who directed faith outreach for Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign. He and other Democratic faith advisers have criticized Hillary Clinton’s campaign for failing to engage seriously with religious communities like white Midwestern Catholics or black Protestants. But he added that he’s waiting to see whether the 2020 candidates start building up an infrastructure for reaching religious leaders and groups. “Rhetoric can be powerful, but you also need relationships and outreach,” he said. “You can’t just talk about your religious identity on TV.” This outreach, Wear said, has to be careful and sincere. As even for highly religious Democrats, religion is still just one factor among many they’ll use to choose a candidate.

As the campaign continues, we’ll learn more about the candidates’ approach to faith — especially whether they prioritize outreach to religious voters in states like Iowa and South Carolina, where religion is likely to be a more important issue than in a relatively secular state like New Hampshire. But while mobilizing specific subgroups of religious Democrats will still be important, the dream of building a cohesive religious voting bloc on the left looks more distant by the year. Democrats may not have much to lose by talking about faith and values — but it may not offer them much of a reward among primary voters either.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux and Laura Bronner

4 notes · View notes

loyallogic · 5 years ago

Text

All You Need to Know About Tribal Treason

This article is written by Ananya Pande and Simran Dhaner, students currently pursuing B.A.LLB(Hons.) from Hidayatullah National Law University. This is an exhaustive article which deals with the problems faced by the tribal people in our country and its repercussions. It also discusses the policies and schemes for resolving these problems.

“Grievances unspoken, burdens unprotested, destiny submitted’’

Introduction

It’s a sad reality that tribals or Adivasis in our country are caught between two fires, neither they are able to totally depart from their old culture nor they are able to completely adapt to the new ones. This is the biggest Treason ever committed not only against them but to the whole of humanity. Tribals are the first-ever human social group that ever existed. There are multiple definitions given by scholars for the term ‘tribe’ and ‘tribal’ but some of the common features of these definitions would be common ancestors, ��collection of families bearing a common name, speaking a common dialect, habitating a common territory etc. The tribal population in the country, as per 2011 census, is 10.43 crore, constituting about 8.61% of the total population. Madhya Pradesh has the largest number of Scheduled Tribes (STs) contributing 14.69% to the total percentage of ST population.

Overview

The tribal community is one of the most vulnerable community in India. Poverty, infringement of rights, poor healthcare and isolation are just some of the many hurdles in the life of the tribals. Many social thinkers like Jawaharlal Nehru and D. N. Majumdar have talked about them and has presented their views to handle this situation. Some other important problems pertaining to STs in India are identity crisis, reluctant urbanization, political absence, exploitation of resources, forced conversion-reconversion (Ghar Waapsi) and more. And responsibility of these treasons is on no one else’s but our shoulders. Yes, there is no particular individual to blame for this but us only. Not to mention these take a heavy toll on the tribal population and it’s the affect of this betrayal only that they are led towards Naxalism and other serious crimes, this is trespass of their culture and they are incapable of becoming a part of the mainstream.

Click Above

Problems

Identity Crisis

It is seen from the inception of the modern era that the tribes have always been struggling to have their own unique identities but at more than one point of time it is seen that these identities are imposed on them. They are not a direct part of Hinduism but since our Constitution says that any person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Jew or Parsi will be considered a Hindu, so we refer to them as Hindus. If we look way back to the line of our ancestors, we’ll find that at some point of time we all belonged to some tribe and that was the inception. The Constitution of India refers to tribes as Scheduled Tribe and defines it under its Article 366(25). People think that Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes have a little difference because both the terms have often been used together. This notion is completely wrong, as people fail to understand that the tribals do not belong to any caste and are not the SCs who were referred to as untouchables during the early period in India. Tribals are not any Jati but Janjati, not Dalits but Adivasis. They were never the part of the Varna Dharma of Hindus. They need to be identified properly, this crisis must end.

