She is an openly declared Lesbian with an Arab girl friend, and works for Islamic interests.
She comes through as dishonest, a hypocrite, not tolerant of ‘pluralism’ espoused by Dr. Swamy (See a critique below by Daniel R. Schwartz)
She tries to portray herself as a supporter of the Hindu studies. She is NOT. Using the garb of ‘pluralism’ presents a distorted view calling Hindu identity ‘ an imagined view’, in her books and articles, coming through as an apologist for Islamist jihadis.
Diana Eck led the attack on Dr. Subramanian Swamy, together with Sugata Bose and Witzel to make Harvard U drop courses offered by Dr.Swamy. ‘Pluralism’ of Eck is a cover to molly-cuddle islamist terror.
PS Feb. 1, 2013
I have been asked to explain why I combine Diana Eck’s views on marriage with pluralism etc.
I am asserting that pluralism is an evangelical cover. That she is a lesbian is by her own admission. She stands out, doesn’t she? If you want, ask Reverend Dorothy Austin to whom Eck is ‘married’. What pray, is marriage, in christianity? Her being a lesbian has to do with a matter of great concern to me, it may not be for others. It is of concern to me as a Hindu, because she claims to teach Hindu dharma to impressionable minds in school. In Hindu dharma as practised by millions, lesbianism is a deviant behavior, abhorrent to my dharma which holds marital bond between man and woman a sacred duty, a responsibility. I perform s’raddham for my ancestors, you know? I would certainly feel uncomfortable with my grandchildren in her class. I hope USA, a freedom-loving nation will not be averse to listening to Hindu voices in discussions.
I hope that Prof. Diana Eck has the courage of conviction to say that she was wrong in asking for cancellation of Dr. Swamy’s economics classes. Her one-point Harvard mission in getting Dr. Swamy’s courses put in the cold, was unwarranted and flies against her purported claims of pluralism. Let her prove by asking for restoration of the courses offered by Dr.Swamy.
The same group which pushed President Summers out of office overwhelmingly voted to drop Swamy’s courses. Professor of religion Diana Eck led the charge:
Freedom of expression is an essential principle in an academic community, one that we fully support…
Notwithstanding her stated belief in free expression (for those who reject free speech often proclaim love for it in the same breath), Swamy’s writing, Professor Eck proclaimed, “undermines Harvard’s own commitment to pluralism and civic equality.” And when Diana Eck says “pluralism,” she means something specific; she is perhaps most famous for her founding of the Pluralism Project, a Harvard Divinity School affiliated center dedicated to studying—and celebrating—religious pluralism in America. Pluralism is not merely “diversity” or the coexistence of differing opinions. Rather, Eck writes:
The language of pluralism is that of dialogue and encounter, give and take, criticism and self-criticism. Dialogue means both speaking and listening, and that process reveals both common understandings and real differences. Dialogue does not mean everyone at the “table” will agree with one another. Pluralism involves the commitment to being at the table—with one’s commitments.
Diana Eck’s betrayal of her own claimed principles becomes not merely apparent but stark; in her attack on Swamy, she made a mockery of a pluralistic commitment to dialogue, and instead revealed a fundamental fear of actual confrontation with the other. Eck’s speech to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences redefined Swamy’s opinion as “incitement to violence” in order to expel him and his views from Harvard’s marketplace of ideas. But as a scholar of religions, and especially as a scholar of religious dialogue, Eck no doubt understands that one religion often carries with it a concomitant threat to another; successful evangelism of any sort may lead to replacement or destruction of holy places without representing incitement to violence. Direct contradiction is part and parcel to religious dialogue, as interreligious discourse can often be an attempt to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable. But a proclamation that such discourse can, and should, still occur is the very inspiration behind the pluralism project, and the vision that Eck ignores amid her fear of Swamy’s ideas. When faced with the outgrowth of her center’s own founding principle—the necessity of listening to and engaging with the contradictory—Eck betrays her own “commitment to being at the table,” and shuns the radical in the name of her own ideas of safety and comfort… (Daniel R. Schwartz)
…Professor Diana L. Eck is a supporter of smooth-talking radical Islamist Tariq Ramadan, whom she describes as “one of Europe’s deepest and most articulate Muslim thinkers… one of the most powerful exponents of a reformist, self-critical, spiritual and dialogical Islam.”
