|
relapsedcatholic
Posts: 1
Joined: Jun 2006
|
June 22, 2006 10:14 AM
|
|
Are you joking? I guess you've never read The Gandhi Nobody Knows
http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt
Decades hence, men will scoff that people actually respected the likes of him... Like all leftists, Gandhi composed noble sounding prose to cover up his dubious private life, which was rank with hypocrisy. (Merton and MLK being two lesser examples). Look at someone's actions, not their writings.
For example:
"when Gandhi's wife lay dying of
pneumonia and British doctors insisted that a shot of penicillin would save her,
Gandhi refused to have this alien medicine injected in her body and simply let
her die. (It must be noted that when Gandhi contracted malaria shortly afterward
he accepted for himself the alien medicine quinine, and that when he had
appendicitis he allowed British doctors to perform on him the alien outrage of
an appendectomy.) "
or
"I cannot honestly say I had any reasonable expectation that the film would show
scenes of Gandhi's pretty teenage girl followers fighting "hysterically" (the
word was used) for the honor of sleeping naked with the Mahatma and cuddling the
nude septuagenarian in their arms. (Gandhi was "testing" his vow of chastity in
order to gain moral strength for his mighty struggle with Jinnah.) When told
there was a man named Freud who said that, despite his declared intention,
Gandhi might actually be *enjoying* the caresses of the naked girls, Gandhi
continued, unperturbed. Nor, frankly, did I expect to see Gandhi giving daily
enemas to all the young girls in his ashrams (his daily greeting was, "Have you
had a good bowel movement this morning, sisters?"), nor see the girls giving him
*his* daily enema. Although Gandhi seems to have written less about home rule
for India than he did about enemas, and excrement, and latrine cleaning ("The
bathroom is a temple. It should be so clean and inviting that anyone would enjoy
eating there"), I confess such scenes might pose problems for a Western
director."
|
|
|
|
Godspy
Posts: 13
Joined: Sep 2003
|
|
June 22, 2006 11:47 AM
|
|
Relapsed Catholic misses the point of this article. Yes, Gandhi was controversial. But most saint-like world figures are. Even Mother Teresa (who, unlike the flawed Gandhi, IS a saint), was viciously attacked by the virulently anti-religious Christopher Hitchens. Whether the particular charges in Grenier's article are true or not is irrelevent. Overall, Gandhi's legacy was positive enough to cause Pope John Paul II to refer to him on several occasions as "great" and a "hero" (see the article's related links).
The point of the article is that Gandhi, a figure revered by liberals, held views on sexuality and its impact on society that liberals would find repugnant. (The same can be said for the Dalai Lama, but that's another story). Maybe this will lead some liberals to connect the dots and realize that sexual ethics is a necessary component of an ethical society, and that protecting the connection between sex and procreation is not just some obscurantist Catholic obsession.
Furthermore, whether or not Gandhi lived up to his own standards says nothing about the truth of his thought. His thinking about sexuality -- as the article makes clear -- was remarkably coherent, despite the fact that it's based on a flawed (non-Christian) anthropology. Remember the adage about hypocrisy, that it's the tribute vice pays to virtue.
For a balanced view of Gandhi, the man and the movie, that also rebuts the Grenier attack piece you cited, see this article:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/38b451bdbfbefb61?
WHY GANDHI DRIVES THE NEOCONSERVATIVES CRAZY by Jason DeParle, Washington Monthly, September 1983
"...Given these weaknesses in the film and even the man, it's hardly surprising to see a neoconservative critique appear that takes exception to the liberal reaction to "Gandhi". But Grenier's review wasn't a critique so much as it was an epileptic seizure...
[It's] ironic that - of all Third World leaders, of all "revolutionaries" -- Gandhi would be the target of a neoconservative attack, because, in many ways, he embodies the very values they promote.
Neoconservatives value patriotism; Gandhi was a patriot. Neoconservatives believe in community -- as did Gandhi. Neoconservatives believe in strict codes of personal morality, restraints on sexuality -- as did Gandhi. Neoconservatives believe in respect for the traditional institutions of social and political authority, the church and the state -- as, in his own way, did Gandhi.
What Gandhi didn't share, of course, was the neoconservatives' enthusiasm for unfettered capitalism. This points to another contradiction. On one hand, neoconservatives claim to value service, community, and traditional codes of morality. On the other hand, they endorse the material self- seeking and worldly ambition that is fundamental to the laissez-faire marketplace...