Reluctant Urbanisers

Due to globalization and industrialization in such a vast scale, there have been drastic changes in the lives of the tribal people. These all changes for the sake of development of the nation have led to the urbanisation and have made the tribal people reluctant urbaniser. They have a destitute standard of living and in the need of money they are forced to come out of their conventional living conditions. They are offered fanciful job opportunities as bait and they fall for it. They are trafficked or employed as sex workers, beggars and some are even subjected to sexual assault and forced surrogacy. They are forced to leave their native home in forests and become a part of the urban society where they feel out of the place. They are neither able to adapt to the urban society nor go back to their original habitat. They are stuck with no sense of belonging anymore.

Political Absence

We can very well question the existence of tribals in daily life, forget about them being represented politically. The tribals have always felt the lack of political representation, much needed in our country. They need some political leaders who can express the opinions of the tribes and put forth their demands and needs. They need representation so that their rights are not infringed and their issues get resolved through the judicial courts of the country. But we can very well see that there is a paucity of powerful political leaders who belong to tribal background and even those who are actually present are just there because there is a provision for reservation in our constitution. This representation should go beyond mere representation to fulfill the basic need of tribes.

Exploitation of Resources

With the loss of land and the natural surroundings, there has been a breakdown in traditional form of living and practices of tribals. The idea behind the exploitation of the tribal land is quite simple, these are the lands untouched and unexplored by anyone and hence are very rich in its mineral content. The whole 100% of the country’s tin is found in Dantewada of Chhattisgarh which is a tribal area. Their lands have been taken away for various developmental purposes due to which they have lost all their habitat and all means of livelihood. Their lands mined, forests curtailed, rivers poisoned, skies polluted. This is very unfortunate that the rights which our constitution vows to protect are manipulated for economic gains.

Ghar Waapsi

Ghar Waapsi which means ‘homecoming’, seeks to describe the coerced mass conversions to Hinduism. At first, they were forcefully converted to Christianity made to forget their “Bonga devta” for the love of Jesus by the English during British regime and then orthodox Hindus reconverted many of these poor tribals back to Hinduism. This is followed even today in India. An important example worth mentioning here would be the Ghar waapsi campaign led by Dilip Singh Judeo, which began more than two decades ago in undivided Madhya Pradesh, present day Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. It had often sparked controversies with organisers claiming to bring Christians ‘back to’ Hinduism which they said had been their original religion. It seems that they don’t even possess freedom of religion.

Repercussions of Treason

Naxalism

Term Naxalism is derived from the village Naxalbari in West Bengal. They are considered to be the far-left radical communists. It was a revolt against the landlords who bashed a peasant over a land dispute in West Bengal and slowly spread across other eastern states such as Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha. From Tirupati to Pashupati. They are far radical and violent, and pose a threat to the nation. Redundant act of violence, land theft and other atrocities against tribals push them towards Naxalism and hence then they start to take up weapons and opt for violent measures. This terribly hampers the peace and harmony of the country in drastic ways. An important example worth mentioning here would be of ‘Salwa Judum’ (2005), meaning ‘Purification Hunt’. It was led by Mahendra Karma, the Tiger of Bastar, in the districts of Dantewada and Bastar. It was an armed militia that was a part anti-insurgency operation to counter naxalite violence in the region. Local tribals were raised against their own brethren resulting in a civil war. The Supreme Court outlawed and banned it, but it still exists in the form of Armed Auxiliary Forces, District Reserve Group and other vigilante groups working covertly.

Acculturation

With modernization and globalization in full swing, tribal culture comes in contact with other cultures of India due to which there is revolutionary change in tribal culture. Nowadays we see tribals in shirt-pants not with dhotis or peacock feather over their head or so on which used to be their traditional attire. The severe impact of this acculturation is that tribal people are abandoning their own long-run culture and traditions which is the heart and soul of a tribe. What is more disheartening is that nowadays their traditions and customs are not seen in their day-to-day life but merely during the festivals or national days through their traditional dance, cuisine and costumes. Culture for them is not merely a symbolic representation but a ‘way of life’.

