आपस्तम्बधर्मसूत्रेषु भोजननियमाः

कल्प-कोशात्

अभोज्येषु

हिंसार्थेनासिना मांसं छिन्नमभोज्यम् १६ …यस्मिंश्चान्ने केशः स्यात् (पाकावस्थायां सति भिन्ना वार्ता) २३ अन्यद्वामेध्यम् २४ अमेध्यैरवमृष्टम् २५ कीटो वामेध्यसेवी २६ मूषकलाङ्गं वा २७ … कृतान्नं पर्युषितमखाद्यापेयानाद्यम् १७ शुक्तं च १८ … फाणित(शर्करादिः)-पृथुक (चिउडा)-तण्डुल-करम्ब (दधि+शक्तु)-भरुज-सक्तु-शाक-मांस-पिष्ट-क्षीरविकारौषधि-वनस्पति-मूल-फल-वर्जम् १९ शुक्तं चापरयोगम् २० … सर्वं मद्यमपेयम् २१ … तथैलकं पयः २२ उष्ट्रीक्षीर-मृगीक्षीर-सन्धिनीक्षीर-यमसूक्षीराणीति २३ धेनोश्चानिर्दशायाः (प्रसवाद् १० दिनेभ्यः प्राक्) २४ … तथा कीलालौषधीनां च २५ करञ्ज-पलण्डु-परारीकाः २६ यच्चान्यत् परिचक्षते २७ क्याक्वभोज्यमिति हि ब्राह्मणम् २८ …एकखुरोष्ट्रगवयग्रामसूकरशरभगवाम् २९ धेनु+अनडुहोर्भक्ष्यम् ३० मेध्यमानडुहमिति वाजसनेयकम् ३१ कुक्कुटो विकिराणाम् (=खनित्वा कीटान्यश्नन्ति ये तेषु, अभक्ष्यम्) ३२ प्लवः प्रतुदाम् ३३ क्रव्यादः ३४ हंसभासचक्रवाकसुपर्णाश्च ३५ क्रुञ्च-क्रौञ्च (एतेषु) वार्ध्राणस-लक्ष्मण-वर्जम् (अभक्ष्यम्) ३६ पञ्चनखानां गोधा-कच्छप-श्वाविट्-शल्यक-खण्ग-शश-पूतिखष-वर्जम् ३७ सर्पशीर्षी मृदुरः क्रव्यादो ये चान्ये विकृता यथा मनुष्यशिरसः ३९ १७

पाचक-परिवेषक-पङ्क्त्यादौ

अप्रयतोपहतमन्नमप्रयतं न त्वभोज्यम् २१ अप्रयतेन तु शूद्रेणोपहृतमभोज्यम् २२ … पदा वोपहतम् २८ सिचा (वस्त्राञ्चलेन) वा २९ शुना वापपात्रेण वा दृष्टम् ३० सिचा वोपहृतम् ३१ दास्या वा नक्तमाहृतम् ३२ दास्या वा नक्तमाहृतम् ३२ भुञ्जानं वा ३३ यत्र शूद्र उपस्पृशेत् १ अनर्हद्भिर्वा समानपङ्क्तौ २ भुञ्जानेषु व यत्रानूत्थायोच्छिष्टं प्रयच्छेदाचामेद्वा ३ कुत्सयित्वा वा यत्रान्नं दद्युः ४ मनुष्यैरवघ्रातमन्यैर्वामेध्यैः ५ … नापणीयमन्नमश्नीयात् १४ तथा रसान् आममांस-मधु-लवणानीति परिहाप्य १५ तैलसर्पिषी तूपयोजयेदुदकेऽवधाय १६ … मध्वामं मार्गं मांसं भूमिर् मूलफलानि रक्षा-गव्यूतिर्-निवेशनं युग्यघासश् चोग्रतः प्रतिगृह्याणि १ एतान्यपि नानन्तेवास्याहृतानीति हारीतः २ आमं वा गृह्णीरन् ३ कृतान्नस्य वा विरसस्य ४ … त्रयाणां वर्णानां क्षत्रियप्रभृतीनां समावृत्तेन न भोक्तव्यम् ९ १० यत्राप्रायश्चित्तं कर्मासेवते प्रायश्चित्तवति ११ चरितनिर्वेषस्य भोक्तव्यम् १२ सर्ववर्णानां स्वधर्मे वर्तमानानां भोक्तव्यं शूद्र-वर्जमित्येके १३… सङ्घान्नमभोज्यम् १६ परिक्रुष्टं (=सर्वान् भोजनार्थम् आह्वान्ति ये) च १७ सर्वेषां च शिल्पाजीवानाम् १८ ये च शस्त्रमाजीवन्ति १९ ये चाधिम् (भाटकग्राहकाः) २० भिषक् २१ वार्धुषिकः (वृद्ध्युपजीविनः) २२ दीक्षितोऽक्रीतराजकः २३ अग्नीषोमीयसंस्थायामेव २४ हुतायां वा वपायां दीक्षितस्य भोक्तव्यम् २५ यज्ञार्थे वा निर्दिष्टे शेषाद्भुञ्जीरन्न् इति हि ब्राह्मणम् २६ क्लीबः २७ राज्ञां प्रैषकरः २८ अहविर्याजी २९ चारी ३० अविधिना च प्रव्रजितः ३१ यश्चाग्नीनपास्यति ३२ यश्च सर्वान्वर्जयते, सर्वान्नी च श्रोत्रियो (ऽपि), निराकृतिर् (=अस्वाध्यायः) वृषलीपतिः ३३ मत्त उन्मत्तो बद्धो ऽणिकः (पुत्राच् छ्रुतग्राही) प्रत्युपविष्टो यश्च प्रत्युपवेशयते तावन्तं कालम् १ … क अश्यान्नः २ य ईप्सेदिति कण्वः ३ पुण्य इति कौत्सः ४ यः कश्चिद्दद्यादिति वार्ष्यायणिः ५ यदि ह रजः (=पापम्) स्थावरं पुरुषे भोक्तव्यम्, अथ चेच् चलं – दानेन निर्दोषो भवति ६ शुद्धा भिक्षा भोक्तव्या (इति) एककुणिकौ काण्वकुत्सौ तथा पुष्करसादिः ७ सर्वतोपेतं (=अप्रार्थ्य लब्धम् भोज्यमिति) वार्ष्यायणीयम् (मतम्)८ पुण्यस्येप्सतो भोक्तव्यम् (इत्यापस्तम्बनिश्चयः) ९ पुण्यस्याप्यनीप्सतो न भोक्तव्यम् १० यतः कुतश्चाभ्युद्यतं भोक्तव्यम् ११ नाननियोगपूर्वमिति हारीतः १२ अथ पुराणे श्लोकावुदाहरन्ति । उद्यतामाहृतां भिक्षां पुरस्तादप्रवेदिताम् । भोज्यां मेने प्रजापतिरपि दुष्कृतकारिणः । न तस्य पितरोऽश्नन्ति दश वर्षाणि पञ्च च । न च हव्यं वहत्यग्निर्यस्तामभ्यधिमन्यत इति १३ चिकित्सकस्य मृगयोः शल्यकृन्तस्य पाशिनः । कुलटायाः षण्ढकस्य च तेषामन्नमनाद्यम् १४ अथाप्युदाहरन्ति । अन्नादे भ्रूणहा मार्ष्टि अनेना अभिशंसति । स्तेनः प्रमुक्तो राजनि याचन्ननृतसङ्कर इति १५

विपदि –

… न सुभिक्षाः स्युः ५ स्वयमप्यवृत्तौ सुवर्णं दत्त्वा पशुं वा भुञ्जीत ६ नात्यन्तमन्ववस्येत् ७ वृत्तिं प्राप्य विरमेत् ८ … (शूद्रस्य) तस्यापि धर्मोपनतस्य (= धर्मार्थम् आश्रितस्य) १४ सुवर्णं दत्वा पशुं वा भुञ्जीत नात्यन्तमन्ववस्येद्वृत्तिं प्राप्य विरमेत् १५

भोजनस्थानम्

यस्य कुले म्रियेत न तत्रानिर्दशे भोक्तव्यम् १८ तथानुत्थितायां सूतिकायाम् १९ अन्तःशवे च २० न नावि भुञ्जीत ६ तथा प्रासादे (काष्ठमञ्चे) ७ कृतभूमौ तु भुञ्जीत ८

भोजनपात्रम्

अनाप्रीते मृण्मये भोक्तव्यम् ९ आप्रीतं चेदभिदग्धे १० परिमृष्टं लौहं प्रयतम् ११ निर्लिखितं दारुमयम् १२ यथागमं यज्ञे १३

