All Comments (17)

Gary,
My ethical grounding -- which includes my religious views -- is a part of any decision that I make. This quite different than demanding that political society adhere to the particulars of my chosen religious sect.

It is unfortunate that you do not share your grandfather's respect for all faiths, as is evidenced by your January 7th "essay."

Frankly, I am a fierce defender of both freedom of religion and freedom of speech, but not of hate speech.

I suppose it is a good sign that my Hindu colleagues rushed to dissociate themselves from you, assuring us all that you had no credibility in your native country. How much, I wonder, do you have here? Or should I say, how much do you still have here?

I liked the comments made by Soja John. All of Gandhi's activities tried to add spiritual power to political power to strengthen the country. But unfortunately, today all the politicians are trying to infuse politics into spirituality, calling it 'secular' that is weakening the country!

Yes, we need to be first firmly anchored in our own faith to be able to appreciate the other faiths. Without that firm anchoring, we would be flooded away in pseudo secularism.

Every decision has at its core our perception of reality however complete or truncated it might be. That is for better or for worse our nature as human beings. If your religious views do not inform your political views than you hold either your politics or your religion far to lightly.

My apologies to Mr. Gandhi for not keeping on topic, but I have to agree with B-Man. Aren't there any editors who look at these boards...or even a moderator or something? This Josevz person is ridiculous, and he/she posts on every column, not just this one. I've tried to reason with him/her on a couple of occasions (as have others), to no avail. All of his/her posts are like this - I can't even understand them. Useless.

WaPo - what's the deal here?

Craig

It is most unfortunate that when comments are unmoderated, a lot of nonsense, and worse, shows up.

Mr Arun Ghandi

I apologize for the disrespect your message has recieved.

Unfortunately my fellow countryman’s arrogance is only equaled by their ignorance. Every intellectual insight seeems to be quickly submerged into americas heap of fecal thought.

PPS: Mahatma Gandhi did have an Ishta Devata too, didn't he? He repeated the name of Rama as his mantra; although he was open to all religions, the Bhagavad Gita remained his favourite Scripture and read from it more than he did from any other Scripture, and he had it recited to him when he could not read for himself. Mahatma Gandhi was after all a saintly politician and not a religious leader. It was his duty to bring people of all faiths together to work for a common political cause. Mahatma Gandhi's mission was not to seek unity of religions but to prove how people of different religions could work harmoniously with each other for a common cause and provide a space for common worship of God that gave spiritual power to a political cause (for those who worked very closely with him), and yet keep the political movement itself as secular as possible.

PS: A synagogue I would not consider as being part of another religion at all. Jesus Christ attended the synagogue every week while He lived as a man, so joining a service in the synagogue has very special significance for me. I consider it a part of my own faith.

Dear Mr Gandhi

You are absolutely right that one should treat all religions with equal respect. However that is not the same thing as considering all religions as the same. Your grandfather, Mahatma Gandhi was right in concluding that religions are an attempt to reach God by different paths, like climbing the mountain from different points. But we cannot all climb the mountain from all points at the same time, can we? We choose one path. To do away with the religious symbols of all religions without recognizing their uniqueness may not suit all persons. Each revelation is unique and it can't all be accepted simultaneously. It is possible to remain open to all faiths, learn from them and enrich one's own by treating the Scripture of other religions as Scripture... but a soup without any particular identity is possible only for the highest souls like mystics, like your grandfather, Mahatma Gandhi was. We must always consider the needs of the ordinary folks and cater to their needs. The highly advanced souls will seek out their own version of religious practice without being confused and being fully aware of what it means.

I'm open to the truth and beauty in all religions, yet for me personally, devotion to my "Ishta Devata" Jesus Christ is very important. A candle representing Jesus Christ, who referred to Himself as "I'm the Way, the Truth and the Life" is wonderful, but I would still want to have an image to focus my mind (without worshipping the image as an idol) on Jesus. I would not want to miss the special joy in attending a Catholic Mass. I can do that while accepting that a Jew finds his joy in a synagogue, a Hindu and Buddhist in a temple, the Muslim in a mosque. I would gladly join in the prayers of a Jew in the synagogue, the Hindu and Buddhist in the temple, and the Muslim in the mosque. Yet everywhere I would think in my heart only of Jesus Christ as my Lord and God.

The rituals of religions are not an end in itself, it is merely a finger pointing to God, yet it plays a very important role in the lives of ordinary people.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Hi Josevz

Maybe you could try to be a little kinder to the eyes of those who try to read the blog? Do make your point in your unique way by all means, but brevity might not be a bad idea... What do you say?

Best wishes
Soja

My goodness, I came over here to get away from the relentless politicking elsewhere.

Isn't it part of secularism to avoid making decisions based on religious identity groups? You shouldn't be able to predict my political leanings based on my being latina (which I'm actually not) or Catholic (which I am)

or a college graduate, or a mother, or a daughter, or a science fiction reader, or a teacher....

Norrie that would depend upon what of the eight major versions of Hinduism you refer to say nothing of exactly what you mean by God.

Francesco Sinibaldi,

Your poem concludes:

"...I love you
America..."

As far as poems about America go, I prefer Robinson Jeffers' 1926 poem, "Shine, Perishing Republic".

I recommend it to you.

**********************************

Arun Gandhi,

You wrote:

"For my grandfather secularism did not mean rejection of your own faith or any other faith. It meant respect of all faiths and the belief that there is only one God but people have different names and ways of identifying that one God."

As an American I have problems with this statement:

[1] Secularism has nothing to do with belief in any god, let alone "the one God".

[2} You surely know that Buddhism has no belief in a God. So, again, why would you or your grandfather tie belief in a God to secularism? It just doesn't parse.

[3] "[Secularism] meant respect of all faiths..."

How about respect for people of no faith? It's hard for me to consider Buddhism "a faith." Buddhism is rather a cosmology and a psychology. The Buddha told his followers that they should take nothing on faith, including what he told them.

You might want to reconsider what you wrote - at least in the American context.

Best wishes to you.

"A gross misunderstanding of what secularism should mean"

Indeed and if one takes a look at the people popularising this misunderstanding and the agendas they promote one can understand many things about religion, or maybe that is just bad religion.

Romantic America.

Romantic America,
when a rosaceous
sunset lightens
the world near a
frail little brook,
and where everything
shines like a
diamond in the
heart of a forest ;
the north wind
is blowing, the light
of a fine day
invents an emotion,
and I love you
America....

Francesco Sinibaldi

I am a Christian. What that means to me is that God is in charge of Salvation not man. I can't save you or anyone else, God rescues whom he will from the fate they deserve. This means there is no point in compelling some one to be a Christian by law.

Frankly, historically compulsory religion is bad not just for the people so compelled but for the health of the religion as well.