Hinduism is one of the most regressive major religions in existence. Compared to it, even Islam has redeeming features because in Islam, all the faithful are theoretically equal spiritually. But for the untouchables, even if the shadow of an untouchable falls on a brahmin, the brahmin must wash himself afterwards or they are considered polluted.
Beet, please stop posting.
Which major religion has a more regressive message than the idea that one's station in life as one was born is the deserved fate of one's action in past life, cannot be altered for all life, and must be fatalistically accepted, as part of a rigid social order?
None, as the caste system wasn't an integral part of Hinduism (whatever "Hinduism" is) until the middle of the 19th Century (indeed, if it is an integral part of it now..) - where it was in part a creation of British census officials modifying and often manufacturing contemporary social groups. Essentialism about Religion is dumb.
I think you're reading more 'essentialism' into my original post than intended. In order to communicate certain ideas, it is often necessary to express them in broad, general terms, but that does not mean not to allow certain caveats or footnotes. The British certainly helped solidify the caste system, but they did not create it. Hinduism is diverse, but it can certainly be spoken of as a single religion. And the caste system and Hinduism are certainly connected.
Excuse me, while I roll my eyes for a brief second....
To quote from the horses mouth:
Yes those clearly aren't broad, sweeping ridiculous statements about the "hindoos" more worthy of a particularly reactionary gin-soaked 19th Century British district commissioner than someone trying to have an educated opinion (though then again it seems to be obligatory in the United States for conservatives to confuse the two...).
Catholics are lazy and always drunk, Presbyterians are money-obsessed killjoys, Blacks are stupid... see, isn't this fun?
While I don't know enough history to really comment fully (Xahar?, Sbane?, Lewis? Where are ye?)
this article from the New Statesman is worth a read. Can't comment on the full thesis, but there is certainly some truth in it. So much for religion 'guiding' the character of a 'people'.
