Peter Montgomery wrote:
> I suspect he would be killing himself laughing.
> Cheers,
> Peter
> Vishvesh Obla wrote:
> >“The place to assess her work (Wendy Doniger) is in
> >the academy, not polemical billboards or Web pages.”

I don't know what or anybody else would be laughing about -- have you
accessed the text Vishvash gave the URL to. Here are its opening

At the end of Rajiv Malhotra’s lengthy criticism of Wendy Doniger’s
studies of Hindu texts, he writes: “Rights of individual scholars must
be balanced against rights of cultures and communities they portray,
especially minorities that often face intimidation. Scholars should
criticize but not define another’s religion.” If this means that slander
is wrong and colonialism is pernicious, who could disagree? Yet, if this
means, as I read him, that scholars should contort their readings of
sacred texts to honor the opinions of traditionalists, I must dissent.

As I understand the university’s role, it is to refuse rights of
censorship to any group, native or nonnative, elite or nonelite. This
does not shield Doniger or any of us from criticism; many of Malhotra’s
complaints about biases and errors in Western scholarship are worthy of
sustained dialogue. However, scholars should challenge the “rights” of
the group, which always means the power elites, to control what counts
as valid. If Americans voted on evolution’s validity, for example, I’m
afraid Darwin would lose out to Jewish-Christian creation stories. When
Darwinism triumphed in the late 19th century, many Christians, like
William James, realized a favorite argument for the existence of God,
the argument from design, vanished. With it their most cherished beliefs
also vanished.*****

It looks to me like the attack on Donniger is another knownothing attack
on independent thinking in the u.s. school system, from K-12 through the
elite universities. If Eliot would have laughed under these conditions,
he would have been a jackass.