Chevalier Dr. Kamal Haasanin Mayyam - Part 9

[venkkiram]

not sure if you were serious in what you were telling or if you are just having so much hatred about CHO that you believe that he would behave so cheaply , also i am not sure if you were aware of the circumstances in which CHO came forward to act in the film Kaadhala Kaadhala......... when a section of the film industry was against Kamal

அரசியல் பத்திரிக்கையாளர் ஒருவரை சந்தேகப் படுவதில் என்ன வெறுப்பு இருக்கமுடியும்? நாடக/சினிமா கலைஞர் - அரசியல் விமர்சகர் - பத்திரிக்கையாளர் - அரசியல் ஆலோசகர் போன்ற பலதரப்பட்ட முகங்களில் வந்த/வந்துகொண்டிருக்கும் மனிதர் விமர்சனத்திற்கு அப்பாற்பட்டவரா? காதலா காதலா படத்தில் சோ நடித்தார் என்பது எதோ அவருக்கு பாராட்டுவிழா வைத்து பூஜிக்கவேண்டிய அளவுக்கு பெரியவிஷயமா? தெரியல. சோ ஒன்றும் புனிதப் பசுவும் அல்ல. ஆம் ஆத்மி கொஞ்ச நாட்களுக்கு முன்பு வெளிக்கொணர்ந்த விஷயம் தெரியும்தானே? http://tamil.oneindia.com/news/tamil...tml#slide56341 முன்பு ரஜினி அரசியலுக்கு வந்தால் தமிழ்நாடே குஜராத் போல முன்னேறிவிடும் எனச் சொன்னவர்தானே! ஆஹா என்னே ஒரு ஆழ்ந்த கவனிப்பு! http://tamil.oneindia.com/news/2008/...-coverage.html இங்கிலாந்து எலிசபெத் ராணி மருதநாயகம் திரைப்பட ஆரம்பவிழாவிற்கு வருகைதந்தபோது சோவையும் கமல் வரவழைத்து ராணியிடம் 'இவர் ஒரு டேரிங் ஜர்னலிஸ்ட்' என அறிமுகப்படுத்தினாராம். காமெடிதான்.

[irir123]

not sure if you were serious in what you were telling or if you are just having so much hatred about CHO that you believe that he would behave so cheaply , also i am not sure if you were aware of the circumstances in which CHO came forward to act in the film Kaadhala Kaadhala......... when a section of the film industry was against Kamal

hatred for Cho ?!

I admire his articulate ability and his non-partisan approach in criticizing politicians in an objective manner - but that doesn't mean I accept/agree with some of his claims such as how the Ramar paalam (bridge) is Holy, etc etc, and his weird assertions of how Hinduism (or Sanathana dharma) was practiced elsewhere by the Incas and the aborigines of Australia etc - Cho is definitely not an expert in archaeology and I do some stuff with the same working as a docent at a local museum - the Incas for example (as did the Aztecs) worshipped the Sun god, which was a practice in most pagan cultures - so Cho in recent years tends to say things which are beyond his expertise (not different from how many people I know of suggest to me that genetic engineering / organ transplant was well-known in ancient India - laughable conjectures)

anyway those are a different matter/topic - but I do recall reading his opinion on VR here : "There are three angles here. One, the right of the artiste. Two, the right of the follower of a religion not to have his religious feelings hurt by anyone’s word or deed. Three, the duty of the state to maintain law and order. Usually, these three factors do not clash but they may." (http://archives.deccanchronicle.com/...ry-thin’)

I have problems with the second point - why should religious feelings NOT be offended ?? literature, music, art can be criticized, but not religion ? why religion has a special status ? why someone like Cho is pandering to this lame thought ? thats all am asking.

[Adox]

hatred for Cho ?!

I admire his articulate ability and his non-partisan approach in criticizing politicians in an objective manner - but that doesn't mean I accept/agree with some of his claims such as how the Ramar paalam (bridge) is Holy, etc etc, and his weird assertions of how Hinduism (or Sanathana dharma) was practiced elsewhere by the Incas and the aborigines of Australia etc - Cho is definitely not an expert in archaeology and I do some stuff with the same working as a docent at a local museum - the Incas for example (as did the Aztecs) worshipped the Sun god, which was a practice in most pagan cultures - so Cho in recent years tends to say things which are beyond his expertise (not different from how many people I know of suggest to me that genetic engineering / organ transplant was well-known in ancient India - laughable conjectures)

anyway those are a different matter/topic - but I do recall reading his opinion on VR here : "There are three angles here. One, the right of the artiste. Two, the right of the follower of a religion not to have his religious feelings hurt by anyone’s word or deed. Three, the duty of the state to maintain law and order. Usually, these three factors do not clash but they may." (http://archives.deccanchronicle.com/...ry-thin’)

I have problems with the second point - why should religious feelings NOT be offended ?? literature, music, art can be criticized, but not religion ? why religion has a special status ? why someone like Cho is pandering to this lame thought ? thats all am asking.

We've been through this before ... No one has an automatic right be it Kamal or Kaliagnar to insult/offend an other person's belief. While personally its fine for yourself or your buddies to believe through archeology and science that there's no evidence of Ramar Palam, it does not procure an automatic status to offend someone else. This is not certainly not the same as criticizing abhorrent methods violating human rights.

To summarize -

Is it ok to insult Mohammad or Jesus Christ or Lord Ram in a cartoon or other methods thereby offending millions ? Hell no! Doesnt matter if you're as big as Steven Hawkins.
Is it ok to criticize Sati, Untouchability, violation of women's rights or human rights etc. by religions ? Absolutely !

[Adox]

My observations above have nothing to do VR itself. Just about how far you can go to criticize a religious belief or its icons. Dont believe VR insulted any religion .. it may have elevated the status of an Indian Muslim just as Hey Ram which did the same to the Mahatma.

[Adox]

Hollywood Trained Actor to reprise Kamal Haasan's role!

Bharathiraja's Sigappu Rojakkal is considered to be one of the path-breaking movies of Tamil Cinema. Released in the year 1978, the movie was way ahead of its times, considering the bold and explicit content. The movie had Kamal Haasan and Sridevi in the lead roles.

Meanwhile, it was touted that Manoj Bharathiraja would be remaking the film. Today, we received the official confirmation that the project has begun. 'Hollywood Trained' Visakan will be playing the lead, and GV Prakash will be composing the music. It is said that Bharathiraja, himself, will be playing an important role in the movie.

http://behindwoods.com/tamil-movies-...-rojakkal.html

[irir123]

We've been through this before ... No one has an automatic right be it Kamal or Kaliagnar to insult/offend an other person's belief. While personally its fine for yourself or your buddies to believe through archeology and science that there's no evidence of Ramar Palam, it does not procure an automatic status to offend someone else. This is not certainly not the same as criticizing abhorrent methods violating human rights.

To summarize -

Is it ok to insult Mohammad or Jesus Christ or Lord Ram in a cartoon or other methods thereby offending millions ? Hell no! Doesnt matter if you're as big as Steven Hawkins.
Is it ok to criticize Sati, Untouchability, violation of women's rights or human rights etc. by religions ? Absolutely !

I wholeheartedly disagree - religion or religious institutions are no way above any other institution - if Sam Harris says Islam was spread by the sword, thats not an insult, thats a matter of fact statement; that Shia-Sunni split happened after the Prophet' son-in-law Hussein's son Ali (who wanted to take over the Prophets role) was beheaded in public by Sunnis, is a historical statement (http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2...e-sunni-split?), and is not an insult.

It all depends on how you wish to address the idea of offending someone ! if saying anything offends someone, then a reality check is needed.

open societies encourage such dialog and conversations and not scuttle them under the pretext of protecting ppl's feelings - it is precisely because many societies / communities today stubbornly refuse to address bad ideas and dogmas, stemming from religious doctrines, we are facing problems in every corner of the world. Taking India as an example, why don't we have a uniform civil code ?Shah Bano's case caused a chain reaction resulting in almost every single event (election after election) over the last 20-25 years costing us billions of taxpayers money - that case is rooted in stupid religious doctrine.

what next someone likes masala dose while another likes idly and neither can say the other item is lousy ? thats a matter of opinion - why should religion be any different ?

[Adox]

I wholeheartedly disagree - religion or religious institutions are no way above any other institution - if Sam Harris says Islam was spread by the sword, thats not an insult, thats a matter of fact statement; that Shia-Sunni split happened after the Prophet' son-in-law Hussein's son Ali (who wanted to take over the Prophets role) was beheaded in public by Sunnis, is a historical statement (http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2...e-sunni-split?), and is not an insult.

It all depends on how you wish to address the idea of offending someone ! if saying anything offends someone, then a reality check is needed.

open societies encourage such dialog and conversations and not scuttle them under the pretext of protecting ppl's feelings - it is precisely because many societies / communities today stubbornly refuse to address bad ideas and dogmas, stemming from religious doctrines, we are facing problems in every corner of the world. Taking India as an example, why don't we have a uniform civil code ?Shah Bano's case caused a chain reaction resulting in almost every single event (election after election) over the last 20-25 years costing us billions of taxpayers money - that case is rooted in stupid religious doctrine.

what next someone likes masala dose while another likes idly and neither can say the other item is lousy ? thats a matter of opinion - why should religion be any different ?

> if Sam Harris says Islam was spread by the sword, thats not an insult, thats a matter of fact statement; that Shia-Sunni split happened after the Prophet' son-in-law Hussein's son Ali (who wanted to take over the Prophets role) was beheaded in public by Sunnis, is a historical statement (http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2...e-sunni-split?), and is not an insult.

Not sure if anyone will have a problem with that.

>It all depends on how you wish to address the idea of offending someone ! if saying anything offends someone, then a reality check is needed.

Nope. Only a small subset of saying something.

>open societies encourage such dialog and conversations and not scuttle them under the pretext of protecting ppl's feelings - it is precisely because many societies / communities today stubbornly refuse to address bad ideas and dogmas, stemming from religious doctrines, we are facing problems in every corner of the world. Taking India as an example, why don't we have a uniform civil code ?Shah Bano's case caused a chain reaction resulting in almost every single event (election after election) over the last 20-25 years costing us billions of taxpayers money - that case is rooted in stupid religious doctrine.

Not sure why you brought this. I did say in my post that human and women right violations have to be condemned and criticized! I would never care to pamper any religion ever.

>what next someone likes masala dose while another likes idly and neither can say the other item is lousy ? thats a matter of opinion - why should religion be any different ?

You're diluting the whole argument. We're talking specifics that we should keep away from.

Cool! Lets get into specifics. In line with encouraging intellectual creativity and expressions, these are fine in your opinion:

-Cartoon depicting Mohammed having a bomb in his turban
-Nude painting displaying cleavage, pubic areas and other curvature of a hindu godess with a reasoning that it is an artistic creativity
-Publicizing and encouraging meetings based on research findings that Dna and archeology does not support that Jesus Christ existed

In general while left to the author to decide what he thinks is creativity there have to be certain safeguards to protect against in a democracy. We're seeing way too many going overboard in the name of freedom of expression. This does not even closely mean that religious institutions are an apex organization.

[rsubras]

