..::Tematiche di Religione::.. Forum di discussione su tematiche religiose

Idols & Icons: The Misrepresentation of Hinduism in the press

  • Messaggi
  • OFFLINE
    ShivaBhakta
    Post: 591
    Post: 59
    Registrato il: 12/11/2007
    Sesso: Maschile
    Scripta Manent...
    00 30/08/2006 18:36
    Salve a tutti.
    Il seguente articolo risale al 1994 e fu scritto dal dottor David Frawley.
    Purtroppo non ho la pazienza per tradurlo in italiano.
    Da www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu_home/1994/msg00024.html

    idols and Icons:
    The Misrepresentation of Hinduism in the Press
    By David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri)

    There are a number of terms that are applied to Hinduism in the Press,
    not only in the West but in India itself, which foster a negative
    image of it. Hindus are routinely called worshippers of idols,
    polytheists, and various other denigrating stereotypes, which do not
    reflect any intelligent examination of the religion itself but what is
    often an intentional campaign of misrepresentation and distortion.


    All the religions of the world - with the general exception of
    Protestant Christians, Muslims and Jews - use some sort of images or
    statues in their religious worship. Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox
    churches abound with statues, paintings and pictures of various types.
    Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist and Shinto groups use them as well. Native
    American, African and Asian religions abound with them. The ancient
    religions of the entire world from Mexico to Greece, Egypt, Babylonia,
    Persia, India and China used images, as archeology so clearly reveals.
    The use of images appear as an integral part of human religious
    practices and no universal religion could be regarded as complete
    without them. Even many Protestant Christians have pictures of Jesus
    in their house or church, and Muslims often have pictures of their
    religious or political leaders, occasionally even depictions of
    Mohammed.

    However, there is a strange dichotomy in how such religious imagesare
    judged. When they are part of the Christian tradition they are called
    icons and classified as works of art and regarded as sacred in nature.
    When they are part of non-Christian or pagan traditions they are
    called "idols," which is a derogatory term that indicates not the
    sacred but mere superstition. In the case of native American and
    African images, even when done by a culture as advanced as the Mayas
    of Central America - which built great pyramids and had many great
    cities - they are lumped along with so-called primitive art.



    An image of Christ as the good shepherd is called an icon and viewed
    with respect. An image of Krishna as the good cow herder - which is a
    similar image of the Divine as watching over the souls of men - is
    called an idol, which encourages one to look down on it. This is
    prejudice and negative stereotyping in language of the worst order.
    What Christian would accept calling a depiction of Christ an idol?
    Would Christian religious leaders approve of it in the press
    of Christian countries? What Christians in India would accept it?
    And would not the govemment and news media of India change the
    language in their favor? Yet Hindus routinely accept that
    depictions of their deities - who represent as high a standard in
    consciousness and ethical behavior as Christ - are demeaned as idols.
    The news media of India does this commonly, which encourages the
    Western news media to continue in this practice, which is part of
    their negative depiction of Hinduism.

    To call such images as idols implies that those who worship them
    practice idolatry or take the image itself as a God. This adds yet
    more prejudice and error to this judgement. The use of an image -
    whether we call it an icon or an idol - does not imply belief in the
    reality of the image. That we keep a photograph of our wife and
    children at our work desk does not mean that we think our wife and
    children are the photograph. It is a reminder, not a false reality.

    Moreover, the use of the term idol inflames the sentiments of
    anti-idolatry religions like Christianity and Islam, as both the Bible
    and the Koran, at least in places, instruct their followers to oppose
    idolaters and smash their temples and images. The use of the term
    idol in the press, particularly in the Indian press, is thus careless,
    insensitive, inflammatory, and communal. It should be removed in an
    effort to promote greater understanding and good will between
    religious groups. The use of such terms indicates that the news media
    of India uncritically and unnecessarily uses terms that encourage
    anti-Hindu attitudes. It is a hold over from the British rule in the
    intellectual sphere, even though the British have long left the
    country. What majority community in the world is so unaware of its
    new media to allow such practices to continue? Yet this issue only
    reflects many other prejudicial terms like Hindu chauvinism, Hindu
    fundamentalism, and Hindu militancy which the often anti-Hindu Indian
    news media frequently uses, while at the same time not using them in
    regard to Islam and Christianity, even when they are much more
    appropriate relative to the exclusivistic attitudes and greater
    intolerance of these belief-oriented religions.

