The Conversion Chiaroscuro

ferzoo,
oye...the bimbo must be added on as well, foran! but not being entirely sure who the bimbo was at the time, twas not done then. i will ask one of the laundas how to do so, or zee bimbette could get me info from the bapu of the laundas!
love, ana xo

Farzana, could it be that your Didi`s renewed (no matter if you think it was only cursory?) interest in Islam was a genuine desire not to lose an integral part of her own personal heritage? She could want to retain it while still remaining a Hindu, you know. Perhaps it`s nothing about confused identity, more about wanting to keep to the best parts of one`s past. A Hindu is supposed to, and until recent times invariably did, respect all ways of reaching to God, call Him/Her by whatever name and follow whatever path. I would have thought it`s good that she doesn`t want to forget Islam.
Also, I found that bit about her daughter, who was learning Bharata Natyam, declaring Krishna was her husband was all a bit strange. (a) Learning Bharata Natyam has nothing to do with any one particular religion, as you should know - Indian Christians and Jews, as you know, perform this, and a Catholic priest has even suggested its use as a mode of worship. (b) Surely it`s Kathak that`s associated with Krishna? (c) Your little niece must have been the only child in the world who learned to call herself a bride of Krishna because she learned Bharata Natyam. Children of Indian parents everywhere in the West try to learn some of the arts and graces of their homeland, but to think of herself as a latter-day Mirabai?

Ref soysauce #61

[A very common practice among south indian brahmins (harimau iyer`s community) is for girls to marry their maternal uncles or cousins on the maternal side.]

How did this issue come about? How is it relevant to FartsAnna`s article?

But anyway, not true at all. It is very rare among Tamil brahmins to marry a first cousin or an uncle. It is usually someone from the same village or one of the neighboring villages so that the closest you can trace a relationship would be second cousin or third cousin, except that it may be through multiple relationships. Any EXCEPTION of marrying a first cousin or an uncle would be primarily to keep property within the family or would be a peculiar custom of that single family. In fact, I know of only one uncle-niece marriage and the family is from the land-owning class in Tanjore district.

On the other hand, what Sangilikaruppan wants to hide is the fact that it is MANDATORY among Tamils to marry their sister`s daughters, that is, their nieces. The other is for first cousins to marry. In fact, the uncle or uncle`s son has the RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL over the girl. This is vigorously enforced by tribal customs despite high education and higher wealth. I know of a Duke MBA coming from a filthy rich family marrying his uncle`s daughter (first cousin). The father of the girl refused the girl`s hand in marriage and, lo and behold, the girl walks out of her father`s home to marry her first cousin! Because that is the True Tamil Tadition! True to the blood feuds that these sh!theads carry on when crossed, the parents of the girls didn`t attend the wedding and haven`t spoken to her since the wedding several years ago but at least haven`t attempted any honor killing so far.

Just watch any Tamil movie made up to the 1980s and you will find that the lovers are first cousins. Even the family feuds depicted would be where the uncle wants to marry the niece but the girl has different ideas, the dad supports the girl and the mom supports her brother. This has been the standard story line involving hundreds of MGR movies.

Sudalaikkannu, don`t blame your mental retardation brought on by thousands of years of in-breeding on somebody else. Now you will be telling me that the Tamils borrowed this tradition or were imposed this tradition by the invading Aryans from the North!

Tell me, did you marry your niece or uncle`s daughter? I know you are not going to give us any answer just like you refused to answer the question of how much dowry you got on the basis that the answer would incriminate you!

By the way, if you have any reading comprehension at all, you would have figured out that FartsAnna`s Didi likely married a South Indian brahmin (here is a clue: the food included idli, dosa, sambar, payasam, etc.) Tell me that the couple were first cousins!

Oh, what an utter fool! Please do leave your vestigial brain stem for medical research. Science would like to find out how anencephalic cretins like you are able to wander around freely. They may find that the remainder of your brain is located in your colon.

dost-mittar #60: Yes I did not pick up the reply correctly. My apologies. Now I understand it better. Still don`t know where you stand on religious and athiesm, though.....

The joke is funny. Makes a lot of sense also. Either one is in religion or out. Being an athiest could be a lot of fun. But even athiests have to follow some rules. They follow the rules of ethics, I guess. As well as the law of the land they live in. The trend amongst the Western nations seems to be becoming non-religious, but not athiest.

I think the poorer or less fortunate a person is, the more he/she believes in religion. It is the only thing he/she has to hold on to to justify his/her bad fortune, i.e. I got a bad deal here, but it will be much better in the afterlife. This is why when people with athiestic or secularistic tendencies try to persuade poor Pakistanis, that religion is the cause of their poverty and backwardness, they never have much success. If a poor person becomes athiest or even secularistic, he still remains poor. At the same time, he loses his one hope of getting a good deal in the afterlife. After that he has nothing to hold on to and no way to satisfy him/herself and justify his poverty in his/her present day life.

All I can say is that if there is no religion and no after life, then the world is an extremely unfair place, with such massive differences between rich and poor, and strong and weak, and fortunates and unfortunates. At the very least, religion gives people a hope (even if turns out to be a false hope) of continuing to struggle on in life.

So athiesism is for rich folks, and secularism will probably only succeed in rich societies.

tahmed32:
I was also poking fun at the whole idea of insurance, whether single or multiple policies.
I don`t think insurance principle will work in the faith business. You take insurance because you are uncertain about God (or in case of Hindus, maybe gods). But if there is a God, you are only fooling yourself because He knows All and He will certainly know that you are skeptical about Him. And He does not like skeptics any more than He likes non-believers.
So, if you are a believer, you don`t need insurance, and if you are a skeptic, the insurance doesn`t work. Catch 22, eh?

Farzana,
A very common practice among south indian brahmins (harimau iyer`s community) is for girls to marry their maternal uncles or cousins on the maternal side. Paternal cousins, on the other hand, are supposed to be as close as blood brothers or sisters. The blood line does not extend on the mother`s side.

dost mittar #60 LOL. That was a good one. The moral I picked was that if you want decisions, pray that there is no bureaucracy.

Romair#57
You obviously had a little trouble understanding my post. If anything, I was trying to poke a little gentle fun at the Hindu characteristic of `bey-painde-ka-lauta`. You obviously haven`t heard of the following joke:
During an earthquake, a Muslim, a Christian and a Hindu neighbour prayed to their respective gods. The Muslim prayed to the Allah, the Christian to Lord Jesus, and the Hindus to Ram, Krishna and Hanuman. The Muslim and the Christian were saved but the roof fell upon the Hindu`s house who died and went to meet his gods. He first met Hanuman and asked him why he did not save him; Hanuman replied that when he had invoked Ram, how could he, a mere bhagat of Ram dare to supercede him. He then went with the same question to Krishna who replied that since he had invoked Ram first, he left it to Ram to save him. At last he went to Ram and repeated the same question. Ram replied that by the time he found out that Krishna and Hanuman had not come to his assistance, it was too late and the roof had already fallen.
The moral of the story is that you either have complete faith or you don`t.

Harimau #53 ``You are telling me that in Pakistan Hindu girls willingly marry Muslim men and that the girls are allowed to remain Hindus? And their children can be raised as Hindus?``
What I wrote is clear enough. Dont try to make a song and dance story out of a plain and simple sentence.

PS: I think it is only on chowk that one runs into grown up men who start calling names the moment they are stressed. Is this all you got out of attending the Jay Thakeray School for Maturity-Challenged Hindutvas?

Romair #56

I actually did read your post in its entirety. Your argument is not exactly complex or subtle or profound; it doesn’t take much to follow it, or refute it. So spare me that bilge about ‘not understanding what you wrote’, etc. etc. ad amusem. Here is what you wrote.

{{Being an athiest is actually a very poor business proposition. It`s all risk, with no potential for long-term profit. Believing in a religion has no risks or chance of loss, but does have potential for profit.}}

i.e. invocation of the profit motive, which, together with the ensuing case analysis, is the essence of Pascal’s assertion about potential profit contingent on religious belief. Your added wrinkle of ‘subway station’ changes very little and does not protect the argument from refutation along the familiar lines of Pascal’s wager.

To spell it out even more concretely, the refutation of the ‘subway station’ hack is to posit that the ‘real’ state of affairs is a deity who rewards only those who DO NOT believe in ‘him’ or in any deity or combination of deities, and who savagely punishes everyone else. Not a pleasant eventuality for believers of any flavour. Pleading that you only got to the subway station, didn`t board the train, isn`t going to save you here. This is a specific case where believing in a religion - any religion - runs risks and chance of loss, whereas the atheist alone stands to `profit`, contrary to your claim.

Ferz:

forgot to mention earlier…interesting heading:

[chiaroscuro n:
the disposition of highlight and shadow in a painting chiaro=bright, oscuro=dark]

and interesting discussions shaping up…my khota paisas:

(…being wired as we are…allegedly as human beings…we profess to follow or not follow the faith we were born into as we grow up…the degree of adherence and questioning varies…and this is lifelong…the only individuals who consciously suppress this questioning and follow blindly are the die-hards and they are condemned harshly by all good and thinking individuals world wide…after this long preamble this is what i wanted to say..)

…in the end only this matters: if you feel good and if you spread goodness

…this simple temporal test is applicable to all of us…those who are born in any faith or system and those who later in life reject it, modify it, or accept another faith or set of beliefs…you must feel good and spread goodness (happiness) around…

...this is the best set of core values available now...local franchise enquiries welcome:)

peace

t