There is a ridiculous debate going on Twitter, about the "freedom" of some "athesists" to denigrate the sacred feminine in Hinduism. I don't want to post images, because fanning their stupidity is exactly the wrong thing to do. But I want to raise a point that's missing so far.

The spirituality of pagan traditions has been continuously getting assaulted for several centuries now. I recommend the paper by Andrea Smith "Not an Indian Tradition: The sexual colonization of native peoples", which I discussed on Twitter long time ago.
https://vawnet.org/sites/default/files/assets/files/2016-10/NotIndianTradition.pdf

The crimes of the white colonizers were done with full exhortation of the religious leaders, who justified colonization as "divine providence". Native women were seen as dirty and "prostitutes" by their very existence as the pagan other. Their bodies could be ravished any time.

This is also not an element of the past. There is continued assault on native women, through the highly unbalanced battlefield of culture. The victims don't own the media houses: the Netflix, the computer games. They are all owned by people who shaped and thus own "history".

With this background, if a white man - a descendant of the perpetrators of the beastly crimes on native women, now claims to be an atheist and denigrates the sacred feminine of native spirituality, let's say by painting
the Goddess "Pachamama" as a slut, what do we call him?

A person can claim to have "freedom of expression" to portray Pachamama as a slut, but when he is missing the basic "Auchitya" (awareness of context, common sense), then it is justified to equate that person with the crimes of his ancestors. He is not an atheist, he is a racist.

In the context of medieval Indian history, Persians are the white colonizers. This is not an exaggeration with the number of people genocided, or the number of women who were raped or had bodies mutilated. The only difference is that Indians just survived in greater numbers.

This genocide in India is also very recent. The genocidal assault of Nadir Shah's soldiers in Delhi was in the 17th century, *after* many of the genocides in America. Persians got rich from this loot, kidnapping of women as slaves.

This is from the memoirs of Muhammad Hazin.

Now if a Persian person claims to be an atheist, and argues for his "freedom of expression" to portray the Hindu goddess Kali as a slut, how is this different from the same genocidal arrogance of his ancestors who committed the most horrific crimes on Indian women?

What I described is not a hypothetical scenario. This is exactly what has happened the past week, but not a single critic on this debate has pointed out the dumbfoundedly obvious thing.

I should have been off from Twitter this week, but I couldn't help pointing this out.

I can see the urge to retaliate to "blasphemy" on the sacred feminine. But that is useless, and she doesn't need these blasphemy warriors. Instead of stupid debates that waste your time and "Śakti", if you care, focus on where "Śakti" is indeed present. https://twitter.com/vakibs/status/1303328760662556680?s=20