Here’s a point of view that doesn’t get much press.
The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) sought clarification and an apology from Kentucky Senator David Williams (R-KY) in a telephone conversation yesterday, after his latest remarks about Governor Beshear’s “participation” in a Hindu ground-breaking ceremony. Williams, the GOP Nominee for Governor, initially made waves on Tuesday for criticizing Beshear and expressing his hope that Hindus accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. His comments were met with disappointment and shock from the Hindu American community and were strongly condemned by HAF.
It’s not just atheists who see major problems with fundamentalists in government. And the problem isn’t just people being religious. It’s people in power using their religion to marginalize and exclude minorities.
Suhaq Shukla, Managing Director and Legal Counsel for the Hindu American Foundation, sums up the problem.
“We certainly acknowledge the Senator’s beliefs, but we hold completely irreconcilable worldviews — that of religious pluralism and religious exclusivism,” continued Shukla. “Hindus hold the view that there exist multiple, valid paths to relate to God, whereas the Senator believes that the only true path lies in his. While I may disagree, so long as such beliefs are not imposed upon or used to harass, intimidate, or curtail the rights and freedoms of others through mechanisms of the state, provocation, hate speech, fraud, duress, or coercion, he is free to hold them in our great democracy.”
This is exactly the right stand to take, and Williams offers lip service, at least, to the general notion. Sorta.
Shukla stated that she also conveyed to Williams that his comments were deeply offensive to Hindus and that they had received emails and phone calls of solidarity from many other Christians who disagree with the Senator’s comments. Although Williams reiterated that as a Christian it was his hope that Hindus receive Christ as their savior, he added that he did not intend to offend Hindus and would never, in his official capacity, discriminate against anyone on the basis of their beliefs.
Unless, of course, Jesus told him to. Or if there were more votes to be had by pushing Christian supremacy. Or if the Hindus just stopped paying so much attention to him when he put them down.
And he woulda gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you damn uppity Hindus.
“Although Williams reiterated that as a Christian it was his hope that Hindus receive Christ as their savior, he added that he did not intend to offend Hindus….”
This clueless idiot just doesn’t get it. Why are so many americans so completely ignorant of american values? How did he think that this would not offend hindus, or anyone else not of his arrogantly christian fundamentalist persuasion? It certainly offends me and I’m not hindu.
The good news is that Williams is about 25 percentage points behind Beshear in the polls, and has been since June or so.
Steve
Although Williams reiterated that as a Christian it was his hope that Hindus receive Christ as their savior
And the Hindus hope you will come back as pond scum.
No offense to pond scum.
What a maroon.
I don’t mean to offend you by saying that your beliefs are completely invalid and not as cool as mine, I do it because I LOVE you so much. So please, accept my apology and sincere wishes for your future conversion.
The irony of this story is that the entire row began because Williams criticized Beshear for attending a Hindu ceremony, saying that it was inappropriate for a government official to “participate” in such a religious ceremony.
Because everyone knows, no politician ever, ever participates in a Christian worship service, right?
Huh. I can’t help but read this and wonder if Williams was an atheist and secularist who had criticised his opponent for participating in a religious ceremony and was expressing his hope that the religious people would come to their senses and reject superstition, saying “that he did not intend to offend [theists] and would never, in his official capacity, discriminate against anyone on the basis of their beliefs” whether people here would be responding differently. I mean, I hear it said all the time that politicians shouldn’t be seen promoting religion and that no one has a right not to offended by criticisms of their religion.
Or should there be a “don’t be a douche” rule of courtesy for politicians?
Does it make a difference because this guy thinks the Hindus are wrong because his own religion is right, whereas we just think they’re all wrong?
That’s a good point. The question is, is Williams merely criticizing Hinduism when he says Hindus should accept Jesus, or is there an implied threat that they will be marginalized and excluded from the democratic process if they don’t? Apparently it’s ok for governor of Texas to participate in an explicitly Christian prayer rally, but Williams is criticizing the governor of Kentucky for going to a ground-breaking ceremony being held by Hindus, and implies that Hindus should become Christians if they want the governor’s support. I’d call that legitimate grounds for complaint.
I’d also suggest that there’s a difference between “no one has the right NOT to be offended” and “no one has the right to be offended.” Williams has the right to say offensive things, and Hindus have no right to forbid him from saying them. But they still have the right to be offended, and to express their feelings. It’s not hypocritical to support free speech while still criticizing offensive speech.
“Or should there be a “don’t be a douche” rule of courtesy for politicians? ”
Hmmm. Difficult. I suspect that we’d rapidly run out of politicians. Which would be great if they were replaced with a different sort. Because most pollies are douchebongs, whether they were one or the other first.