Click Above

Government Initiatives

Policies

Social thinkers discussed measures to be taken in their policies for upliftment of the tribal people keeping in mind what would be best for them. Firstly, the answer was Isolation. The creation of self-governing tribal areas with free power of self-determination with minimum or no interference at all. Secondly, the answer changed to Assimilation. The notion was that tribals are backward Hindus and they should be completely assimilated into Hindu culture only. To this D.N. Majumdar put forward his philosophy of tribal welfare. His view was that it is not possible to leave the entire tribal population to their own lot and also to completely assimilate them in the Hindu culture. Hence, a gradual transformation of the tribal population will be the best policy. We should help them in assimilating in their own way of life the elements of alien culture which they can readily accept. Finally, the answer was Integration. Jawaharlal Nehru in his Panchsheel policy formulated five principles for the policy to be pursued for their integration. They are:

People should develop along the lines of their own genius, and the imposition of alien values should be avoided. Try to encourage in every way their own traditional arts and culture.

The tribal rights in land and forest should be respected.

Train and build up a team of their own people to do the work of administration and development. Try to avoid introducing too many outsiders into tribal territory.

We should not over administer tribal areas or overwhelmed with a multiplicity of schemes. Administrate in accordance with their own social and cultural institutions.

We should judge the result, not by statistics or the amount of money spent, but by the human character that is evolved.

Schemes and Programmes

A number of employment-oriented and developmental programmes for tribals have been introduced by the government of India. The major programmes are Jawahar Rosgar Yojana (JRY), Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP), Prime Ministers Rosgar Yojana (PMRY) and Training For Self Employment For Rural youth (TRYSEM). Also there have been several acts implemented for their benefit like Forest Rights Act (2006), Protection of Civil Rights Act (1955), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (1996) or PESA and others. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs drafted the National Tribal Policy in 2006 to look at the issue of development of STs in an integrated and holistic manner. It will address the issues such as enhancement of human development index of STs, improvement of infrastructure in STs dominated areas, ensuring that they have control over the natural resources base, displacement from their habitat and resettlement, distribution of wealth among tribals. The objective of this policy is to bring STs at par with the rest of the population in terms of their socio-economic conditions, HDI and basic infrastructure facilities in tribal areas. This policy can do wonders if implemented ideally.

Conclusion

Even after numbering so many issues of tribal people, we can still expect some good things for them in the near future as there are several schemes and programmes being implemented and laws even being amended to protect their rights and interests. There is not really a need of different set of rights and laws as in Tribal Rights for them, Human Rights are enough. But the real question is if we consider them humans or not.

References

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/5/313/htm

http://www.journalijar.com/article/19014/understanding-the-indian-tribal-life-and-their-issues/

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

The post All You Need to Know About Tribal Treason appeared first on iPleaders.

All You Need to Know About Tribal Treason published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/

0 notes

wolfcinema41-blog · 6 years ago

Text

The Ethics of Abortion The Pluralism Project

The Pluralism Project

For more than three decades, Americans have been deeply polarized over the issue of abortion. While the debate on abortion involves secularists as well as people of every religious tradition, the issue has become particularly acute among Christians because of strong views on both sides. Generally, the debate has been cast in terms of “pro-life” views and “pro-choice” views, but it is clearly a much more complex issue for Christians.

The legality of abortion was confirmed in 1973 when the United States Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute that prohibited abortion procedures, no matter how medically urgent they might be. This decision, commonly referred to as Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)], is the most important legal milestone in the debate. In its decision, the Court acknowledged that it cannot rule as to when life begins, since even those in medicine, theology, and philosophy have no consensus on this matter.