विधिः

भोक्ष्यमाणस्तु प्रयतोऽपि द्विराचामेद्द्विः परिमृजेत्सकृदुपस्पृशेत् ९ दद्भिरपूपस्य नापच्छिन्द्यात् १७ ब्रह्मचर्ये भोजनम् अन्यत्रोक्तम्।

Advertisements

Personal choice, love jihAd: an exchange

I excerpt a private exchange covering the following topics:

  • Love jihAd
  • Personal choice

P1 says:

Why can’t Hindu boys wage a Dharmayuddha and convert Muslim/Christian girls to Hindu’s? I am tired of all these love jihad stories where Hindu girls accept Islam lured by Muslims?

………

Was kidding!! But it occurred to me that this sound and noise behind love jihad is nothing but a manifestation of the fact that men consider women to be their property. A property, which needs their protection.

This protectionism also serves as a mask to tell the women “You are not competent enough” of choosing your life partner or your career. Often this protectionism come to us subconsciously.

If you add religion to this feeling, it becomes a deadly combination of righteousness and vigilantism. Can’t you trust women of your own family (or religion) to take a right decision? Even a casual observation, of how your own mother/sister manages the household, relations and societal expectations with grace is an indicator that they are worthy of that #trust.

P2 responds:

It is true that love jihaad is more prevalent than the reverse – because hindus are generally less enthusiastic about spreading their religion to others and are more interested in securing their limited place on earth for posterity; but also because the reaction of muslims is generally far more brutal (think getting hacked to death). That should not be taken to mean that the hindus are whiny loosers and that the reverse does not happen. I know a person who helped his lovestruck braahmaNa friend elope with a muslim while they were (on their own) across the PoK in early 90-s; and have heard many second hand cases over the years. We find many such famous cases in history.

Regarding the ability of women (and more generally young people) to make wise choices with regards to marriage – while it is roughly true that men today are about as much uneducated idiots as women when it comes to their knowledge of the letter and spirit of the dharma-shAstra-s, where this is/ was not the case, it is natural that such “trust” would be misplaced. Further, even when the letter of shAstra-s is unknown, the particular preferences and practices of past generations are well taken seriously and adhered to for those interested in harmony in their clan and society – since they would usually embody the spirit of dharmashaastra and have the advantage of passing the “Lindy test” (ref NN Taleb). We have lived with muslims for 1k years, and it is reasonable to take the rules that have emerged from this co-existence seriously.

P1:

I will need to read again. Men and women are free to roam around with whomsoever is my point. Too much of snooping in personal matters are happening. First it was food and now it’s this

P2:

At what level should there be autonomy? At the individual level? Or at the level of family? Or at the level of super-family? Or at the level of caste? Or at the state level? Or at the national level? (In any given axis – say food, marriage etc..) The choice of one negates choice of other.

If one says that the autonomy is at the level of family (the answers could be different according to different people), then it implies the following:
– Superstructures such as super-family, caste , state and nation have no jurisdiction in such a family affair.
– Family’s preferences override (and potentially suppress) the individual whims.

The point of this is to state that “snooping in personal matters” is not an obviously inferior setup or situation, though individualism fanatics might present it as such.

Teen marriage is a case where I would, for example, defang the overreach of the sickular Indian state. It should be up to the families involved (as is the case in USA).

Speaking of cult control, it might be a good idea to give some “equal time” for phenomena such as these (from KV):

“I was recently talking to a friend from one of the northeastern states in India. I will not divulge his/her identity for security reasons. He/she informed me how minutely the Christian churches control the lives of the faithful flock. Every student that attends the schools must undergo several years of religious studies and pass an exam in Christian theology. Only then would the student receive the hall ticket to sit in a board exam. This friend had recently visited a village during Christmas. It was festive occasion and people were tempted to laugh out loud and indulge in banter inside the house. However, every few minutes, someone would express fear of the shepherd and everyone would start speaking in hushed voices. Yes, every church has a set of pastors and each pastor has shepherds. This shepherd would patrol the streets and control even minute aspects such as someone talking loud.

