[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: No political articles on SRH? Really?
In article <4sim1u$8gn@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, Shrisha Rao <shrao@nyx.net> wrote:
>In article <31EBFEB1.3A17@ecn.purdue.edu>,
>
>I think that's fine too. My only point is that we need to define what
>"purely political" means in this context.
>
As I said earlier, if any one amongst the netters thinks that they can
demarcate this "Lakshmana Rekha" between, is indeed indulging in wishful
thinking.
Gandhiji started his satyagrahas with Rama Dhun, what was it political or
religious?
While fighting against the muslim mlechaas, the battle cry used to be "Har
Har Mahadeva" ... how would you classify this? religious or political?
>
>You of all people should know how "spiritual" I am, being a Dvaitin
>and all :-)
>
>Anyway, my point is not that I am too spiritual and hence look down
>upon politics, but that the posting referred to has nothing by way of
>spiritual content, and abounds in politics. I take it you accept
>this.
>
but it is not purely political either.
>
>I do think we get along -- don't we? But I also think that Vivek's
>questioning has its value, even if you disagree with his motives or
>method. Because in trying to resolve what the exact policies about
>moderation are, he's helping us to focus upon and better define the
>ways and means in which the newsgroup can be improved, and that is
>surely laudable. For example, this very act of his, where he "catches
>
Are you sure, you are not trying to develop an alogorithm for a proposed
Robo-moderator, who can moderate the whole USENET spectrum?
All moderators are out of a job, starting with Ajay Shah. :-)
[Ajay, start working on your resume, and please spread the word around on
the moderators forum as well. ;) ]
>
>a trivial point," has led to this discussion where we have had a
>useful exchange about each other's perceptions about the role and
>relationship of religion and politics, especially in the context of a
>soc.religion.* newsgroup. And that, I submit, is surely something
>gained, even if poor Vivek is the loser in the process, for having
>caught flak yet again for his personal role in the matter.
>
Hmmmmmm ..... {thinking aloud}
.... That is modertor's job, not Vivek's.
{/thinking aloud}
>
>You misunderstand me. For one thing, the temple issue was brought up
>in an incidental reference -- it wasn't the primary issue covered by
>the posting. (If it had been, I'd have not questioned its being
>posted at all.) But as a person who does not like the BJP, you do
>accept, don't you, that some people, perhaps including some elements
>in the BJP, are interested in using the Ram temple issue for purely
>political gain? And that reportage about such elements, or their
>
But that would be a subjective judgement on your part. If you are not
interested in seeing a Rama Mandir then you could very well justify it as
a political issue. But what about the masses, who want to see a Rama
Mandir built there?
>
>views, purposes, and actions, can and may qualify as purely political,
>even though the issue is based in religion? Mind you, this is not
>
What about your Swamiji, who perceives this as spiritual? As long as your
Swamiji sees as spiritual, it shall be spiritual. :-)
>
>Again, I don't dispute that it's of interest to us. What I'd like to
>know is how one would distinguish between something that is purely
>political, and something that is about the political and
>socio-economic consequences of being Hindu. After all, much purely
>
Take a look at Hindu Civilization as a whole ... not just the spiritual
axis.
>
>political verbiage, including but not limited to that of the Sangh
>Parivar, is at least seemingly about the political and socio-economic
>consequences of being Hindu, or of whatever other group.
>
so it is justified being posted on SRH. Right?
>Regards,
>
>Shrisha Rao
>
--
regards,
Rajiv
