• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

0bama - an anti-Hindu

  • Thread starter Thread starter ShivKC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

ShivKC

Guest
i am carefully trackin all the movements of president 0bama , zero for capital O. as on this hour, he has not visited any hindu holy places. after resting in taj hotel, he went on to visit only CHRISTIAN spots namely HOLY NAME SCHOOL & ST.Xaviers. if any one has watched his first stanza of his speech in st.xaviers college, he thanked long the 3 catholic padres of the college. And landed there in Delhi this evening, and visited only Humayun tomb. Suprising, he didnt find time to visit any of our Hindu heritage sites, though he praised a lot about our ancient culture. he wants India but not hindus, i feel so.
 
One correction. He wants huge market in India for US goods and services, but not Hindus who are considered conservative, fundamentalists in outlook and amenable to any western pressure very easily.

But, he also feels inwardly that USA has no other go but to shake hands firmly with India in all important global matters, very soon.
 
No I don't think so. To my understanding the itinerary for visiting dignitary is prepared in consultation with the host Government. Itinerary of President Barack Obama's visit to India also must have been prepared in the same manner.

If we read his writings we can understand that President Obama has liberal views on religion.

In his book The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama writes:
"I was not raised in a religious household. For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness. However, in her mind, a working knowledge of the world's great religions was a necessary part of any well-rounded education. In our household the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology.

On Easter or Christmas Day my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites.In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well."

Again in his speeches he has asserted his belief of liberal approach to Religion:
"I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people, that there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and that there’s an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived." (Barack Obama, April 2004)
Regards,
Brahmanyan.
 
I personally do not feel that President Obama, or for that matter, should visit some temple or uniquely hindu site in order to show his appreciation for hindus and hinduism. I am also not sure whether our orthodox hindus will welcome his visit. As long as he does not deprecate hinduism, we should not pass any judgment on his religious preferences since he is only a head of state, not a philosopher. If Pope wishes to enter Kasi Viswanath Mandir, will our hindu orthodoxy be comfortable?

Secondly, is hinduism India's state religion? Which branch, sect will represent the "true hinduism"?
 
He Celebrated Diwali with kids which is a Hindu Festival. Also he called in Parliament to work for the world betterment in line with the Hindu concept of Lokha Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu.
 
I shall not call him or brand him anti-Hindu. At the same time, he indulges in double-speak as is the wont with all US presidents of the recent past.
But, I am happy he is veering around to the view that India is a more dependable ally in the Asian continent.

Let us see how and where this takes us to.
 
I would have to disagree, too. President Obama is a well-read, liberal thinker who is a far cry from his predecessor. He has openly recognized Hindus in the US, including calling a Hindu priest to the White House to inaugurate the Diwali celebrations that took place last year.

And, just which of the Hindu holy places do you intend him to visit? His is a diplomatic mission, not a religious one. For religious affinity to Hinduism, let's plan on inviting Hilary Clinton. She has made several visits with family to the Kathyayani Temple outside Delhi.
 
Folks, sorry for posting this here -- I don't want to start a new thread. Here is someone who was clearly anti-Hindu, Winston Churchill -- I feel icky typing his name. Good interview, I recommend it. Click here for it.
 
Dear Sri Brahmanyan sir,

I agree with what you have posted. I think President Obama is deeply religious. But perhaps not in the context of the atheism practiced by many who belive in the same political philosophy as practiced by him.

His predecessor is an avowed Christian. But he did more for India than all his predecessors put together, at times against the short term interests of USA.

Regards,
KRS
 
Obama has been busy addressing Americans. A good 20-25% Americans still think he is a muslim, but he wants to prove that he is a CHRISTIAN.
 
That's why White House officials were at pains to clarify that Obama was very much a Christian by birth and by faith.
 
Last edited:
It is a fact that all the prez of USA have been xian. Bush Sr claimed that his god told him in a dream to invade Iraq.
 
It is a fact that all the prez of USA have been xian. Bush Sr claimed that his god told him in a dream to invade Iraq.
Well, they need to show themselves as Christians. Ronald Reagan never bothered to attend Church, but his religiosity was never in doubt. Clinton I am sure is a non-believer, but passed himself off as a Christian, after all to lie is quite natural to him. G.W. Bush was a sincere Christian, his God told him what to do, and we all know what that meant for all the world -- give me a liar any day than one who talks to his god.

Obama, is strange case, I just can't believe he is a believer in the traditional sense. But then, if he declares he is a non-believer he may even get impeached. For George H.W. Bush, a non-believer could not be an American, and I think he sincerely believed that.

Cheers!
 
Nara Sir, you are right.

But Iraq invasion is not in the interest of our nation. What has it achieved? No US victory in sight, yet a legion of jihadis has been produced. As and when US retreats, the jobless jihadis will turn their attention to India!!

