Something to think about ( a repost)

[Guest guest]

Pranam. I believe that the article I forwarded did not appear. Here is the

article again

 

Idols and Icons:The Misrepresentation of Hinduism in the Press By David

Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri)

 

There are a number of terms that are applied to

Hinduism in the Press, not only in the West but in

India itself, which foster a negative image of it.

Hindus are routinely called worshippers of idols,

polytheists, and various other denigrating

stereotypes, which do not reflect any intelligent

examination of the religion itself but what is

often an intentional campaign of misrepresentation and

distortion.

 

All the religions of the world - with the general

exception of Protestant Christians, Muslims and Jews -

use some sort of images or statues in their religious

worship. Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox

churches abound with statues, paintings and pictures

of various types.Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist and Shinto

groups use them as well. Native American, African and

Asian religions abound with them. The ancient

religions of the entire world from Mexico to Greece,

Egypt, Babylonia,Persia, India and China used images,

as archeology so clearly reveals.

 

The use of images appear as an integral part of human

religious practices and no universal religion could be

regarded as complete without them. Even many

Protestant Christians have pictures of Jesus

in their house or church, and Muslims often have

pictures of their religious or political leaders,

occasionally even depictions of Mohammed.

However, there is a strange dichotomy in how such

religious images are judged. When they are part of

the Christian tradition they are called

icons and classified as works of art and regarded as

sacred in nature. When they are part of non-Christian

or pagan traditions they are called "idols," which is

a derogatory term that indicates not the sacred but

mere superstition. In the case of native American and

African images, even when done by a culture as

advanced as the Mayas of Central America - which built

great pyramids and had many great cities - they are

lumped along with so-called primitive art.

 

An image of Christ as the good shepherd is called an

icon and viewed with respect. An image of Krishna as

the good cow herder - which is a similar image of the

Divine as watching over the souls of men - is

called an idol, which encourages one to look down on

it. This is prejudice and negative stereotyping in

language of the worst order.

What Christian would accept calling a depiction of

Christ an idol? Would Christian religious leaders

approve of it in the press of Christian countries?

What Christians in India would accept it?

And would not the govemment and news media of India

change the language in their favor? Yet Hindus

routinely accept that depictions of their deities -

who represent as high a standard in consciousness and

ethical behavior as Christ - are demeaned as idols.

The news media of India does this commonly, which

encourages the Western news media to continue in this

practice, which is part of their negative depiction of

Hinduism.

To call such images as idols implies that those who

worship them practice idolatry or take the image

itself as a God. This adds yet more prejudice and

error to this judgement. The use of an image -

whether we call it an icon or an idol - does not imply

belief in the reality of the image. That we keep a

photograph of our wife and children at our work desk

does not mean that we think our wife and children are

the photograph. It is a reminder, not a false

reality.

Moreover, the use of the term idol inflames the

sentiments of anti-idolatry religions like

Christianity and Islam, as both the Bible

and the Koran, at least in places, instruct their

followers to oppose idolaters and smash their temples

and images. The use of the term idol in the press,

particularly in the Indian press, is thus careless,

insensitive, inflammatory, and communal. It should be

removed in an effort to promote greater understanding

and good will between religious groups. The use of

such terms indicates that the news media of India

uncritically and unnecessarily uses terms that

encourage anti-Hindu attitudes. It is a hold over

from the British rule in the intellectual sphere, even

though the British have long left the country. What

majority community in the world is so unaware of its

new media to allow such practices to continue? Yet

this issue only reflects many other prejudicial terms

like Hindu chauvinism, Hindu fundamentalism, and Hindu

militancy which the often anti-Hindu Indian news media

frequently uses, while at the same time not using them

in regard to Islam and Christianity, even when they

are much more appropriate relative to the

exclusivistic attitudes and greater intolerance of

these belief-oriented religions.

 

Using such terms as idols, the news media is not

fostering communication but promoting discrimination

and violence. Such abuse of language should be

challenged and replaced wherever it is found,

whether relative to Hindus or anyone else.

 

 

[ Above article was given to Hindu Students Council

(An International Forum To Provide opportinity to learn Hindu Heritage)for

publicity]

 

With Love

 

Shankaree

 

 

 

 

 

 

With Mail you can get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your

needs

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Greetings Shankaree

 

Thank you and welcome back. I hope you are feeling better already.

 

About David Fawley : I remember reading an article from him too in

which he is against using the word : Mythology. He remarked : The

stories as told in the Puranas and scriptures etcs are not Myth.