    Using such terms as idols, the news media is not fostering
    communication but promoting discrimination and violence. Such abuse
    of language should be challenged and replaced wherever it is found,
    whether relative to Hindus or anyone else.


    [ Above article was given to Hindu Students Council (An International
    Forum To Provide opportinity to learn Hindu Heritage) for publicity]



    Mi chiamo Orlando.Per cortesia chiamatemi per nome e non per nickname.
  • OFFLINE
    ShivaBhakta
    Post: 591
    Post: 59
    Registrato il: 12/11/2007
    Sesso: Maschile
    Scripta Manent...
    00 05/09/2006 18:43
    Salve a tutti.
    Tradurrò qualcosa.
    [...]
    Tutte le religioni del mondo-con la generale eccezione dei Protestanti Cristiani,Musulmani ed Ebrei-usano qualche sorta di immagini o statue nella loro venerazione religiosa.Le chiese dei Romani Cattolici e dei Greci Ortodossi abbondano con statue,dipinti e figure di vari tipi.
    Gli Indù,i Buddhisti,i Taoisti e i gruppi Shinto li usano anche.I Nativi Americani,gli Africani e le religioni dell'Asia abbondano con essi.Le antiche religioni del mondo intero dal Messico alla Grecia,Egitto,Babilonia,
    Persia, India e Cina usavano immagini,come rivela chiaramente l'archeologia.L'uso delle immagini appare come parte integrale delle pratiche religiose umane e nessuna religione universale potrebbe essere riconosciuta completa senza di esse.Anche molti Protestanti Cristiani hanno figure di Gesù
    nelle loro case o chiese,e i Musulmani spesso hanno figure dei loro capir religiosi o politici,occasionalmente anche pitture di Maomentto.
    Comunque,c'è una strana dicotomia in come tali immagini religiose sono giudicate.Quando sono parte della tradizione cristiana esse sono chiamate icone e classificate come lavori di arte e riconosciuti come di natura sacra.
    Quando esse sono parte di tradizioni non-cristiane o pagane esse sono chiamati "idoli",che è un termine derogatorio che indica non il sacro ma mera superstizione.Nel caso della immagini dei natici americani e africani,anche quando fatti da una cultura avanzata come i Maya
    dell'Amarica Centrale-che costruivano grandi piramidi e avevano molte grandi città - esse sono messe insieme con la cosiddetta arte primitiva.


    Un'immagine del Cristo come il buon pastore è chiamata un'icona e vista con rispetta.Un'immagine di Krishna come il buon custode di mucche - che è una simile immagine del Divino poichè guarda le anime degli uomini -è chiamata un idolo[...].Questo è pregiudizio e stereotipare negativo nel linguaggio del peggior ordine.
    Quale Cristiano accetterebbe di chiamare un dipinto del Cristo un idolo?
    I capi religiosi cristiani approverebbero ciò nei pressi della nazioni cristiane?Quali Cristiani in India lo accetterebbero?
    [...]
    Chiamare tali immagini idoli implica che quilli che le venerano praticano idolatria o prendono l'immagine stessa come Dio.Questo aggiunge ancora più pregiudizio ed errore a questo giudizio.L'uso di un'immagine-
    che noi la chiamiamo un'icona o un'dolo- non implica credo nella realtà dell'immagine.[Il fatto] che noi teniamo una fotografia di nostra moglie e dei nostri figli nella nostra scrivania di lavoro non significa che noi pensiamo che nostra moglie e i nostri figli sono la fotografia.Essa è un memento, non una falsa realtà.
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Cordiali saluti.

    Mi chiamo Orlando.Per cortesia chiamatemi per nome e non per nickname.