Stable Pakistan in India's interest? My foot. India should work for the break up of Pakistan.
 
....But Iraq invasion is not in the interest of our nation.

Not to mention the Iraqies themselves!

Dear rcscwc, I think we need to look at humanity as a whole and not look through the narrow prism of nationality. Victory in this struggle is hard to articulate. Every week we get a listing of the war dead from Iraq and Afghanistan, most are in their early twenties, some even teenagers, with a few early thirties thrown in -- prime of life. For every dead soldier there is a family behind it. The suicide rate among those who make it back to the U.S. alive is alarmingly high and it even exceeds the war dead in Afghanistan, according to some reports. In the absence of draft, it is the poor and working class people who opt for a military career and therefore shoulder the load.

Of course, all the above is nothing compared to the untold miseries the wretched poor in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan suffer everyday. Death can come anytime from the sky, remote controlled from tens of thousands of miles away, while they mourn the dead and nurse nascent anger, the one who pushed the button goes back to have dinner with a loving spouse and beautiful children back from school. Nobody cares, not for the wretched thousands of miles away, nor for the soldier who gets to kill sitting in an air-conditioned room. Just get it done, whatever that it is, they all are terrorists anyway and aren't we the good guys?!!!

This is the legacy of the U.S. foreign policy. What is India's role? India has put its lot on the side of the U.S. If India becomes a permanent member of the UNSC, how would they vote if a Iraq-style resolution authorizing any means necessary against Iran comes up? Please think about it. Already India threw Iran under the bus for no other reason than to not displease the Americans. Look at Brazil and Turkey, they have some self-respect. Talk about colonial mind-set, the ones who want to blame all their shortcomings upon the British are the one's who can't wait to play Robin to the Batman U.S.

Stable Pakistan in India's interest? My foot. India should work for the break up of Pakistan.
Is this not a mirror image of what a Pakistani Sindhi/Punjabi who lived through partition and still holds a grudge against Hindus would say? For the common people, the ones from Vandavasi or Dindukkal, does any of this make their life any better? Of course, it is great for the likes of Shashi Tharoor. What is in it even for the vast middle-class, except for bragging rights and some vicarious pride, neither of which will come in handy if a contract gets canceled and you are out of a job.

India can prosper without selling its soul to the U.S. corporate interests. But, to realize that, Indians need some self-respect, some backbone, some self-confidence. Are Indians up to it?

Cheers!
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by rcscwc
....But Iraq invasion is not in the interest of our nation.



Not to mention the Iraqies themselves!
Nara
Dear rcscwc, I think we need to look at humanity as a whole and not look through the narrow prism of nationality.
Every one has his own prism of natinalitiosm. There is nothing like supra nationalism, unless it is anarchy.


Victory in this struggle is hard to articulate. Every week we get a listing of the war dead from Iraq and Afghanistan, most are in their early twenties, some even teenagers, with a few early thirties thrown in -- prime of life.
Sad. But what can India do? Or should do? Nothing, pal.



True. Such families are in India too, victim of jihadis. They are our first concern.

The suicide rate among those who make it back to the U.S. alive is alarmingly high and it even exceeds the war dead in Afghanistan, according to some reports. In the absence of draft, it is the poor and working class people who opt for a military career and therefore shoulder the load.
Bush did not consult me before hand.




Of course, all the above is nothing compared to the untold miseries the wretched poor in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan suffer everyday.

No miseries of Indians? My concern is about US.



This is the legacy of the U.S. foreign policy. What is India's role?
Indiahould keep its distance. Period.


India has put its lot on the side of the U.S. If India becomes a permanent member of the UNSC, how would they vote if a Iraq-style resolution authorizing any means necessary against Iran comes up?

Of course the way it serves India's national interests. Simple.



Please think about it. Already India threw Iran under the bus for no other reason than to not displease the Americans. Look at Brazil and Turkey, they have some self-respect. Talk about colonial mind-set, the ones who want to blame all their shortcomings upon the British are the one's who can't wait to play Robin to the Batman U.S.
Look at India, first and last.


RCSCWC
Stable Pakistan in India's interest? My foot. India should work for the break up of Pakistan.


Is this not a mirror image of what a Pakistani Sindhi/Punjabi who lived through partition and still holds a grudge against Hindus would say?

Friend, the very existence of Pakistan is a threat. Sooner it is dismembered, like in 1971, the better it is.




India can prosper without selling its soul to the U.S. corporate interests. But, to realize that, Indians need some self-respect, some backbone, some self-confidence. Are Indians up to it?
India can prosper without selling its soul to islamic fundamentalism too. That is more important.

Corporate US cannot destablise India. You need self confidence too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
no I don't agree that obama is anti hindu. He is trying his best to instill true secularism among narrow minded right wing Christians.
his wife is hanuman fan then how come he can be anti hindu.
he is very good human being. truest of sorts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest ads

Back
Top