Comments on: “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers.”

That may not be a bad thing... It's always possible that this was an example of negative inclusion. In other words, he included Hinduism for the sole purpose of being able to bash it. You know, like they do in comparative religion classes?

By: anil

anil — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:54:13 +0000

try this.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI1dCcQoK3w

By: anil

anil — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:49:38 +0000

not a president, but someone who’s shook the hands of 4 US presidents and been honoured by many heads of state and leaders around the world said as much:..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev8WS87Ix7M…feature=related

By: SM Intern

SM Intern — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:05:25 +0000

Mutineers, please don’t look for malice about religion where there isn’t any, it just derails a thread. Comment has been removed.

By: NV

NV — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:40:45 +0000

113 Â· borderdancer said

The point is, its the first NON-ABRAHAMIC religion to make the cut. Yup it was great that he mentioned Hindus, but what does it mean that the word came just before "nonbelievers". Does that imply that any but the toplisted religions are part of that "nonbelieving" mass? "Nonbelievers" is such an Abrahamic-religions type of word. It implies "people not like us 'believers'". What exactly is the "believer" supposed to beleive in? A poor choice of words. He should have said (or rather, his 27 year old speechwriter should have said) "the nonreligious." Zoroastrians are never going to make the cut-- unless a future president says "from Amish to Zoroastrians." Sigh...

Zoroastrians will be lucky to make it out of this century. I don't say that to be cynical or mean. I genuinely think it's a tragedy that one of the world's most ancient traditions will soon vanish at this rate.

To think it survived the Islamic conquest of Iran, but what finally undoes it is exogamy and the birth control pill.

By: ARC

ARC — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:04:03 +0000

I felt the same thing when I heard that one word in the speech, and I don't even identify myself as Hindu. For me the whole point was that I wasn't invisible in my own country anymore. Everything has always been about black and white, and maybe occasionally "Asians" are mentioned, but this was the first time I noticed South Asians being called out (and in a time where a politician wasn't trying to get votes either!).

So yeah, as someone who is 100% American, and doesn't identify with India, it was nice to be considered part of my own country for a change.

Go speechwriter!

By: borderdancer

borderdancer — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:50:49 +0000

The point is, its the first NON-ABRAHAMIC religion to make the cut.

Yup it was great that he mentioned Hindus, but what does it mean that the word came just before "nonbelievers". Does that imply that any but the toplisted religions are part of that "nonbelieving" mass?

"Nonbelievers" is such an Abrahamic-religions type of word. It implies "people not like us 'believers'". What exactly is the "believer" supposed to beleive in? A poor choice of words. He should have said (or rather, his 27 year old speechwriter should have said) "the nonreligious."

Zoroastrians are never going to make the cut-- unless a future president says "from Amish to Zoroastrians." Sigh...