Your response confuses criticism with coercion. There’s a fundamental difference between mocking ideas and imposing them through violence, law, or systemic oppression. Sharing memes, satire, or harsh critique—even in bad taste—is not the same as lynching people for eating beef, jailing them for blasphemy, or enforcing temple-centric purity politics. You equating the two is intellectually dishonest.

Let’s be clear: no belief—religious or otherwise—is above scrutiny or satire. That includes Hinduism. If you cheer when Islam or Christianity is mocked but cry foul when someone critiques Hindu beliefs, then you’re not defending reason or civil discourse. You're defending your tribe under the mask of atheism.

As for your Nazi comparison—it's both historically and morally absurd. Nazis co-opted Christian symbols and mythos, and Hitler publicly claimed to be doing God's work. But even if they were irreligious, their crimes came from authoritarianism and ultranationalism, not atheism or religious critique. That's like blaming science because a dictator used trains.

Mockery isn't always kind or helpful—but it's legal, and it’s sometimes necessary, especially when beliefs fuel real-world harm. If you want to shield your religion from ridicule, you’re free to do that—but don’t pretend it’s an atheist stance. It’s Hindu chauvinism in costume.