|
It's also important not to make the mistake that the article writer made - by comparing the hostile destruction of a Mosque in a predominantly Hindu area, and the planned demolition of a historic site.
In the former, there was sectarian violence meted out by a Hindu majority on a Muslim minority, with the Mosque being the focus. Of course there was a public outcry. It would be similar to an enclave of Americans being attacked and their buildings torn down by an angry mob of non-Americans.
In the second example, a historical (not a religious or social centre) building is planned for demolition, on the grounds that it is impious to develop an over importance to things that are not directly religious (Mecca, the Koran etc) Yes it's extreme, yes it's dogmatic, yes it's religion at its worst extremes of silliness. But it's not rotten, or immoral or wrong.
Christians believe we should not worship craven images, or things that are not God, the people pulling down these buildings believe that people may become too attached to them, or relics from them, and that it is better to save people from the potential idolatry that these buildings allow for.
You don't have to agree with it - but it's certainly not the example of double standards that the writer of the article would like to point out,.
|