Christian pro-life advocates insist that all human life is sacred and that human life begins at the moment of conception. From the point of view of pro-life Christians, America’s aborted fetuses are unborn babies who are killed through the process. As Pope John Paul II put it, “The legalization of the termination of pregnancy is none other than the authorization given to an adult, with the approval of an established law, to take the lives of children yet unborn and thus incapable of defending themselves.” The most vocal opposition to abortion has come from the Roman Catholic Church and from evangelical Christians, including activist groups such as Operation Rescue. The presumption is that there should be no abortion at all, a general principle to which some liberal pro-life advocates might carve out a series of exceptions, such as in the case of rape, incest, known deformity, or grave danger to the life of the mother.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights (formerly, the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights) brings together Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Unitarian Universalists, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists who want to make clear that pro-life voices are not the only religious voices in the abortion debate. Describing their position as people of faith, the RCRR seeks to “support individuals in making their own moral decisions and stand with them as they struggle with the very real complexities of life.” The Coalition acknowledges that, “while people of all religions anguish over abortion, most feel this is a moral decision, one a woman must make for herself in keeping with her faith, beliefs, conscience, and her own personal situation.” Another voice in the debate is Catholics for Free Choice, an organization of Catholics who are both pro-choice and involved faithful Christians in the life of their parishes and communities. Catholics for Free Choice, founded in 1973, lobbies for women’s reproductive rights in Congress and legislatures. Results from a 2012 survey conducted on behalf of the organization showed that 60 percent of Catholic voters think abortion should be legal.

At the extreme, pro-life activists have included people who have engaged in a series of violent attacks on abortion clinics and doctors. In 2009, Dr. George Tiller, one of only a few doctors in the United States to perform abortions into the third trimester of pregnancy, was killed inside Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas where he was a member. Tiller had been shot before, in 1993, and his abortion clinic had been bombed in 1986. Another physician, Barnett Slepian, was killed in Buffalo in 1998, preceded by two other doctors in northern Florida and abortion clinic workers in Boston between 1993 and 1995. Despite these incidents, the vast majority of people and organizations within the pro-life movement do not condone the use of violence. Many are vocal, however, about the violence associated with abortion procedures, especially in the case of partial birth abortion.

In a decision that presumably involves a woman and a man, a doctor, and a fetus, the question of whose “voice” counts is highly charged. Pro-life activists often suspect the pro-choice movement of treating abortion lightly in the context of a so-called “sexual revolution” that takes sexual encounters all too lightly and where abortion is considered a method of birth control. According to this view, pro-choice advocates do not to grant any recognition or moral status to fetal life at all, effectively leaving the life of the fetus completely out of the process of ethical decision-making. The pro-choice side, however, often sees pro-life advocates as concerned only with the life of the unborn and callous about the lives and opportunities of those same children from the moment they are born. Pro-life advocates appear to give virtual sovereignty to the fetus, blind to the stark realities of poverty and human hardship, while ruling out abortion regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy or the well-being of the mother.

Abortion is one of many difficult ethical decisions today involving human judgment on the line between life and death: expensive medical treatments, organ transplants, birth control, and “death with dignity” initiatives. Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is also a topic of great debate in the larger context of what Chicago’s Cardinal Bernardin had framed as “a consistent ethic of life.” A 2005 statement from the U.S.. Conference of Catholic Bishops frames the issue of capital punishment in a way similar to that of the abortion debate: “Ending the death penalty would be one important step away from a culture of death and toward building a culture of life.”

There have been some efforts to find “common ground” between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. In a 1996 Christian Century article titled “Pro-life, Pro-Choice: Can We Talk?,” Frederica Mathewes-Green documents the Common Ground Network which began in Missouri in the late 1980s when Andrew Pudzer, a pro-life lawyer, and B.J. Isaacson-Jones, the head of one of the largest abortion clinics in St. Louis began to have conversations. The two “enemies” met privately face to face for several months before appearing together to discuss the issues on a local television show. While they had diametrically opposed views on abortion, they found that there was indeed much “common ground” between them. For example, they agreed that both sides should seek more aid for women below the poverty line and for their children, both born and unborn.

Those involved in these dialogues say the discovery of some overlapping areas of common commitment is important. Mathewes-Green described one such discovery at a dialogue in Washington D.C. “In one small group, an aggressive pro-choice lawyer was talking passionately about the protection of abused children. She spoke about children’s helplessness before their adult attackers. ‘They’re so small and vulnerable, and they have no one to defend them.’ A pro-lifer in the group said softly, ‘You know, that’s the reason a lot of people give for being pro-life.’” At the same time, those who participate in these efforts are often criticized for talking with the “enemy.” Mathewes-Green wrote about one pro-life leader who characterized the discussions as “seeking common ground with proponents of murder.”