This kind of mind-control and abuse of the congregation happens everywhere in India. Only the expressions vary. A Christian family must get the approval of the pastor should they decide to go on a tour on a Sunday rather than attend the church. A Christian student cannot get school or college admission unless the pastor writes a letter of recommendation. Even during natural calamities such as floods, one could see that the pastors stand by the faithful and control what they say.”

P1:

All religions shamelessly do this. Methods are different.

P2:

Borrowing the idea from a sanskrit subhAShita-
All birds (say crow and koel) do the same. Voices are different. 🙂

An impromptu kannada prose translation of that memorable original:
ಕಾಗೆ ಕಪ್ಪು ಕೋಗಿಲೆ ಕಪ್ಪು, ಕಪ್ಪೇ ಕಪ್ಪು ಏನ್ ಭೇದ?
ವಸನ್ತಕಾಲ ಬನ್ದಾಗ ಕಾಗೆ ಕಾಗೆ, ಕೋಗಿಲೆ ಕೋಗಿಲೆ.

In any case, my point was not to distinguish hinduism for its recent (sad) incompetence at gripping and marshalling its adherents relative to Abe’s diseases – it was rather to point out that people (intelkshuals especially) are generally unaware of or willingly blind to such devilry (unlike the obvious soft target – the “known devil”). Such secularism is not really neutral, but quite partial – like shikhaNDin providing cover for arjuna when faced with bhIShma.

 

rAma and meat during vanavAsa

References

Key shloka-s

  • चतुर्दश हि वर्षाणि वत्स्यामि विजने वने। कन्दमूलफलैर्जीवन्हित्वा मुनिवदामिषम्॥२.२०.२९॥
  • सुराघटसहस्रेण मांसभूतौदनेन च। यक्ष्ये त्वां प्रयता देवि पुरीं पुनरुपागता।।2.52.89।।
  • tau tatra hatvaa caturaH mahaa mR^igaan |
    varaaham R^ishyam pR^iSatam mahaa rurum |
    aadaaya medhyam tvaritam bubhukSitau|
    vaasaaya kaale yayatur vanaH patim || 2-52-102
  • तां तथा दर्शयित्वा तु मैथिलीं गिरिनिम्नगाम्। निषसाद गिरिप्रस्थे सीतां मांसेन छन्दयन्।।2.96.1।। इदं मेध्यमिदं स्वादु निष्टप्तमिदमग्निना। एवमास्ते स धर्मात्मा सीतया सह राघवः।।2.96.2।।
  • samaashvasa muhuurtam tu shakyam vastum iha tvayaa || 3-47-22
    aagamiSyati me bhartaa vanyam aadaaya puSkalam |
    ruruun godhaan varaahaan ca hatvaa aadaaya amiSaan bahu || 3-47-23
  • न मांसं राघवो भुङ्क्ते न चैव मधु सेवते॥ श्रीमद्वाल्मीकि-रामायणम् ५.३६.४१॥

Favored Analysis

Direct inferences.

  • It’s clear from the shloka-s that rAma hunted in vanavAsa.
  • It’s clear that rAma wasn’t eating meat when sitA was kidnapped.
  • It’s clear that rAma vowed (?) that he would eat the food of muni-s and abstain from meat.
  • sItA (who incidentally went to forest bejewelled and not following muni-vows) ate meat, and rAma enthusiastically offered it to her.

Conclusions

  • rAma did not eat meat at any time during vanavAsa. sItA did. lakShmaNa may or mayn’t have.

Unfavored analyses

  • rAma too ate meat! In his vow, by Amisha, he meant palace-cooked-meat.

 

Polycentrism: The clan-deity case

 

There transpired an interesting discussion about the polycentric nature of polytheist fields. Be not scared by these words which seem as if they arise from Field Theory of mathematics, nurtured by the valiant Galois (which one would doubtless find beautiful if only one had the time). I summarize it simply below for context. Then I will get to the main point of this post – a remarkable illustration of it from my experience.

Polycentrism : A summary for context

  • Polycentrism: “Many worshipers may worship a single God and regard the other Gods in the field as somehow dependent upon or aspects of their chosen deity.” [EB]
    • Example: Egyptian Isis cult – SP17.
  • Polycentric social field: Mutual acknowledgement of certain multiple Gods (whatever the center) and intimate entanglement between their lores and cults defines a polycentric social field.
    • Examples:
      • Acknowledgement of multiple deities who can each be treated as the center is clear in the vedic lore. [MT]
      • “Of a dramatist-philosopher-logician from 10th century, jayanta bhaTTa whose work serves as a prototype for the religion/counter-religion distinction and also alludes to the ‘tacit recognition’ we speak of…”

For slightly more details see notes here.

