Hindus upset with Jim Carrey & NBC

[Manas]

@Bang Galore

Does any Hindu has any right to get offended when his god or religion is mocked or not??

Just read headline of the thread it says "Hindus upset with Jim Carrey & NBC" .They are as much Hindus as anyone who call himself a Hindu and every right speak out and protest peacefully if they find their religion is mocked.

Now it mayn't be big issue for u so u can surely ignore and go ur way instead questioning their very right as Hindus to protest.They mayn't represent all Hindus of the world ,so what??

 

[KS]

That would be silly. Your mother exists.

And I believe my God too exists.

I don't berate them, just find them tiresome as self appointed busybodies. So what if he is president of this or the other self appointed defenders of this or that. Why he does he speak for 1 billion Hindus?

When you so confidently can speak as if no Hindu gives a damn about it, why not they speak on behalf of those who do give a damn..

I don't damn anyone, just find the argument without merit. As for me judging them, why not? They have no problem judging others, do they?

Why is it not without merit ??

If an actor , and a famous one at that depicts a Hindu God in an obscene way there are people who bound to get agitated as it insults their religious sentiments. Those people ask for an apology from the actor which is very well rational,peaceful and well within their democratic rights.

What did you find so clumsy or wrong in that ?

Err.... the government is elected. It didn't just appoint itself. They are authorised to speak for us for 5 years after which if we didn't like what they spoke, we have the choice of giving them the boot. How do you give the boot to self appointed presidents of some self appointed group of busybodies?

Err....the statement and your logic hold good only if the Government is elected by 100% of the population, which is not the case. So how can the Government claim to speak for all of us ?

And how do you know they are self-appointed Presidents ? They have members ,who are Hindus, who elect the Presidents.

For what exactly? Because he said some stupid things? Is that worth losing your head over? Not comparing you but do you realise that this very reaction, carried to the extremewas that of the assassin of Salman Taseer." I will make someone pay, no matter what".
You have your standards of what you would make someone pay for & he had his. Do you think the world is better because of such reactions?

Do you even realise how absurd this comparison sounds ??

And I dont mind getting in the mud if someone insults my mother, in front of me.

p.s.: I found the word 'liberal extremist' as a bit of an oxy-moron during the Salman Tasser episode, but now I am getting to understand the meaning of it.

Cos, I dont know why you people are forcing me not to get offended at the vulgar depiction of my God. If you dont find it objectionable - well and good. But what right do you guys have to 'feel on my behalf' or call those who protest that (peacefully ofcourse) as some jobless crazies ?

 

[Hindustani]

I follow the "Atheist" Sect of Hinduism.

However I do find this to be offensive just like Muslims take the muhammad cartoons, and Christians take Jesus depictions to be quite distasteful. People do have a right for objection, but people should also learn to not take things too seriously. I mean yeah it was offensive, change the channel and get over it. It's not the end of the world.

People find too many things to nitpick nowadays rather than ignoring them.

 

[IND151]

JIM should apologize. neither he nor NBC has any right to use LORD GANESHA for advertisement.

 

[notsuperstitious]

And what if I told you I hold my mother and God in the same position ?

Thats YOUR choice Karthic. I may hold my mother and my football club in the same position, but thats MY choice, I can't expect others to treat my football club the same way they should my mother now, can I?

See its a slippery slope, matters of belief are matters of personal choice, and they should remain in that limit. Otherwise where do you stop???

Of course I 100% support your right to demand an apology in a peaceful manner, but I won't demand it as I don't think its necessary. A mere mortal does not hurt my beliefs, and who I let hurt my feelings is my choice.

 

[StingRoy]

Thats YOUR choice Karthic. I may hold my mother and my football club in the same position, but thats MY choice, I can't expect others to treat my football club the same way they should my mother now, can I?

See its a slippery slope, matters of belief are matters of personal choice, and they should remain in that limit. Otherwise where do you stop???

While I respect your POV, but comparing both does not provide a valid platform for comparison. I agree that you may hold a personal opinion about the other religion, but bringing it in a public forum and media simply is not a prudent choice... is it?

You have rightly mentioned an important point of a matter of personal belief and I belief he should have kept it personal and not come out infront of mass media.

 

[KS]

Thats YOUR choice Karthic. I may hold my mother and my football club in the same position, but thats MY choice, I can't expect others to treat my football club the same way they should my mother now, can I?