Through the process of face-to face dialogue, each side is challenged in its stereotypes about what the other actually believes. Efforts to find common ground continue, as evidenced in the October 2012 broadcast of “Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Pro-Dialogue,” a Civil Conversation Project event at the University of Minnesota hosted by Krista Tippett and the American Public Media program On Being. Dr. David Gushee, a Christian ethicist, and Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for Choice, demonstrated the kind of nuanced conversation not heard in this often deeply polarized public discussion.

0 notes

wionews · 7 years ago

Text

'In the name of the Father'

Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism. That’s in order of the alphabet, not of preference, or greatness. These major world religions were either founded by prophets who trod the earth or, evolved through the mists of ancient mythology. And they contain one, common message: tolerance, even of those who choose another God. In terms of followers, the world’s biggest religions are Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. Then there are other small but equally global faiths, Judaism and Buddhism. The last, especially, is legendary for its consistency in preaching and largely practicing compassion.

Some choose a mosque. Others a temple. Some attend churches, others frequent synagogues.

Some choose a mosque. Others a temple. Some attend churches, others frequent synagogues. We inhabit the same cities, eat the produce of the same earth, work at similar jobs. We hang out at my place for Diwali, his for Christmas, hers for Id, yours for Rosh Hashanah. At least that’s what most thought till - it all began to change.

It’s Christians vs, Muslims, Muslims vs Jews, Buddhists vs Christians, Hindus vs Muslims today. It’s either my way or - the highway. You either worship my God or - I’ll force you to do so. Religious tolerance is yesterday’s news. Polarisation is the hallmark of today’s world. Be it in society or politics, in the classroom or the boardroom, religious intolerance is polarising the world today.

Christianity:

"One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables, let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?" That’s the Sixth Book of the New Testament - the Bible, the holy scripture for 2.2 billion people in the world ie, 31.5 per cent of the globe’s population.

But way back in the 12th century, early practitioners of the faith opened one of the worst chapters in the history of Christianity: the Inquisitions. This kind of 'portable' religious court was first held in France. It was a period marked by witch-hunt, lynching and forcible conversions.

By the end of the 14th century, hundreds of Jews were killed in Spain and later across its South American colonies.

The intention was to prosecute Catholics who were attracted by other churches. The practice soon spread to other countries like Spain and Portugal. Those colonial powers took it to the next level. They began to hold harsh, cruel inquisitions in their colonial properties in Africa, Asia and the America. Their favourite targets were those Jews and Muslims who had converted to Christianity only to find that the Catholic colonial masters hauled them again: this time, to question their commitment.

By the end of the 14th century, mistrust had turned into deep hatred. Hundreds of Jews were killed in Spain and later across its South American colonies.

Historians say the Portuguese were far worse. Their inquisition began in 1536 and soon, a cruel and tyrannical version moved to Brazil and - to Goa, their tiny colony on India’s West Coast. In Goa, the chief targets were Hindus and Muslims. First, there were conversions by force. Anyone who resisted was tortured or burnt alive.

Those who converted but practised Indian rituals soon faced harsh inquisitions because the slightest deviation raised doubts about their commitment to Christianity. This tyranny began in 1560 and continued for 252 years. Anyone in Goa could be tortured merely for possessing a Hindu religious symbol. In the late 1800s, the inquisitions also hunted down practitioners of witchcraft, cult-leaders and even bigamists. The horrors are depicted vividly in Guardians of The Dawn, a bestselling historical novel set in Portuguese Goa.

WION spoke to Richard Zimler, its author. "We’re talking about fundamentalists even way back then. That’s the danger and there is a need for all of us to oppose fundamentalism of any kind. The Portuguese would not allow anyone who had converted to Christianity to continue to practice their traditional religion," he says. "My book did very well in Portugal. There were some who said I was painting Portugal in a bad light but I am happy to expose the truth and fight against fundamentalism".

