On May 9, a lawyer affiliated with the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, which governs Gujarat, marched into the art exhibit, accompanied by policemen and a film crew, and proclaimed himself offended by several art works, including the multi-armed woman. The upshot was that the student was jailed for "deliberately offending religious sentiments." The university's vice chancellor closed the exhibit, and the dean of the art department that sponsored the exhibit has fled:
Though not charged with any offense, Mr. Panikkar, the art department dean, has also gone into hiding. Friends have warned him that opposing Hindu radical groups in Gujarat state is inviting trouble - and not necessarily protection from the police - he explained in a cellphone interview on Tuesday night.Artists and others demonstrated in support of the student and the dean in Mumbai:
AP/Rajesh Nirgude
While this is not the first instance of such repression in India, radical Hinduism obviously hasn't begun to launch the sort of attack on modernity that we have seen from Muslim extremists. Nevertheless, the trend, if it is a trend, is troubling. India is a strategic partner of great importance to the United States: a democratic counterweight to China, a booming economic power, and the main outpost of Western values in central Asia. If India were to regress into the sort of anti-modern frenzy that afflicts much of the Muslim world, the consequences would be severe.
I'm no expert on either Hinduism or Indian politics, and don't pretend to be able to assess whether Hindu extremism is a serious threat. I'd be curious to know what Dinesh D'Souza has to say on the subject.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. Hi John - I'm confused about two things that maybe you can clear up in future blogs, or maybe you have addressed before I stopped reading Dinesh and started regularly reading Powerline. I prefer Powerline, because, while I may always disagree with at least something, at least you and Paul don't rely on Fundamentalist Christian arguments to support your points. You may be among the few Republicans left in this country that do not appear to want to tear down the separation between church and state.
Which brings me to my questions. First, I've read that you would be interested in hearing what Dinesh has to say about this, and you have in the past expressed your admiration of Dinesh. If that admiration extends to reading his blogs, he has addressed this exact issue in more than one way in the last few months. Dinesh stated in Townhall, linked to his AOL blog, that our President should formally promote "traditional" conservative Christian values as part of our secular diplomatic effort. In regard to India, Dinesh commented at length that Richard Gere's troubles there highlighted the need for such a diplomatic effort, but believed Gere should not be subject to criminal proceedings because he apologized. As you know, it is a blatant violation of the First Amendment separation of church and state for the head of our secular executive branch to publicly advocate Fundamentalist Christian values as part of our foreign policy. So, in essence, Dinesh supports the very thing you deplore in your blog. How can you oppose a blur in the separation of church and state in India, and support the same blur when the Republican party married an extremist minority religious group - Fundamentalists? Your answer would make an interesting blog.
Second, our Republican President, our Republican members of Congress, and Republican presidential candidates, with the notable exception of Rudy, have adopted a uniform policy of specifically catering to Fundamentalism as they conduct our secular government. Since you condemn the same thing in India that your party has done here and continues to advocate going into the 2008 election, do you now believe we need a Democratic Congress AND a Democratic President to ensure that we do not even come even closer to the point India has reached? I do. From your condemnation of similar conduct in India, I assume you do too.
Which Democratic Presidential candidate do you want to see in the White House, and which Republican Congressional members do you think should be replaced by Democrats?
Phil at 8:18PM on May 20th 2007
2. Phil - Is there a difference between promoting Christain values and promoting Christianity?
Greg at 7:55PM on May 21st 2007
3. Hey Greg - Yes there is, but which church's version of Christian values, and which values? DO unto as you would have them do unto you would apply, were it not for the fact that Bush has created millions of potential suicide bombers. Turning the other cheek hasn't been a big hit with Americans since 9-11. Judge not lest ye be judged and thou shall not kill is hard to apply when our own country is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths for no reason, and increased our peril immensely through the terrorist population explosion. The expression of love is always a good thing, but difficult if fighting someone who wants to set off a nuclear bomb in our country. Persecuting gays is immoral, is reliant on selective bible quotation, and was never discussed in Jesus' own words. Abortion to my knowledge is not mentioned in the Bible. Imposing the belief that Christ saved the world and only those who believe that will have a happy afterlife is hard to swallow for the billions of other people with different beliefs. Opposing stem cell research is squarely at odds with the desires of a majority of Americans.
Which values do you think we should promote?
Phil at 2:30PM on May 22nd 2007
4. Most people have a set of values, a sense of right and wrong. These values are often influenced by the teachings of religions. People then apply these values when it comes to using the democratic process to order society. Politicians and voters are often influenced by religious teaching when voting or making decisions. I don’t think this is any threat to the Second Amendment. The Catholic Church, for example, teaches the value of life. Many Catholic voters and politicians are influenced by the church to oppose abortion and the death penalty. The fact that a Catholic politician opposes the death penalty because of a lesson learned in the church is in no way an establishment of religion.
