1) Twitter meltdown on a self-proclaimed "atheist"'s finding Kali "sexy" and supposed intention to "trigger" Hindu "Far Right" and show them same as jihadis. For a start, I find his arguments very revealing about why and how most "atheists" fail in their replacement religion.
2) In case of Kali, the thing to note is that Kali is "taken" already, a consort of Shiva - in most Hindu traditions. If an "atheist" finds her "sexy", it raises quite a few questions about the social aspects of the "atheists" thinking on sex and sexuality.
3) to say one finds a woman "sexy", is an automatic acknowledgement that the viewer's sexual responses have been triggered by mere visuals of the woman. From there its a grey zone: he/she is open to sex with the woman or he may restrain and not have sex even if available.
4) But in either case, it is still a declaration that he/she is sexually triggered by the sight of the woman, and considers sex with the woman a possibility or an option or not averse to. With Kali, does the "atheist" consider the wife of another as a potential partner in sex?
5) I cd see frm the TL of this particular "atheist" that he agrees to "incest" in its most commonly accepted definitions -including dad-daughter etc if subject to "consent". He relies on a very naive concept of "consent" and not question if "consent" itself could be manufactured.
6) Finding Kali the wife of Shiva - "sexy", reveals a value system which doesn't respect committed relationships. Just like the notion of cuckoldry whether by consent or not, there is an opposite notion which rejects it. Atheists supporting one doesn't make the other invalid.
7) The next problem is that Kali in textual constructions is not sexually promiscuous: she only respects and is "tamed" in her fury, by Shiva -her consort. So implying Kali a sex-object thought of as a sexual partner by someone not her consort is a falsification of her behaviour.
8) Are there elements in textual narratives of gods/goddesses of other faiths that make them amenable to this "atheists" mockery on sexual grounds - yes, plenty in Greek, Roman lore. Even in Islam, the founding fathers' sexual life provides ample instances suitable for his agenda
9) But the Hindu Kali, Shakti, Sati, Parvati - all melded into a comprehensive ritual-philosophical framework provide little or no space to the imaginations of the "goddess" as in the Mediterranean or Middle Eastern world - a temptress of both gods and mortals, a "sex" object.
10) Thus this "atheists" finding Kali "sexy" is similar to the Mediterranean/Middle-Eastern construction of the goddess as projection of human lust, and reminds of the obscenely abusive sexualization that each religious wave in the Middle-East/Med did to pre-existing goddesses.
11) It reminds of the islamic narrative of finding the "priestesses" of goddesses in temples ordered to be destroyed by the founder of Islam - as "dark" and naked, to be triumphantly struck down and liquidated.
12) somewhere, deep down, is that violent derogation of the woman - both a trigger for lust, "dark", "naked", as well as something to be mocked, reduced from a higher position to equal or lower than the man desiring her. Esp for a goddess with no narrative of indulging in such.
13) It seems to me that the "atheist" has not yet been able to break the slave shackles that his birth religion subconsciously rooted deep in him: he might be rebelling, but his rebellion follows the violent/unseeing/unreasoning/conquest model of jihad -
14) a sign of emptiness that will as easily fall back into "theism" as it came out of it. Let's leave the extreme derogation of women in that TL out. It is not progressing anyone's cause.
15) Freedom of expression is not a matter of convenience. If right to abuse is recognized, I have no problem with it - I only demand that everyone be equally allowed to abuse then or counter abuse with abuse. No selective allowances based on identity or position on things.