அரசியல் பத்திரிக்கையாளர் ஒருவரை சந்தேகப் படுவதில் என்ன வெறுப்பு இருக்கமுடியும்? நாடக/சினிமா கலைஞர் - அரசியல் விமர்சகர் - பத்திரிக்கையாளர் - அரசியல் ஆலோசகர் போன்ற பலதரப்பட்ட முகங்களில் வந்த/வந்துகொண்டிருக்கும் மனிதர் விமர்சனத்திற்கு அப்பாற்பட்டவரா? காதலா காதலா படத்தில் சோ நடித்தார் என்பது எதோ அவருக்கு பாராட்டுவிழா வைத்து பூஜிக்கவேண்டிய அளவுக்கு பெரியவிஷயமா? தெரியல. சோ ஒன்றும் புனிதப் பசுவும் அல்ல. ஆம் ஆத்மி கொஞ்ச நாட்களுக்கு முன்பு வெளிக்கொணர்ந்த விஷயம் தெரியும்தானே? http://tamil.oneindia.com/news/tamil...tml#slide56341 முன்பு ரஜினி அரசியலுக்கு வந்தால் தமிழ்நாடே குஜராத் போல முன்னேறிவிடும் எனச் சொன்னவர்தானே! ஆஹா என்னே ஒரு ஆழ்ந்த கவனிப்பு! http://tamil.oneindia.com/news/2008/...-coverage.html இங்கிலாந்து எலிசபெத் ராணி மருதநாயகம் திரைப்பட ஆரம்பவிழாவிற்கு வருகைதந்தபோது சோவையும் கமல் வரவழைத்து ராணியிடம் 'இவர் ஒரு டேரிங் ஜர்னலிஸ்ட்' என அறிமுகப்படுத்தினாராம். காமெடிதான்.

I think the argument has taken a different direction (not this conversation, but the ones that succeeded this ) I never said that CHO is above criticism...all i said was in my opinion, CHO did not deserve such kind of criticism which portrays him as a cheap fellow.......... may be some one who hates him would levy charges like that...I quoted about kaadhala kaadhala to show the kind of respect they have for each other...........

In my opinion, Kamal is a no-nonsense guy and a genuine atheist.......... CHO also is a no-nonsense guy and a genuine theist.... both are matured enough to take criticisms by their stride and would love to argue on what they believe............ both will not resort to cheap tactics to pull down some one who do not follow their line...only pseudo atheist (or) theists will do such things....

[pushpak]

If I hate Kamal, Obama or Modi, or a class mate or a colleague for whatever logical/illogical or person/professional reason, I can tell that I hate them. But I have no right to harm them.

If I hate Christ/Krishna/Allah for whatever logical/illogical reason, I can continue to hate and I can tell that I hate. Yes, I have no right to harm them

[irir123]

[I]

Cool! Lets get into specifics. In line with encouraging intellectual creativity and expressions, these are fine in your opinion:

-Cartoon depicting Mohammed having a bomb in his turban
-Nude painting displaying cleavage, pubic areas and other curvature of a hindu godess with a reasoning that it is an artistic creativity
-Publicizing and encouraging meetings based on research findings that Dna and archeology does not support that Jesus Christ existed

In general while left to the author to decide what he thinks is creativity there have to be certain safeguards to protect against in a democracy. We're seeing way too many going overboard in the name of freedom of expression. This does not even closely mean that religious institutions are an apex organization.

Going overboard is again a subjective statement - under the pretext of sanctity, we have way too many holy cows in almost every religion and every tom, *ick and harry wants to feel offended about every other thing, that comes in the way of communities having a stress-free lifestyle.

That part of the ring road in Bangalore immediately after the over bridge in KR Puram narrows down considerably - efforts to widen the road have been met with obstacles only because the property along the roadside belong to one community that refuses to allow the road to be widened - end result is horrendous traffic jams every single day!

I challenge anyone to try driving or taking an auto rickshaw/taxi from the Hazrat Nizamuddin station towards main Delhi on a friday late afternoon - 100s of ppl clog the streets after friday prayers.

to be fair, so many roads in suburban areas are forever clogged thanks to tiny temples in the middle of the road - which can never be removed for offending religious sentiments.

the point is - it is difficult to draw lines as to what is offensive and what is not - the examples you have given - those are exactly the same ones encouraged in open societies - its not a coincidence that countries with such an open attitude are doing well in terms of longevity, social well-being etc.

faith/belief is personal and institutions representing these faiths have for long been given a free reign - tax-free status/exemptions, criminals let off (pederasts in 100s pardoned by those higher up in hierarchy), land grabbing (under the pretext of its holiness) etc and there is absolutely nothing wrong in questioning their foundations.