The Witch of Oahu

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Source: Science of Identity Foundation.

One of the Forum regulars warns that Tulsi Gabbard is a member of a religious cult. Looking at the “cult’s” web site (linked above) I find little to be concerned about.

Hinduism is one of the world’s great religions. On that basis alone it is unrealistic to describe Hindus as members of a cult. On the contrary, a practicing Hindu is on a par with a practicing Christian, or Jew, or Muslim.

I’m inclined to tolerate the faiths of people of faith, even in political contexts. I’m even OK with lawmakers crafting laws in accordance with their religious beliefs so long as those laws do not cause harm or infringe the natural rights and liberties of the people in the society where they are enacted.

My own warning would be that smearing Gabbard as a cult member is an insidious thing to do, about the same as ducking Pungo’s Grace Sherwood for witchcraft.

Published by John Todd Roberts

Published

27 thoughts on “The Witch of Oahu”

  1. Equating an American hippie cult (Science of Identity Foundation) which is the offshoot of an another American hippie cult (Hare Krishna) with the Hindu religion is disingenuous and disrespectful. Tulsi is a weird person and her upbringing within this sub-cult might help explain why she is the way she is.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. RE: “Equating an American hippie cult (Science of Identity Foundation) which is the offshoot of an another American hippie cult (Hare Krishna) with the Hindu religion is disingenuous and disrespectful.”

      Right. Because you say so.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Yes, it is my opinion that equating this hippie cult to a world religion is both disingenuous and disrespectful. It is also my opinion that you are beating up a straw man. No one claims that Gabbard is in a cult because she is Hindu.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

      2. RE: “No one claims that Gabbard is in a cult because she is Hindu.”

        No, the claim is that Gabbard’s association with the Science of Identity Foundation makes her a cult member. My claim is that SIF is a garden variety Hindu organization — which is clear from the content of its web site.

        I object to commentary like yours which normalizes name calling.

        Like

        Reply

        2. “I object to commentary like yours which normalizes name calling.”

          Which commentary do you think you are talking about?

          If name calling is normalized, there is one person who made that happen – YOUR Dear Leader. It is just about the only thing he is good at.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

        2. She did not leave a cult, regardless of your idiotic opinion about Democrats. She is part of an actual cult and because she says the things you want to hear, you have no issue with it.

          But then again, you appear to be a cultist yourself with your fealty and trust in one man.

          Like

          Reply

  3. The Science of Identity Foundation is to Hinduism as the Branch Davidians were to Christianity, a branch off of a branch of a major religion. It incorporates a lot of the personal beliefs of its founder, Chris Butler. While not as dangerous as some cults, it is, IMHO, a cult nonetheless.

    Webster defines a cult as: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious (outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities)

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. RE: “Webster defines a cult as: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious (outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities)”

      What is unorthodox or spurious about SIF?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. What was unorthodox or spurious about the Branch Davidians? If one is a “Christian,” one does not need to become a member of a branch. If one is a “Hindu,” one does not need to become a member of a branch. Branches, by definition, are not orthodox.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

  4. Question to forum Democrats. Where were these criticisms and questions when she was in the Democrat party?
    What a coincidence.

    Like

    Reply

    1. There were criticism and debate in a few threads. Don even wrote that she was a Democrat he could support. Rebuttals followed.

      Democrats are not as lock-step disciplined as Republicans. Never have been because it’s constituents are a pretty wide ranging spectrum of Americans.

      I am sure you recall Will Rogers, the humorist from the first half of the last century, and his quip:

      “I’m not a member of a organized political party. I’m a Democrat.”

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    3. Don’t even try to shame Democrats for not criticizing their candidates. Al Franken was accused of kissing a woman without her permission and Democrats told him to resign from the Senate. Donald Trump was caught on tape, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy and trying to “move” on a married woman and Republicans elected him President. Trump was proven guilty of extortion and Republicans voted to keep him in office. Trump was proven guilty of Jan 6 crimes and Republicans voted to keep him in office. Brett Kavanaugh was accused of rape and you put him on the Supreme Court. Matt Gaetz is accused of sex trafficking and he’s still in the House. Democrats criticize and question their own and remove them from office when necessary. Republicans deny and defend the wrong doing of their own. So long as a candidate tows the party line, that is all that’s required. For Republicans, it’s party over country. The Big Lie over democracy.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  5. I note that you make NO reference to the site article I linked concerning Ms. Gabbard’s association with this particular cult. You just went and looked up their website and took it at face value. The same way you do with Putin and his mouthpieces. Kudos for your consistency.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. RE: “I note that you make NO reference to the site article I linked concerning Ms. Gabbard’s association with this particular cult.”

      Why should I? I read it, found it weak, and looked for other sources.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment