My understanding of contemporary First Amendment doctrine that the disrespectful or offensive use of that which others hold sacred is PRECISELY the sort of thing that the First Amendment would be interpreted to PROTECT (e.g. the government couldn’t ban installation art featuring someone urinating on the Quran or a crucifix or whatever); on this view the “misuse” of a religious symbol is not illegitimate under the First Amendment, but is the very sort of unpopular, offensive and (often) minority opinion that contemporary courts would view as protected by the US Constitution.

[And just so I'm clear, I'm making NO claim as to whether this is a good or a bad rule, but merely that's how present day US courts would come out on this].

…Following on from the above, I guess one problem (as others have discussed in this thread) is a line-drawing problem. For instance, in Salman Rushdie’s “Shame” Colonel Raza dreamt that “excrement was being poured over the Kaaba” (this novel obviously slipped under the fatwa-dar in part because unlike the later–and better– Satanic Verses the title wasn’t a dead giveaway!). Now a practising Muslim could easily argue that this is a misuse of one of the most sacred Islamic symbols– but acceptance of this view would mean that James Joyce’s work (remember the “Ballad of Joking Jesus” in “Ulysses”, including a pun on the Holy Spirit and, well, a dick; “Finnegans Wake” is systematically offensive when it comes to the Quran– e.g. “the itches, the scratches, the minnies, and the coughies”– and Christianity– e.g. “Her ringtime rung, her rill be run, unhemmed as it is uneven”), along with Rushdie’s and a great deal of 20th century literature, cinema, etc., would be prohibited on the grounds of misuse of religious symbols. Personally since I adore Joyce, and believe “The Satanic Verses” to be the greatest English-language novel by an Indian that I have read, that would make me rather upset. If anything, the case of religious symbols being used purely for consumption is weaker, since in many cases people are not (as SMR noted) trying to be offensive…

[The above notwithstanding, I am sensitive to the reality that contemporary consumption patterns are such that the impact falls disproportionately on Hinduism, Buddhism, and "Eastern" belief systems generally. i.e. in the West Christianity is the favorite whipping boy when it comes to "blasphemous" art (I forgot the name of that Kevin Smith film), which sort of thing is not much of a problem where Hinduism is concerned-- but on the other hand you'd never see Allah or Jesus on a toilet seat or a thong...]

…legally restricting mention or use of Hindu imagery or ideas by non-Hindus is impossible.

As I wrote earlier, I am also not in favor since I think it would, necessarily, involve excessive entanglement of govt. and religion.

It’s possible that the motive is pure (holy places are for believers) and the execution is flawed (we don’t want to ask for some sort of “believer identification,” so we just exclude those who were obviously not born Hindu).

My family is Shaiva (with a decided emphasis on Purva Mimasaka-style exegesis), so I don’t subscribe to the notion that one is a Hindu if and only if one is born in a Hindu family. If you are arguing that such a notion isn’t racist/casteist by definition, then I agree.

Indeed, merely citing a differential racial effect of any particular policy doesn’t make it racist, per se. Those who believe that Hindu-ness is a familial property do not, by definition, conceive of Hindu-ness in racial terms. That Hindu families, as a matter of fact, are various hues of brown is irrelevant.

Again, further buttressing its non-racial/non-casteist nature is the exclusion of brown Xtns & Muslims (and that is not rare) and high-caste persons, as I wrote earlier.

But the execution creates a racist situation and possibly (I think definitely) reinforces racist notions in the minds of those who enforce it. Whether or not you care for the “plight” of foreigners who are not allowed into temples, is this the sort of emphasis we want in 21st-century Hinduism?

No, I don’t think it reinforces ‘racist’ notions since race is not the basis for this policy, as I argued above. Of course, using ‘phorenessÂ’ as a criterion for exclusion involves assessment of race. But it is unfair only in those cases where ‘phorenÂ’ Hindus are excluded. I would think that a good compromise would be to modify the rule to ‘include desis (unless theyÂ’re non-Hindu) and exclude phoreners (unless they claim Hindu status)’.

Kumar

In theory, presuming they are identifiable as such. If a Christian of Indian descent shows up and isn’t wearing a huge medallion or cross, he/she can go right in.

This isn’t fair to those ‘phoreners’ who have an affinity for Hindu traditions, of course. But caste and race prejudice isn’t its basis.

Unfortunately, it’s not easy for caste and race prejudice to be separated from notions of “who is a Hindu.” By one popular definition put into practice at the temples, Non-Hindus are all those who are foreigners (of a different race). Non-Hindus do not have caste.

It’s possible that the motive is pure (holy places are for believers) and the execution is flawed (we don’t want to ask for some sort of “believer identification,” so we just exclude those who were obviously not born Hindu).

But the execution creates a racist situation and possibly (I think definitely) reinforces racist notions in the minds of those who enforce it. Whether or not you care for the “plight” of foreigners who are not allowed into temples, is this the sort of emphasis we want in 21st-century Hinduism?