The clan deity illustration

As family and friends know, despite being born a shrIvaiShNava, I have (mostly attempting to tread the path of the revered mAnasatarangiNIkAra) come to be quite reactionarily polytheistic (ie one with deliberately NO central target of devotion). I therefore have been doing my routine propitiations of hanumAn, garuDa, kaliga-mardana, chinnamastA, hayagrIva, vinAyaka and narasimha with equal zeal (while still reserving the first salutes for viShNu out of respect for my vaiShNava ancestors). Indeed, I found the ekAntin path of – say dasyavevRka – quite unappealing, if not ridiculous.

Now comes the strange part. Many hindu clans have a “clan deity” (kuladevatA, hAt-perumAL etc..); and so does mine. Because of my do-gooder proclivity, I happened to reconnect with my clan deity (a form of viShNu) – who lives in a relatively obscure but locally notable temple in the Tumkur district of the karNATa-s. After various incidental activities such as enquiring about the sthalapurANa, correcting the commentary of the hymn dedicated to him (which irritated me as a connoisseur of sanskrit poetry and lore),  talking to the archaka, procuring a major ritual manual for him in a convenient form etc.. – I felt the urge to again start saying that very stotra hymn (dedicated to the deity in question) I used to hear every morning from nearly every relative I happened to be living with – mother, father, grandparents etc..

And I noted – how it felt special – different. A connection to not only a deity, but also to a very particular individuation of the deity at a specific shrine. It’s the feeling one might get when rallying around the flag of one’s dhArmika state. The kind for which you might punch, shoot and kill without thinking. Upon reflection, I did this double-take: I may not be able say with a straight face that viShNu is supreme over all other deities; but I can say that no deity comes anywhere close in stature to the specific viShNu who is the lord of champakApurI hamlet. A paradox! – easily resolved by adding the words “as far as I am concerned; your center may be different”. What a strange and unexpected illustration of polycentrism – within even the same devatA due to him residing in multiple shrines!

I still don’t quite get the ekAntin-s though, since they have 108+ shrines, not 1.

Hindu reflections on “The kite runner” and cassandra effect

I half wish I hadn’t seen “kite runner” [GS]. hazAra-s reduced to such a state by the bachChAbaazi bastards (what to speak of the recently converted cousins of the kalAsha)… A good reminder that Islamification will imply a fall for our bloodline’s long term prospects.

It’s always bad to be the “last holdout” or the “most fresh convert” (Think of kAshmIra-paNDita-s or kalasha or nUristAni-s). Our strategy should change with time – we should always try to get the greatest power and influence – for now, it means preparing for the time when most of our fellows (or what remains of them) finally become awake – To exactly avoid the destiny when we are reduced to agreeing that the best we can do is be the most influential dhimmi-s in some not-too-unfriendly rAxasa state (or worse – crypto-convert or really convert). But, I am not clear if the cotton-heads will fall in line in time. 🙁

In more general terms, this is a problem of a prescient minority watching relatively helplessly as a dumb majority continues to compound a folly (a generalization of the classic Cassandra effect). What should the attitude of the prescient be? It is easy to be frustrated and gloomy; but there’s something better –

  • Above all: As baby-rearing guides say: BE CALM BUT FIRM. As NNT would say: Be a very stubborn minority.
  • Try to increase or at least maintain the power (and number) of prescient ones in the meantime – it is a fact of nature that the majority will always be rather dumb in such matters. Change locations, professions etc.. as necessary.
    • Be aware and prepared for unexpected opportunities (which Indian knew that the noble uShasputra-s would sacrifice so much blood to free Asia, including India?) to restore dominance.
  • Till one can restore the natural order of things, accept the dumbocracy as a facet of perturbed nature, much as the uShasputra-s accept and adjust to their lives in a tectonically hyperactive region.