I think the Second Amendment is violated when the government takes specific steps to support a particular religion not when it follows the teachings of that religion. It would be a violation of the Second Amendment if Congress ordered the Ten Commandments posted in every federal building, but it would not be a violation if Congress passed laws based on the values represented in the Ten Commandments (laws against theft, murder or adultery).
By the way, I think both Paul and John are Jewish, which may be why you don’t see much Christian fundamentalism in their writings.
Greg at 7:33PM on May 22nd 2007
5. Now I feel like an idiot. I meant the First Amendment not the Second Amendment. And I did it twice.
Greg at 7:38PM on May 22nd 2007
6. Greg - I'm the mistake and typo guy of all time so don't worry about it. I really don't have much beef with anything you said except too things. First, I believe in God, right and wrong, and an afterlife; was raised a Christian; abandoned it and have been persecuted by it for years because of my sexual preference (even when my paraplegia has taken dominance over that). I formed my own religion based on various religions to what I think makes sense. The belief-o-matic test on the Unitarian website gives me a 99% match with Reform Judaism. Right and wrong do not come from Christianity exclusively - in fact, the principle of Karma itself is the Golden Rule in a more punitive form.
My second beef is that except for felonious behavior, such as child molestation in particular, what goes on in someone's bedroom and whose involved is a violation of the Right of Privacy found in case law, the protection against unlawful search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment, and would likely result in the expense of prosecuting and imprisoning 75,000,000 million people a year. There is also a huge potential for violation of the Fifth Amendment providing for equal protection for all (if one set of people can have sex in the context of marriage, then legislating that anyone having sex in any other context does not provide equal protection). Adding "adultry" into the mix AS A CRIME is Fundamentalism in action.
Hillary is a Christian, John Kerry is Catholic. Millions of Americans have religious views and follow faiths where leaders of that faith may think differently than their own personal faith. Secularism is already based on right and wrong added with analysis of the Constitution. A sense of right and wrong come from many religions, not just Judeo-Christianity. It can also come from atheism.
Adultry is a personal decision - it should not be the subject of law. That's just another example of the intrusion of conservative religion into our government. In fact, conservative religious groups have a direct line to the White House. Ted Haggard called weekly. In the meantime, as we go back to the Dark Ages, the world is moving forward; people's lives are that much closer to being enhanced by stem cell research.
Dinesh, who I no longer read despite the fact that he's been personally kind, friendly and polite to me, did say one thing in an interview that really hit me. Liberals don't hate America, they LOVE liberal America.
Go to wikipedia separation of church and state and you will see that in the Treaty of Tripoli (i think that is the name) John Adams, and the entire unanimous senate that ratified the treaty, expressly stated that the United States is NOT a Christian nation. That fact in regard to our government was also noted by a famed French author who visited early America and I know I'll get the name wrong, Alexis de Touqville.
As Michael Moore so bluntly and aptly put it, the conservative Christian movement is obsessed with sticking its nose in someone else's bedroom or up someone's womb. I want to be able to practice my own religious beliefs and be my genetic self that God created without theocratic intrusion.
I also don't want to die in a concentration camp because of a theocracy, and I'm sick and tired of being the subject of discrimination because of someone's selective quotation of a book written by men, and edited by a Catholic committee as to which chapters got in and which stay out. I practice my paraplegia a LOT more than I practice my gayness, but my gayness will ALWAYS be part of the genetic me. Those who would persecute me, the conservative Christian movement, are without a doubt our new Nazi's - to see my beliefs and support on that read my comment at http://www.aolelectionsblog.com/2007/05/22/liberty-university-terrorist-arrested/ .
I am appalled by Fundamentalism and appalled that three Republican candidates do not believe in evolution which can be visibly viewed at any medical lab. PLEASE, keep conservative Christianity out of my government!
Phil at 10:29AM on May 23rd 2007
7. Phil – I agree with almost everything you wrote. To the extent you have a beef with what I wrote I think it is because of my inability to articulate what I mean. I am not a particularly religious person and I do not get my own sense of right and wrong from religious teachings. But some people do and I do not think there is an establishment problem because they attempt to get the government to enact laws in accord with their belief system. While I don’t personally believe there should be a law against adultery, I think religious people could support such a law without violating the establishment clause. I think the separation of church and state should be a separation of the institutions of church and state. American democracy is people of different belief systems merging their ideas at the ballot box. I don’t think it is proper to tell anyone that they should not participate because of where they get their ideas.
Greg at 11:38AM on May 23rd 2007
8. Greg - you articulate well - I can hardly churn out a comment without a typo or mistake. We're a little apart because of the other laws I cited in relation to an adultry law, but otherwise in sync.
Phil at 11:58AM on May 23rd 2007