She is also a defender of Boston’s notorious Roxbury Mosque (whose former and current trustees, mullahs, and congregants have known ties to terrorism and to preaching violence). Now she has successfully led the pack against Professor Subramanian Swamy…
And now let us pause. Who is Professor Diana L. Eck? She, too, has a distinguished resume. She has published many books, including her 1982 work Darsan: Seeing the Divine Image in India; her 1999 workBanaras: City of Light; her 2001 A New Religious America: How a Christian Country has become the World’s Most Religiously Diverse Nation; and at least two other works about India. She heads the Pluralism Project. Harvard suggests that press inquiries be directed to her in the following areas: gay and lesbian issues, Islam, America, multiculturalism, Hinduism, ordination of women, pluralism, Southeast and Southern Asia. She is married to the Reverend Dorothy Austin.
However, unlike Swamy, Eck has not risked danger or death by going against the “popular” or politically correct view. She represents, perfectly, the “mindset” of the intellectual Ivy League elite in terms of Islam. Here are her own words on the Roxbury Mosque (also known as the Islamic Cultural Center of Boston):
At the heart of Boston in Roxbury Crossing stands the magnificent shell of what will eventually be the Islamic Society of Boston’s landmark mosque, as yet incomplete. Progress is swamped by the well-publicized accusations of the David Project, a Jewish advocacy group, about the mosque’s funding and leadership and the ensuing litigation against the David Project by the Islamic Society of Boston. (The David Project won this litigation). Meanwhile, Jewish-Muslim relations in Boston have become tense, undermining honest and difficult dialogue at the very time we need it most. Last month, as I stood under the great dome of the mosque at Roxbury Crossing, I prayed, as a Christian, for its speedy completion… Boston is part of the Islamic world. Looking to the future, the vision of an Islamic Center dedicated to interfaith outreach and education at the crossroads of Boston is worth the commitment of Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
Nevertheless, Eck wants Americans to understand that Islam is essentially “peaceful.” If Eck is at Harvard and is doing politically correct “interfaith” work then she wants such work to succeed. Unfortunately, she may be talking to all the wrong people. Eck should be talking to truly moderate and religious Muslims. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, Dr. Bassam Tibi, Zainab Al-Suwaij, Zeyno Baran all come to mind but there are many others. She is not. Or, Eck should be talking to secular and former Muslims, like Ibn Warraq, Nonie Darwish, or Wafa Sultan, who stand against Islamism and for western democratic values, including tolerance and women’s rights.
Alas, like so many Americans, including those who work for the American government, Eck is misidentifying the Muslim Islamists/terrorists/jihadists as “moderates.” And turning her back on the genuinely moderate and anti-Islamist Muslims.
Ten Questions with Diana L. Eck
Tariq Ramadan supporter, Diana Eck…
Professor Diana L. Eck is a supporter of smooth-talking radical Islamist Tariq Ramadan, whom she describes as “one of Europe’s deepest and most articulate Muslim thinkers… one of the most powerful exponents of a reformist, self-critical, spiritual and dialogical Islam.” She is also a defender of Boston’s notorious Roxbury Mosque (whose former and current trustees, mullahs, and congregants have known ties to terrorism and to preaching violence). Now she has successfully led the pack against Professor Subramanian Swamy. Last year, in December, he was dismissed after twenty years at the summer school on the basis of an op-ed piece he wrote in an Indian newspaper about the obvious and growing danger of Islamic terrorism in India, including the 2008 and 2011 jihadic massacres in Mumbai.Eck is a professor of comparative religion at Harvard’s Divinity School as well as a professor of law and psychiatry. She is known for her “interfaith” work. She, other professors, and some students decided that Swamy’s piece was racist, Islamophobic, nationalistic, religiously intolerant, and in favor of violence and, as such, should be treated as unprotected hate speech. Eck and the students do not believe that Harvard should be associated with anyone who holds such views.
“India: A Sacred Geography” by Diana Eck
…It’s most unusual to see geography as primarily a construct of the human imagination, but that is precisely what the scholar of Hinduism Diana Eck attempts in her massive new book, “India.” Thousands of years before India was a nation-state (1947), a colony of Britain (the 18th century), or a cartographic vision on a map (1782), it was, in Eck’s view, conceived as a geographical unit in the hearts and minds of the faithful, and particularly in the religious imagination of Hinduism.
Eck’s perspective has significant political implications. It arguably refutes the widely held notion that India was merely a confusion of diverse kingdoms, cultures and languages until it was politically integrated by the British Empire. Some scholars hold that the idea of Hinduism, too, is the modern tracing of a circle around a diversity of ancient religious beliefs never self-consciously systematized into a whole. This idea struggles to hold up against the layered evidence supplied by Eck’s book, the synthesis of three decades of work on the myths, rituals, cosmology and everyday life of Hinduism.
“As arcane as lingas [pillars] of light . . . and sacred rivers falling from heaven may seem to those who wish to get on with the real politics of today’s world,” Eck writes, “these very patterns of sanctification continue to anchor millions of people in the imagined landscape of their country.”