शैवागमेषु वराहपुराणम्

घोराङ्गीरसेन चर्चयता मया दृष्टमेवम्।

मूलवचनानि

वराहपुराणस्य वेङ्कटेश्वरमुद्रणालयप्रकाशितप्रतिकृतौ –

(यामुनाचार्यप्रतिकृतिर् एतत्समीपे ऽभवत्तराम्। विकिस्रोतस्य् अत्र स्थूलाक्षराङ्कनम् पाठस्य साभिप्रायमेव कृतम्।)

शिवो वदति

ये वेदमार्गनिर्मुक्तास्तेषां मोहार्थमेव च ।
नयसिद्धान्तसंज्ञाभिर्मया शास्त्रं तु दर्शितम् ।। ७०.४२ ।।

पाशोऽयं पशुभावस्तु स यदा पतितो भवेत् ।
तदा पाशुपतं शास्त्रं जायते वेदसंज्ञितम् ।। ७०.४३ ।।

/..…

य एवं वेत्ति विप्रर्षे परं नारायणं तथा ।
अपरं पद्मयोनिं तु ब्रह्माणं त्वपरं तु माम् ।
गुणतो मुख्यतस्त्वेक एवाहं मोह इत्युत ।।

ऊचुर्मां ते च मुनयो भवितारो द्विजोत्तमाः ।
कलौ त्वद्रूपिणः सर्वे जटामुकुटधारिणः ।
स्वेच्छया प्रेतवेषाश्च मिथ्यालिङ्गधराः प्रभो ।। ७१.४८ ।।

तेषामनुग्रहार्थाय किंचिच्छास्त्रं प्रदीयताम् ।
येनास्मद्वंशजाः सर्वे वर्तेयुः कलिपीडिताः ।। ७१.४९ ।।

एवमभ्यर्थितस्तैस्तु पुराऽहं द्विजसत्तमाः ।
वेदक्रियासमायुक्तां कृतवानस्मि संहिताम् ।। ७१.५० ।।

निःश्वासाख्यां ततस्तस्यां लीना बाभ्रव्यशाण्डिलाः ।
अल्पापराधाच्छ्रुत्वैव गता बैडालिका भवन् ।। ७१.५१ ।।

मयैव मोहितास्ते हि भविष्यं जानता द्विजाः ।
लौल्यार्थिनस्तु शास्त्राणि करिष्यन्ति कलौ नराः ।। ७१.५२ ।।

निःश्वाससंहितायां हि लक्षमात्रं प्रमाणतः ।
सैव पाशुपती दीक्षा योगः पाशुपतस्त्विह ।। ७१.५३ ।।

एतस्माद् वेदमार्गाद्धि यदन्यदिह जायते ।
तत् क्षुद्रकर्म विज्ञेयं रौद्रं शौचविवर्जितम् ।। ७१.५४ ।।

अपरार्कप्रतिकृतौ

टिप्पणयः

द्वित्रापि निःश्वासागमस्योच्छ्रायस्स्पष्टः – शैवागमान्तरापेक्षया।

वेदविरोधिप्रवृत्तिः शैवेषु कापालिकेषु दृश्यते। तादृशानां विरोधोऽत्रेष्ट इति प्रतिभाति।

Diversity risks: The white hindu case.

The following is an excerpt from a friend’s wise views on the matter:

========================

i’m frankly appreciative of any Hindu who’s doing useful work for dharma. But I’m also pragmatic enough to see that “diversity” comes with its problems 🙂

say a million whites become Hindus tomorrow: nothing vague or “spiritual”; they become your average temple-going, external sign sporting, minimally observant Hindu…where will they stand on issues such as temple sovereignty, the current attempts to destroy sabarimala’s ritual rules (MY NOTE: This is about granting entry to fertile women, viz – http://indiafacts.org/readytowait-campaign-reclaim-hindu-temples-traditions/ ), some state organ choosing priests (MY NOTE: in violation of sacred Agama-s) etc??

I’m not saying that they will all be a problem. But fact is, many of them would probably take a stand against traditional schools and teachers on these issues…

what are they converting to? Is there a fixed, basic “catechism” to which all new converts will subscribe regardless of the particular sect they convert to? That regardless of their (possibly) individualist, egalitarian and liberal background, there are some basics they should not question or attempt to controvert/subvert…

========================

Postscript: It must be noted that white converts to hinduism tend not to be humble supplicants yearning to regain connection with their ancenstors, our noble pagan cousins – rather they’re given to be quite loud mouthed and presumptuous. Not withstanding their ancestors’ miserable failure at saving their pagan religions, they presume to lecture us about how we should run our society and affairs.