[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: No political articles on SRH? Really?
In article <4sec78$clm@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>Vivek Sadananda Pai wrote:
>
>Reservations based on religion is certainly of interest.
There is a difference between "of interest" and directly relevant. Is
the article directly relevant to Hinduism? No. Is the article of
interest to Hindus engaged in political power gyrations, etc.,
etc. Yes.
So, should be it in a religion newsgroup, a cultural newsgroup, or a
political newsgroup?
How about this - most Hindus are Indian - does that mean that the
daily news of India should be broadcast on this newsgroup? Why or why
not? It would be of interest to many Hindus.
>If articles about the BJP or VHP had been given, extolling their policies etc,
>that would have been purely political.
If it's about the political scene in India and is dealing solely with
communal politics, like it or not, it's purely political.
>> |> The minister denied having said that criminal cases would
>> |> be filed afresh against those responsible for bringing down
>> |> the disputed structure at ayodhya and added that he had been
>> |> misquoted by the press.
>
>ayodhya - Ram temple - not hindu?
Does a mere mention of Ayodhya suddenly make it a religious article?
What, is this like adding the Ganesh baba blurb to the drug-promoting
article and it suddenly becomes OK? Are we soon going to be seeing
everyone posting anything and adding at the end "many Hindus are
interested in such-and-such"? Would that qualify as relevant?
> ''All I have said is that anyone who was responsible for
>> |> the unfortunate happenings at Ayodhya and has not been
>> |> prosecuted would be brought to justice,'' he said.
>
>current action on ayodhya incident - not hindu related?
I fail to see any relation of that sentence to the Hindu
religion. What it looks like is someone talking about seeing people
prosecuted. While those people may be Hindus, and while that court
case may be of interest to some Hindus, I can find no way to label it
anything but politics, and it's definitely not directly relevant to
the Hindu religion.
Recall what started that "not directly relevant" clause - there was a
meeting of gays which included gay Hindus, and shortly after that
article was posted, that "not directly relevant" clause went into
effect.
The reporting of purely political machinations taking place in India,
while they might affect more people, have about the same relevance
to a religious newsgroup.
This is not to say that there aren't any potential discussions
possible on that topic which would have religious relevance. All I'm
saying is that the article presented is not one of them.
-Vivek