Mindless executions, forcible conversions, unmitigated cruelty and violence towards all who oppose them. These are the hallmarks of terror groups like the Islamic State (I.S.) today. Only their God has a different name, as does their holy book. Zimler agrees that today's violence is nothing but a repeat of the crusades.

The Inquisitions gradually stopped but - anti-semitism persisted. Indeed, hatred for Jews pervaded even literature and the fine arts and didn’t escape many of the world's greatest writers. Like William Shakespeare's clichéd caricature, that of the greedy moneylender, Shylock. Or Charles Dickens' conniving villain, Fagin. That xenophobia reached its pinnacle under Adolf Hitler.

The Holocaust is one of the worst genocides known in the history of mankind.

In a cold-blooded and systematic operation that included instruments of torture and factories of death that boggle the mind, 6 million innocent Jewish men, women and children were killed. The Holocaust is one of the worst genocides known in the history of mankind. And three generations of Germans continue to struggle with the question: how could their forefathers have allowed Hitler and his Nazis to carry out this unbridled manslaughter?

"Crimes against humanity should never be forgotten," said German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a sombre memorial service for the victims of the Holocaust. "We have the perpetual responsibility to transmit the knowledge of the atrocities committed in the past and to keep alive their memory."

Unsurprisingly and given that murderous past, Germany and all EU member-states have grounded their constitutions firmly in the tenets of the European Convention on Human Rights. Germany has more than adhered to its own, by taking in millions of refugees fleeing from troubled countries, even economic refugees in the guise of persecution.

But is darkness really a thing of the past in Europe? There has been a steady rise of the extreme right-wing all over the Continent again in recent years. Its graph rose upwards even and especially during a crippling recession. And when refugees on the run from the US-led war in Syria and Iraq started pouring into Europe in 2015, even Scandinavian countries with the most magnanimous asylum policies, like Sweden, began to see a rise in neo-Nazi popularity.

Today, Europe is simmering with intolerance. Xenophobia even finds representation in various provincial parliaments. There are the Swedish Democrats, there is the Alternative for Germany, there is the Front National in France, there’s the Freedom Party in Austria which is slated to form the next coalition government.

Since the September 11 attacks in New York in 2001, there have been more than 900 terror strikes in Europe.

And much like in the United States, there’s a new scapegoat here in Europe too: Muslims. When France’s right-wing leader Marine Le Pen was asked by a television interviewer whether Muslim people should be allowed to wear headscarves, she said, "No I am opposed to headscarves being worn in public places. France is not burqinis on the beach. France is Brigitte Bardot".

Since the September 11 attacks in New York in 2001, there have been more than 900 terror strikes in Europe. The fact that most were at the hands of Islamist terror groups like the Islamic State has only fanned the fires of religious intolerance.

Islam:

"For you is your religion, and for me is my religion". That’s what the Quran says, possibly the most hotly debated holy book of all in recent times. Islamist terrorism is wreaking havoc and spilling rivers of blood across the world. The criminals have several motives, to convert the entire world to Islam and reduce women to subservience.

They swear by the Quran and that’s unfortunate because by doing so, they are maligning millions of tolerant Muslims too. The Quran also makes one thing very clear, "There shall be no compulsion in the religion".

So how and when did this fanaticism begin? This unholy ‘holy war’, or ‘jehad’? Where does the Quran tell its followers to kill innocents in the name of faith? Or is everyone except Islamist terrorists, many of whom are nurtured, trained and armed by Pakistan to target India misreading the Quran?

Are millions of moderate Muslims living in La-La Land? Many scholars point to the West’s own unholy Crusades to enforce Christianity around the world. Some of the unholiest Crusades were in Islamic countries, including in the Middle East, where Islam was born.

Thirty-five years ago, the Iranian Revolution changed the fabric of Iranian society. But it also changed the geopolitics of the Middle East and redrew the map of global alliances.

