A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Christ, this asshole.
It's a constant source of frustration for me that building your political power on promises to elevate a dominant ethnicity or faith over a minority group is such a consistently successful strategy.
And, like ... where's this going? If feels like narratively, rising ethnonationalism never stops itself. It just gets bolder and bolder until something explodes. This feels like the early years of another of history's 'oh shit' moments.
Christ, this asshole.
It's actually Rama, this asshole, apparently.
That got a laugh outta me.
They don’t even need to rigg elections, run beneficial schemes or anything else of that sort, just one or two events like these, a few riots probably, and now you have the majority vote
Disagree. Most democracies, even though on paper are secular, always have imprints of the dominant religion. Democracies dominant with Christianity haven't "exploded", so why would this ?
First, I just want to say that I don't agree with your premise (I don't think Christianity is a common feature of successful democracies), but now importantly, I don't think your sentiments disagree with anything I said.
I don't mind if someone's ideology is shaped by faith. My lament was about ethno/religious supremacy.
My point is, as an example, democracies with dominant religion as Christianity has its religious imprints within the governing body. A simple example to prove this is that all public holidays mostly are serving the dominant religion. (I didn't say Christianity is a common trait of successful democracies).
Wouldn't etho/religious supremacy apply here ? Why do you have the lens when you look at a country like India ?
I think we might be talking past each other in some way.
Ethno/religious supremacy is very different than religious influence.
You can have a political identity that is shaped by your religion and be fully supportive of the rights of immigrants and other religious groups, etc. That's advancing the belief that your religion or ethnic group should have sole authority over state power.
Germany's Christian Democratics: religious, but not supremacist. Germany's National Socialist German Workers party: not religious, very supremacist.
Again my point and you still haven't answered. Going by your words, why do you think in India, people are not "supportive of rights of immigrants and other religious groups" ?
They probably are most culturally, religiously, linguistically etc diverse than any other country in the world. Yet minor issues aside they have decades of peaceful co existence.
I assume you are not from India, so why would you look at a country like that and have an opinion that they are heading to something bad. I'm genuinely curious.
Edit 1 - To add another point they have the most population in the world even. So, arguably, you are looking at the most complicated, functioning democracy in the world.
Did you read the article? I'm not talking about the country of India: I'm talking about Narendra Modi and the BJP. The article is about how he's a Hindu nationalist and his political coalition has built their political success on persecuting Muslims.
Many see the temple’s opening as the beginning of the election campaign for Modi, an avowed nationalist who has been widely accused of espousing Hindu supremacy in an officially secular India. Modi’s Hindu nationalist party is expected to once again exploit religion for political gain in the upcoming national elections in April or May and secure power for a third consecutive term.
I'm talking about Prime Minister Modi. And I'm not calling him a Hindu supremacist because he's Hindu: it's because he's a supremacist.
My skydaddy can beat up your skydaddy!
-Wisdom of the 21st century
A correction is required for the unaware. The mosque was built on an ancient temple.
Islam often uses older religious churches/temples for new mosques.
Hagia Sophia In Istanbul is a great example.
_ Hagia Sophia (lit. 'Holy Wisdom'; Turkish: Ayasofya; Greek: Ἁγία Σοφία, romanized: Hagía Sofía; Latin: Sancta Sapientia), officially the Hagia Sophia Grand Mosque (Turkish: Ayasofya-i Kebir Cami-i Şerifi),[3] is a mosque and a major cultural and historical site in Istanbul, Turkey. The last of three church buildings to be successively erected on the site by the Eastern Roman Empire, it was completed in 537 AD. The site was an Eastern Orthodox church from 360 AD to 1204, when it was converted to a Catholic church following the Fourth Crusade.[4] It was reclaimed in 1261 and remained Eastern Orthodox until the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It served as a mosque until 1935, when it became a museum. In 2020, the site once again became a mosque._
All religions use old holy sites for new places of worship. It is a pretty standard way of reducing the tension around displacing a religion. At the same time marking it easier to get people to convert. They can worship at the same place or on the same day. The only thing that has changed is the name of the god.
To say one or another religion does this more is just not true
In case of Hagia Sophia, the structure was kept more or less the same, with some features added to make it a mosque. Mosque that was built at the place article is talking about completely razed previous structure (verified by archaeological survey of India) that was built at believed birthplace for one of the more prominent deity and a new mosque was later torn down by crowds in 1992.
Supreme court in India around 2019 decided that since this site holds a lot more significance for one religion than other (no real religion wide belief for location) the land in question would be allocated to Hindus while another location would be allocated to Muslims to reconstruct the mosque.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition_of_the_Babri_Masjid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Mandir
Not claiming anything about Modi, just trying to present unbiased facts.
My favorite is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Mosque. It’s been a holy place under various religions since the Iron Age.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Experts say the temple, dedicated to Hinduism’s most revered deity Lord Ram, will cement Modi’s legacy — enduring but also contentious — as one of India’s most consequential leaders, who has sought to transform the country from a secular democracy into an avowedly Hindu nation.
Modi’s Hindu nationalist party is expected to once again exploit religion for political gain in the upcoming national elections in April or May and secure power for a third consecutive term.
Made into a national event by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, the temple’s opening in Ayodhya — a small city in northern India that has been a historical flashpoint — is expected to resonate deeply with Hindu voters.
In the early 1990s, then a little-known local leader in his native Gujarat state, Modi also helped organize public agitation that aimed to shore up support for the construction of what is now Ram Temple at the former Babri Mosque site.
The dispute ended in 2019 when, in a controversial decision, India’s Supreme Court called the mosque’s destruction “an egregious violation of the rule of law,” but granted the site to Hindus.
Rebuilding the temple at the disputed site has been part of BJP’s election strategy for decades, but it was Modi — rising to power in 2014 on a wave of Hindu revivalism — who finally oversaw that promise after attending its groundbreaking ceremony in 2020.
The original article contains 965 words, the summary contains 231 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
This is such a biased news article. I expect better from AP but then you see who wrote it and understand it well.
Hinduism’s most revered deity Lord Ram
Never knew they were such fans of Blackadder!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.