Timeline for How to deal with comments which are disrespectful towards Hindu Rishis, beliefs, gods?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:59 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Sep 20, 2017 at 18:30 | comment | added | Sarvabhouma | @sv. Visit Hinduism room. I've given my view on this matter there. | |
| Sep 19, 2017 at 5:29 | comment | added | iammilind | @Rickross, regarding "tolerance level", since I am coming from the main SO site, it's naturally high. See the edit history of this answer, where the answerer calls it a silly Qn. However, I do understand that Hinduism.SE is a religious site & it cannot be directly mapped with SO. Even then, the gravity of the comment was not that high. Hence, I gave some examples of what could be the right tolerance level. | |
| Sep 19, 2017 at 5:01 | comment | added | Rickross | Also @iammilind if u happen to study more scriptures in future then u'll find that BG has nothing unique or exclusive. The same purports are found scattered in several other scriptures. It is more well-known among masses because of TV serials and also because of the fact that it is relatively less difficult to understand when compared to others.. | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 20:50 | comment | added | Say No To Censorship | Upvoted your answer as I find yours closest to official SE policy. You might be interested in this and this post on Christianity.SE. | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 16:37 | comment | added | Rickross | Btw i do not understand why u have posted those portions which show ur "tolerance level".. If someone calling Vedic Rishis or Gods morons, idiots etc then we obviously won't be discussing those posts here in Meta. As such posts will be gone as soon as the Mods are notified about their existence. So, those portions are redundant IMO. | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 8:48 | comment | added | Rickross | I have edited the Q now. Have a look. | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 8:26 | comment | added | iammilind | @Rickross, I agree that "Bhagavad Gita" is not meant for the worldly matters. Veda-s & various Smriti-s are meant for running the society. Hence Gita is also rightly referred as "VedAnta" (beyond world). I am also not to prove its authority either. Since the Qn was about "beyond world" (creation), the "beyond Veda" scripture can be authorised. :-) Anyways, to cut the discussion short, it was better if the body of your Qn had been loyal to the title only. May be after some time, when the things get pacified, you yourself would find that pinpointing a user for this matter was not right. :-) | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 7:55 | comment | added | Rickross | Now think of the opposite scenario- BG is not available but other scriptures are, then nothing comes to standstill, the advice which are found in BG are also found scattered in several other scriptures. So not any problem at all. See this Q for the authority status of Hindu scriptures: hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/20664/… | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 7:54 | comment | added | Rickross | BG is part of an Itihasa. I am not sure if Itihasas have any scriptural authority. In scriptures we find authority discussed for only Sruti (Vedas)-Smriti and Puranas. Now, these 3 are complete scriptures. If any one of them is available we can follow Dharma and all its rites even if no other scriptures are available. Even Tantras are complete Scriptures in that sense.When no other scriptures are available we can easily manage if Tantras are available. (2) | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 7:48 | comment | added | Rickross | You are gravely mistaken about BG's scriptural authority. Authority status are discussed only for those scriptures which are complete. And BG is not a complete scripture at all. Suppose we have only BG available to us and no other scriptures. What will we do with it? It is just a philosophical discourse, it does not have guidelines for so many Dharmic things which Hindus will have to do on daily basis. The whole nitya-naimittika-kamya karmas will have to stopped for not having any guidelines available on them (1) | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 7:43 | comment | added | Rickross | Yes he is not ridiculing any particular user- that's why i was not sure whether to flag or not to. And yes he must be thinking that he is not violating the be nice policy but i think most users (except someone like who downvoted the Q and u) will agree with me that those comments should not be allowed. Its Ok to be atheists but that does not mean they can openly disrespect Hindu scriptures and belief. | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 7:24 | comment | added | iammilind |
@Rickross, the main Qn is about creation (origin) of universe, which is also called saguna brahman. -- What you want to say about following: BG 10.2 - Neither the gods nor the great sages know My origin. In every way, I am the origin of the gods and the great sages.?
|
|
| Sep 18, 2017 at 7:17 | comment | added | iammilind | @Rickross, in such case it was better if the body of your Qn had just followed the title. And incidentally the answer you accepted, doesn't discuss about that comment at all. But you have chosen to disclose the user with that comment. That's also OK, if it's unavoidable, but the comment which you posted in the Qn is not ridiculing explicitly anyone. If you find the trend of such comments, then links to all those comments would have helped. As far as I know, the user is smart enough not to break the "Be Nice" policy. I have seen that in past during some of the conversations. | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 7:11 | history | edited | iammilind | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 185 characters in body
|
| Sep 18, 2017 at 7:10 | comment | added | Rickross | I don't think it is stretched as you are saying. I just wanted to know if we can flag such comments or not? In Hinduism SE can we allow comments that are ridiculing Hindu beliefs? Also it is not that this is the first such comment from the concerned user. He has been posting like that from some days. So, i thought its better to know the official stand on such issue. | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 7:05 | comment | added | iammilind | @Rickross, "Now, these are equivalent of saying God does not know" -- that's subjective. In a way, that's a speculation, which can be true or false. Lord Krishna has given lower importance to Veda-s at places during Gita. Of course the conversation was in private, but that doesn't mean he ridiculed. I think, this issue is stretched out of proportion. | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 6:06 | comment | added | Rickross | I can understand that even atheists can ask questions here and post but that does not imply that they can ridicule the beliefs of others. That Q is about Veda mantras and the comment says they do not know- they are just speculating. Now, these are equivalent of saying God does not know (because God spoke Vedas), the Rishis (because Rishis heard Vedas) are just speculating- so they are hurting the feelings of the Hindus (believers). They can post from their POV but without ridiculing the beliefs of a mainstream Hindu. I am downvoting ur post. | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 5:35 | history | edited | Sarvabhouma | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Sep 18, 2017 at 5:31 | comment | added | Rickross | So you are saying is that we should be indifferent to such comments. I don't agree with it. | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 5:18 | history | answered | iammilind | CC BY-SA 3.0 |