Its almost as if the example of Gandhi -- who more fully embodied some of the values that they often simply mouth -- reminds neoconservatives of their own contradictions. The reminder seems to enrage them, and rather than to assess Gandhi in a rational way, they attempt to dismiss him with lies, half-truths, innuendos and racial slurs."
Edited: June 22, 2006 at 4:06 PM by Godspy
|
|
|
|
ninjascience
Posts: 1
Joined: Jul 2006
|
|
July 08, 2006 2:06 PM
|
|
I'm a pretty liberal dude, and I absolutely have to agree that there is much that Gandhi taught that the left has refused to internalize. His writings on humility would be an even bigger affront to modern liberals than what you have presented.
Nonetheless, I object to the idea that Gandhi would see eye to eye with the Catholic Church. Any sex without procreation would be suspect to Gandhi, and so even the rhythm method was in doubt. Morever, even sex WITH procreation in a marriage was somewhat suspect, and to Gandhi (just as with some early Christians), the ideal was no sex or marriage at all! Moreover, he objected to the use of coercion to accomplish moral goals. "Safe, legal, and rare" is totally consistent with Gandhi's rhetoric.
It's also important to understand just how high a standard Gandhi held everyone to. He not only forbade sex, he forbade eating spicy foods! Stop and think about that--Gandhi was an Indian. You know why Columbus was so desperate to get to India, right? Spice.
Every moment of every day was to be devoted to moral Truth, and any stimuli distracting you from that was to be avoided. If Gandhi were in my computer room, he would be totally pissed at me for using electricity to waste time reading and responding to ideas. Sex is just the begining--art, music, television, sugar, spice--even loving your immediate family more than humanity at large--would all probably offend Gandhi.
We should also realize that malnutrition is a serious problem in India. That they are actually exporting food is a grave injustice of protectionist agriculture policies--they are simply not growing enough to keep everyone alive and healthy. I suspect that if Gandhi were alive today, while he would never give an inch on any moral issue, he would probably become MORE extreme and declare all marital relations to be a selfish attempt to extend your own posterity at the expense of your neighbor's.
I say again, there is much to be praised about what you are writing here. Sexual anarchy has done much to weaken the cause of liberalism. But the whole point of Gandhi's point of view was self-discipline, not forced-discipline. That separates him from much (obviously, not all) of the Catholic church. Not to mention that there's probably something that separates Gandhi from the point of view of every American alive. Gandhi would disapprove of sex education, I'm sure. He would also have deep reservations about us training police and military forces. He would likely oppose free trade, or at least counsel people to avoid dependence on the marketplace.
|
|
|
|
magdalene renewed
Posts: 1
Joined: Jul 2006
|
|
July 15, 2006 12:06 PM
|
|
In case you didn't know....lots of liberals do indeed know about Gandhi's celibacy teachings. But they're not about to make the same sort of errors that you're making here. Gandhi's teachings on peace were revolutionary and new--and came as much out of western philosophy as they did out of eastern (he was, after all, western educated.) His celibacy practices, however, were deeply rooted in a cultural/spiritual esoteric non-western tradition that so very few westerners ever bother to explore. His views, though were considered extreme even in his own culture. Most liberals know better than to apply a cultural/spiritual non-western tradition to any western spiritual tradition--esp. teachings that are so extreme and esoteric as the ones you highlight.
Even among Hindus, Gandhi's views and actions on celibacy were considered "esoteric" and were his own interpretations of what *he* and his psyche believed right celibacy to be. They were manifestations of the quirks of his personality--and were horrific towards women (relapsedcatholic is *very* right on this)
So, as a Catholic woman and a student of religion, I am horrified that you would even suggest taking the the esoteric celibacy teachings of a branch of Hinduism as interpreted by a very quirky guy and applying them to Catholic teachings on celibacy--as if those teachings somehow give Catholic teachings legitimacy. Your view, Daniel, is more a New Age-y than Catholic way of looking at Gandhi's actions/beliefs--essentially, the article sounds like the desperate attempt of a westerner who is cannibalizing eastern beliefs/traditions in an effort to look cool, hip, and contemporary.
Essentailly, you end up not discrediting liberals, but commiting a really serious theological/cultural error.
Rather than continuing to commit errors in this manner, on a matter that is highly personal and should never be politicized in the way you suggest, perhaps you might want to consider the teachings of Jerome, Augustine, or Aquinas on celibacy. Their teachings on celibacy, like Gandhi's, are just as demeaning to women in order to help men with their inconstancy--but at least they're within the Catholic tradition. Or are they irrelevant now because they're not hip and cool?
|
|
|
|
|