Much like the cosmopolitan capitals of the west, Iran was a turnpike on the global map of the swinging sixties, mini skirts, bars, the races, balls, concert halls, fashion, theatre and emancipated women working alongside men, and dressed as they pleased. So when and how, did all that change, and was the change really all that bad? Are those elements really the criteria, as the West likes to believe of a stable and democratic society? When Iran’s Islamic Revolution brought radical changes, were the Iranians quite relieved to be rid of a tyrannical regime?

Thirty-five years ago, the Iranian Revolution changed the fabric of Iranian society. But it also changed the geopolitics of the Middle East and redrew the map of global alliances. It was a populist Shia uprising that replaced the dictatorial monarchy with an Islamic theocracy. And it was unique and surprised the world because it carried none of the usual hallmarks of a revolution: War, financial crisis, national debt or a weak army. A renowned scholar of Iranian studies, Dr Majid Tafreshi spoke to WION and explained what led to the Revolution and beyond.

"In the 40s and 50s, the then-new King Mohammed Reza Shah had good relations with the Olama (Ullema / clergy) but after the death of an Ayatollah in the early 60s, that relationship turned confrontational", says Dr Tafreshi. "Then came the new phenomenon Ayatollah Khomeini. He was a charismatic character and had dedicated followers. Gradually, he became the political and religious leader in Iran. An early confrontation of the Shah in 1963 was put down. But though most people took that as a sign that the Shah was in control, 1963 was, in reality, the beginning of the end of the Shah and monarchy in Iran."

Predictably, the inordinate interest in Iran’s affairs on part of the West. They wanted to control the Shah whose importance had grown along with that of Iran’s oil reserves. A revolution and an ouster of the Shah at that point in time was considered "highly inconvenient". Dr Tafreshi says that this is the reason why the United States government tried hard to prevent an uprising.

Afghanistan changed from a secular state into a turbulent republic, struggling to strike a compromise between conservative Islam and Western-style modernity and remains to this day, in search of its true identity.

But it met with no success. The revolution changed the face of Iran drastically. It also inspired similar uprisings across the Middle East. There is western perception about life in today’s Iran. But there is also the Iranian determination to never bow to western hegemony. To experience what life in Iran is really like, observers would do themselves a favour by avoiding media reports emanating in the West and experiencing it for themselves.

During the 7th century, Caliphate Arabs made their way onwards to Afghanistan. That country’s subsequent history has seen many constitutional changes including the establishment of the Sharia as the state religion in 1931. By 1977, Afghanistan’s constitution had twice been tweaked and made more secular to use a contested word. By then, Afghanistan was fully modelled along the lines of a modern country with a penal code and civil law.

Islamic movements in Afghanistan were born in the late fifties but had remained relatively passive. By the late seventies, they gained in popularity among sections of the population which felt alienated by Western-style democracy. By the time the Soviet Union invaded in support of a communist force in Kabul, there was a solid resurgence of the Islamic movement.

But from the birth of a unified mujahedin to push out a foreign invader to a radical Islamist Al Quaida, Taliban and now the Islamic State is a long leap of the leap for the imagination. But happen it did. Afghanistan changed from a secular state into a turbulent republic, struggling to strike a compromise between conservative Islam and Western-style modernity and remains to this day, in search of its true identity.

Hinduism:

Valmiki’s Ramayana, the epic poem on the banishment of God Rama, describes the god as one "who cared for equality to all".

‘’For those who live magnanimously, the entire world is a family.”

This is stated in the Upanishads, Hinduism’s ancient philosophical texts that are said to have been compiled between 800 and 500 BCE, ie, before the birth of Jesus Christ. The message is repeated in various ways in other Hindu religious texts, even after reformers began to question some of its practices and beliefs.

Valmiki’s Ramayana, the epic poem on the banishment of God Rama, describes the god as one "who cared for equality to all". Hinduism has been the mothership of many other new religions – Jainism, Buddhism – and has always been viewed as a way of life, a tolerant philosophy, more than as a diktat to worship a particular set of divinities. Critics of Hinduism point to its division of society into castes and the inequality that persists between those castes, even in modern India. Other scholars claim that the caste system, in ancient times, was merely an administrative division of people according to their professions. In the seventy years since India’s independence, laws have been passed, the abhorrent concept of ‘untouchability’ long stands banned. Surely a radical improvement? Not according to former police officer and Dalit rights activist, S.R. Darapuri.