That is taking matters a bit too far.

As I said I believe in respecting all religions and as quid-pro-quo I expect others to be the same. Big deal ??

See its a slippery slope, matters of belief are matters of personal choice, and they should remain in that limit. Otherwise where do you stop???

I stop when some one who willfully insults my Gods/Religion desists from doing that. Is that too much to ask ? To respect others sensitivities especially in such matters as religion ?

Of course I 100% support your right to demand an apology in a peaceful manner, but I won't demand it as I don't think its necessary. A mere mortal does not hurt my beliefs, and who I let hurt my feelings is my choice.

Not everyone is a Mahatma like you.

 

[Moorkh]

i actually enjoyed the sketch. maybe its cos i prefer "below the belt" humor.

i wont say that the people who are protesting dont have a right to or shudnt. if their feelings got hurt, they can seek redressal in the civil ways available.

what i can not support is their claim that they somehow represent all hindus or that all hindus had their sentiments hurt. the protestors in question were never elected by the millions of hindus and they have no business claiming that they are represent people they dont. it amounts to "lying" and "fraud" in my opinion


just wanna add that God(s) surely have a godly sense of humor and can enjoy all sorts of jokes

 

[Bang Galore]

When you so confidently can speak as if no Hindu gives a damn about it, why not they speak on behalf of those who do give a damn..

Don't know where you got that from. I was referring to what Moorkh(anything but) said about them claiming to speal for a whole bunch of people. I have no issues with anyone protesting peacefully over any matter.

Why is it not without merit ??

If an actor , and a famous one at that depicts a Hindu God in an obscene way there are people who bound to get agitated as it insults their religious sentiments. Those people ask for an apology from the actor which is very well rational,peaceful and well within their democratic rights.

What did you find so clumsy or wrong in that ?

Again referring to my point made above, nothing more.

Err....the statement and your logic hold good only if the Government is elected by 100% of the population, which is not the case. So how can the Government claim to speak for all of us ?

And how do you know they are self-appointed Presidents ? They have members ,who are Hindus, who elect the Presidents.

Your first point contradicts the second, the election results works so that the winners are assumed to represent the entire electorate.The counterpoint is whether all the members of the organisation vote for him since going by your logic, if they didn't all vote for him, he can't even claim to represent the whole organisation of which he is the president let alone claim to speak for those not a part of it.

p.s.: I found the word 'liberal extremist' as a bit of an oxy-moron during the Salman Tasser episode, but now I am getting to understand the meaning of it.

Cos, I dont know why you people are forcing me not to get offended at the vulgar depiction of my God. If you dont find it objectionable - well and good. But what right do you guys have to 'feel on my behalf' or call those who protest that (peacefully ofcourse) as some jobless crazies ?

No one is stopping you from being offended if that is what you want. My replies were only directed at your comments. As for the rest of the post let me point out that we have the same right to be offended(or disgusted) by the antics of people claiming to speak for us as the right you claim when you suggest that you are offended by a certain act. I find it amusing that you claim the right to be offended but would deny that right to others(that includes calling them jobless crazies) who are offended by different things. Surely, you are not arguing that only some can decide what everyone else should be offended by.

P.S. : me a liberal extremist?? I don't know who would be more offended by that; the liberals or the extremists. I may have been called liberal occasionally but this is the first time I have been called an extremist.. Funny ! Been here for quite a while & a fellow Indian & not a Pakistani ends up being the first in calling me an extremist.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

actually here in the US (at least in DC) people have little understanding of hindu religion

im amazed by some of the theories and misconceptions i have heard, even in university environment...but then again, im hardly an expert either. lol

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

No they are not over sensitive infact they are right. no one should play with religious sentiments of anyone.

yes, ur right sister

 

[Nair saab]

WTF!!! PEOPLE i didn't see anything in that video to get offended...even if it was offensive, i would have not cared about it....but at the same time i cant speak the same for 1billion hindus...

But as been a hindu we should remember that our religion preaches tolerance & the world know us for it ...we are not extremists...lets take it as a joke & move on...

& thank you pakistani brothers for standing with us...

JIM CARREY I AM A HINDU & I DON'T NEED ANY APOLOGY FROM U.....

