Someone sent me a link regarding a case in India where an evangelist group was arrested for producing a book called the Haqeeqat. The problem is the book is extremely anti hindu, not even by allegory but by direct attacks on Hinduism. As a back ground to this, In India all religions are protected by the law that states that criticism of religion must be based on fact. So a valid criticism of Hinduism and Islam is the inherant problems of the treatment of women. One can't say that a valid criticism of Hinduism is the caste system since Muslims and Christians in India have their caste systems too. The problem is it has galvanised a whole group of people into criticising the government of Rajasthan "which banned the book and arrested the people behind it for religious intolerance". However the point raised is that in India it is illegal to solicit conversions of people since all people have the right to choice of religion, thus being biased against christianity which is known for its conversion tactics. This entire craporama decidedly got me interested in what we really define as religious freedom? Is it right to silence a group of people just because their book is insulting to another religion?
I believe that those who shout the loudest against criticism of their beliefs fear that someone may have an argument that would shatter the credo they cling to. Real faith is unafraid.
Real ignorance is unafraid. Questioning the world around us is how we got this far, doing anything else would cause cessation or possibly regression. Also, I don't believe that law is particularly biased as long as everyone has to abide by it. But that would create one hell of a circle: denying one group that would be against tolerance, but in that rejection, you yourself are being intolerant in ways. Though I don't feel that criticizing is a conversion tactic per se.
It's a sticky situation. I, for one, respect people's beliefs. I find different religions fascinating, and I'll listen to anyone who will tell me about their religion, whether I believe it or not. However, if you are strongly religious, you have to draw the line between being tolerant of others' religions, and letting the beliefs of others influence your own. I think it comes down to, really, what people are offended by. And there's no standard. You have the Westboro Baptist Church who is offended by everything from gay sex to talking cartoon animals in movies. And you have Buddhists who will let you bombard them with your own beliefs, and not say a word about it. So...I don't know, I'm pretty much just rambling at this point. We humans are pretty fickle. There's never going to be a scenario in which we please everyone. I think that patience and knowledge that we are all indeed human is what will help the most.
From what I can gather, the book was simply insulting Hinduism. There was no fact or evidence. It's like deliberately spreading a lie about a certain person. Its wrong. Even more so if it incites racial or religious hatred.