"The rigours of the caste system in the past have undoubtedly been very harsh", Darapuri told WION. "There was a lot of distance between various castes and the lower caste was subjected to much discrimination. It is true caste rigors have slackened to an extent in modern India. The caste system doesn’t seem to work particularly in the urban context. In rural India, the law has not been able to overcome caste discrimination.

The caste system has the religious sanction of Hinduism. As long as Hinduism remains in its present form, the caste system will continue because there is no Hindu who has no caste.

When untouchability was abolished, the practice decreased to an extent. But it still very much exists. The caste system has the religious sanction of Hinduism. And as long as Hinduism remains in its present form, the caste system will continue because there is no Hindu who has no caste. Indeed, it is the religious duty of a Hindu to observe caste practices and obligations.

Darapuri emphatically dismisses the racial theory on the origin of caste and points to Dr Ambedkar’s book, The Untouchables. In it, the author of India’s Constitution cites the anthropological evidence that lower and higher castes belong to the same racial stock. The activist makes no bones to point that the division of labor theory about caste holds no water too. After all, he argues, if it caste originated only to distinguish professions, then surely it ought to change when an individual change his area of work. "The caste system is one of superiority and inferiority", sums up Darapuri. Though the caste system can even be discerned even among converts to other religions in India, caste wars were essentially a Hindu phenomenon. To other foreigners like Arab traders who came landed in Kerala, the relationship with the Hindus was good. Soon Arab and Persian traders began to settle in Gujarat. Ismaili Islam took root in the western Indian state.

But by the 12th century, a different kind of Islam, one more strident and eerily similar in zeal and ferocity to the Christian Crusades, began to arrive in Northern India. Sindh in today's Pakistan became a province of the Umayyad caliphate. Then came Mahmud of Ghazni, leaving a bloody trail of loot, plunder and murder along with his way.

He conquered Punjab and his marauding armies even reached Gujarat. By the end of the 12th century, the Delhi Sultanate was born. Then came the Mughals, some cruel and zealous about forcing conversion, others benign and more bent on creating an integrated society.

But those were harsh conquerors, ancient times. By the time the last Mughal was overthrown by the British Empire and before the latter could indulge one more time in its classical game of Divide and Rule that saw India and Pakistan separate, Muslims and Hindus had come together with one common goal: to shake off British rule. And succeed they did. But what happened decades later? For an old mosque to be destroyed? For riots to erupt between India’s Hindus and Muslims? Call it the debut of religion in politics, lay it at opportunism’s door.

If there is one religious teaching that focuses entirely on the principle of tolerance and non-violence, it is Buddhism.

Judaism and Buddhism: "The Torah was given to mankind in order to establish peace," reads an excerpt from Judaism's holy book. But the Jews of Israel continue to live in one of the most turbulent regions in the world. Followers of Judaism don't outnumber Christians, Muslims or Hindus. And yet, it is their controversial politics that continues to take centre-stage in the global arena today.

"One is not called noble who harms living beings", reads the Dhammapada. One of the Buddha's most renowned followers, Emperor Ashoka, carried that message forward: "The faiths of others all deserve to be honoured for one reason or another". If there is one religious teaching that focuses entirely on the principle of tolerance and non-violence, it is Buddhism.

And yet, there are militant factions even among followers of Gautama Buddha. In Sri Lanka, where radicalised monks have targeted Muslims and other minorities. In Myanmar, where the Rohingya Muslim minority has borne the wrath of similarly militant Buddhists. What happened to the world's most gentle religion? If Buddhists can be polarised, is there any hope left for the rest of the world?

This is the second article of WION's three-part series "Poles Apart". The first article was published on 17/10/17.

]]>

0 notes