 

[KS]

Don't know where you got that from. I was referring to what Moorkh(anything but) said about them claiming to speal for a whole bunch of people. I have no issues with anyone protesting peacefully over any matter.

Again referring to my point made above, nothing more.

Again I dont see anything wrong with what Mr.Zed said - such depictions are indeed insulting the sentiments of majority of Hindus worldwide.

Your first point contradicts the second, the election results works so that the winners are assumed to represent the entire electorate.The counterpoint is whether all the members of the organisation vote for him since going by your logic, if they didn't all vote for him, he can't even claim to represent the whole organisation of which he is the president let alone claim to speak for those not a part of it.

Nope it doesnt contradict. Or maybe I should have added the words "Even conceding your argument" in front of the second line. Now I guess it makes sense.

No one is stopping you from being offended if that is what you want. My replies were only directed at your comments. As for the rest of the post let me point out that we have the same right to be offended(or disgusted) by the antics of people claiming to speak for us as the right you claim when you suggest that you are offended by a certain act. I find it amusing that you claim the right to be offended but would deny that right to others(that includes calling them jobless crazies) who are offended by different things. Surely, you are not arguing that only some can decide what everyone else should be offended by.

A Specious argument utilizing circular logic at its literal best.

Did I anywhere say that you do not have the right not to get offended at an act , evn though there is a sound logic behind it.
Let me recap what I said,

If you dont find it objectionable - well and good. But what right do you guys have to 'feel on my behalf'

I did not say that you feeling insensitive is wrong, but calling others who are sensitive as doing some wrong act is the thing that is wrong.

P.S. : me a liberal extremist?? I don't know who would be more offended by that; the liberals or the extremists. I may have been called liberal occasionally but this is the first time I have been called an extremist.. Funny ! Been here for quite a while & a fellow Indian & not a Pakistani ends up being the first in calling me an extremist.

I guess this is a new creed that is arising now. Violently forcing others to be liberal and if you think about it there is nothing to laugh about it.

I did not initially comment on this thread because I thought this did not warrant a response - but seriously only after seeing some people's posts how people 'should not get offended' at this, I decided to register my protest.

And the irony is in this thread I am arguing with Indians whereas Pakistanis are in support of my viewpoint.

 

[KS]

WTF!!! PEOPLE i didn't see anything in that video to get offended...even if it was offensive, i would have not cared about it....but at the same time i cant speak the same for 1billion hindus...

But as been a hindu we should remember that our religion preaches tolerance & the world know us for it ...we are not extremists...lets take it as a joke & move on...

& thank you pakistani brothers for standing with us...

JIM CARREY I A HINDU & I DON'T NEED ANY APOLOGY FROM U.....

Protesting and expressing your displeasure when someone insults your Gods is not extremism for God sake !!!

The guy did not wrap a suicide jacket and blow himself up under Jim's @ss. He just protested against it and asked for an apology.

Yes Hinduism teaches tolerance and more importantly Hindus practise it. That is why you have people lawfully protesting it and asking for an apology - not undertaking any assaination mission or passing fatwa asking for his head.

 

[Spring Onion]

Again I dont see anything wrong with what Mr.Zed said - such depictions are indeed insulting the sentiments of majority of Hindus worldwide.




Nope it doesnt contradict. Or maybe I should have added the words "Even conceding your argument" in front of the second line. Now I guess it makes sense.




A Specious argument utilizing circular logic at its literal best.

Did I anywhere say that you do not have the right not to get offended at an act , evn though there is a sound logic behind it.
Let me recap what I said,



I did not say that you feeling insensitive is wrong, but calling others who are sensitive as doing some wrong act is the thing that is wrong.



I guess this is a new creed that is arising now. Violently forcing others to be liberal and if you think about it there is nothing to laugh about it.

I did not initially comment on this thread because I thought this did not warrant a response - but seriously only after seeing some people's posts how people 'should not get offended' at this, I decided to register my protest.

And the irony is in this thread I am arguing with Indians whereas Pakistanis are in support of my viewpoint.

There are hundreds of objects which they can use for mocking/joking why liberal extremists should always pick a god or religious figure for such acts??

Isnt it intentionally provoking people of certain faith?

This is simply a liberal extremism and any form of extremism be it conservative or liberal just create imbalance in a society which is harmful in the long run.