If Jai’s suggestion (from the standpoint of Devil’s advocate) were to be carried out, wouldn’t we just see the same thing happening – people of Indian descent can have Hindu paraphernalia and people of other races can’t. Does anyone expect that none of those people of Indian descent would make inappropriate use of these items?

Anyhow, it’s not like restricting a single book, or even a set of books. Restricting newly-manufactured Hindu items is one thing, but legally restricting mention or use of Hindu imagery or ideas by non-Hindus is impossible.

Idolater though I am, you’re on-target. Such legal or quasi-legal proscription would entangle the govt. with religion far too much. I do think, however, that vigorous critiques/complaints (politely worded, since I don’t want to incure Mr. Vij’s wrath ) are quite permissible.

Deepa:

Let me follow you off on your tangent. The proscription on non-Hindus entering some mandirs is not, per se, racist or casteist. Xtns and Muslims–however ‘brown’ their hue–are barred, as are some high-caste hindus (most famously, Mrs. Indira Gandhi).

Rather than seeing race or caste-prejudice as the basis of such rules, I think they are an attempt to ‘think out’ the consequences of (one particular) conception of a pan-Hindu identity. On the ground, given the practicalities, this conception is ‘operationalized’ as ‘Let desi people in;Keep ‘phoren’ people out’.

This isn’t fair to those ‘phoreners’ who have an affinity for Hindu traditions, of course. But caste and race prejudice isn’t its basis.

Kumar

Some of us are Seventh Day Advaiststs!

But how can they determine who is “non-Hindu?” Easy – all brown people are allowed in, all non-browns are forbidden. But who is to say that all the brown people are religious? When I asked, they resorted to the “if you’re born Hindu, you’re Hindu” argument. (Simultaneously taking care of the question of whether a person not born into a Hindu family should be allowed in because of his/her serious practice of Hindu beliefs.)

In practice, then, the rule is racist. (If you ask me, the injunction against “non-Hindus,” which restricts no-caste people from entering, is the closest they can legally get to restricting low-caste people from entering.)

I think the problem with that idea is that it is not enforceable (and just plain wrong, in my opinion ). First, the government cannot get in the business of licensing religious objects – how is that separation of church and state? And secondly, if the government won’t be involved in policing, than how are non-governmental agencies going to police citizens who are free to express themselves as they wish? Why should you in any way have a say in what I do with this object? Why should one person’s offense govern another person’s freedom to express themselves as they see fit? Licensing religious objects is a spectacularly bad idea. Who elects these spokespersons of ‘correct display of religious imagery’, and what right have they to say how a person may use a particular object? This kind of thing is anathema to a free society.

*Start down this road, and you’ll have some sorts of feminists looking to license objectionable images of women, and then half of the links on Sepia Mutiny would be forbidden….

You said this on the last thread, and gov’t regulation is such a bad idea. Besides, we have a First Amendment over here, old chap

True, but if people are attempting to acquire such artifacts for non-religious intentions — especially if there is a chance that such imagery will be used or displayed in disrespectful ways or in a manner incompatible with the sanctity offered to such icons within Hinduism — then perhaps the “freedom of religion” concept doesn’t necessarily apply here ? Especially as the people concerned are not Hindus themselves — shouldn’t Hindus have a say in the sale and distribution of Hindu icons and scriptures to non-Hindus (of course ideally such items should be freely available to anyone who wants one, but you do want to ensure that such people aren’t going to do something untoward with these items).

[I'm not a Hindu myself, but am just playing Devil's Advocate and trying to come up with suggestions to prevent the desecration or all-round mistreatment of Hindu icons by either misguided or malicious individuals].

In any case, maybe the primary groups who would be responsible for deciding who should get such a “licence” should be Hindu religious authorities, eg. temples, ISKCON, the Swaminarayan mission etc. I’m not saying one needs to go to some government official, but perhaps such responsibilities and decisions can be delegated to the aforementioned religious organisations.

Using another example — and one which (I think) Ennis alluded to in one of his own messages — it is not so easy to get hold of a hard copy of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, even if you happen to be a Sikh. Since “murtis” and indeed depictions of Hindu gods & goddesses in general are similarly viewed as very sacred by huge numbers of Hindus, perhaps it should also not necessarily be so easy to obtain such items either — especially by non-Hindus who intend to abuse the privilege.

I may be completely wrong here — I have read on-line copies of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights etc (you can primarily blame The West Wing for motivating me wink, although I have a long-time interest in such things) — and I’m not a lawyer either, so please feel free to pick my suggestions apart.

You said this on the last thread, and gov’t regulation is such a bad idea. Besides, we have a First Amendment over here, old chap

I actually think the store displays in those pictures are quite pretty.

So do I, but that’s quite apart from the issue.