"Christian" Fundamentalism in West

[brihaspati]

All three Abrahamic branches were about power and the state - regardless of the spin, which side these faiths choose in starkly restricted two-sided conflicts - always shows their inherently imperialist, political and coercive core foundation.

As for Christianity - just like Islam - it succeeds only against non-exclusive, and diversity tolerant societies [yes Roman empire fitted the bill - in spite of all the propaganda otherwise], where elite factions are struggling for absolute power, and always needs the militant coercive power of the state to ensure dominance over that society.

If in any society Christianity is spreading - it means that it is one way or the other being supported by one or more aspects of the rashtryia coercive power. It could be indirect or direct - preferential protection or even indirect incentive, or active discouragement or suppression or campaign against competitors or collaterally existing faiths. Wherever, state power disjuncted itself from Christian structures - Christianity has been on the retreat. Wherever it is progressing, like in Africa and the subcontinent, external imperialist and state collaboration helps it along.

If any Christian spokesperson voices the inherent political nature of the movement, by insisting that "religious values" shapes the "politics of a nation" and "political expression of dissent", and "shifts political power bases" then we should openly thank them and never let them and the public forget these eternal "truths" then. They must all remember that if one faith can claim legitimate right to shape "politics of a nation", and "political expression of dissent", and "shifts political power bases" then they have to allow all faiths to have legitimate such rights. If they do not allow such rights to others - in the modern period - they are being discriminatory, and illogical or opportunist, which means then they have to accept other faiths rights to similarly not allow Christian claims of such rights.

[ramana]

VICTORY HAS A HUNDRED FATHERS AND DEFEAT IS AN ORPHAN -Said JFK, but coined by Mussolini's son-in-law of Mussolini, Count Caleazzo Ciano ."La victoria trova cento padri, e nessuno vuole riconoscere l'insuccesso."

We now have the hilarious spectacle of even EJs wanting to ride on the AH bandwagon,let's not be too harsh on them.After all ,right across the country AH "fan clubs" in the form of anti-corruption movements are springing up.I know in one at least,some utterly disreputable elements are trying to occupy leading positions!

When Christ was tried by Pilate,Pilate asked him that famous Q,"what is the truth?".We can ask today yet again the same Q,"what is Christianity (today)?"
It means quite different things to different entities,especially in the west.As Ramanna said some time ago,these days its not so much about "saving souls" but legitimising conquest.

Philip. Modern Christianity is the result of twin hijackings by Romans: First by Paul/Saul of Jesus teachings and the second by Constantine of the early Church both acts were steps in legitimising conquest.

In Indian context the pseudo-secular hijack of Nehruvian ideals is a local example.

* Nehru who while in jail asks his daughter to ensure her son's horoscope is cast is protrayed as a godless intellectual..
# Proclaiming Manusmriti as a code of Hindu conduct is back projection of Messanic laws onto Hindus. And Indian kingodms were just centralized authorities in acivlization and not Hegelian state structures in the modern sense. Kautliya's agglomeration of percepts is just that. Not a a guide book to be followed strictly.

[devesh]

Then the next question is can all these religions be equal and deserve equal treatment as some people define (sic) secularism?

the million dollar question.....always there is this excuse of "everything is equal." clearly, studying the various religions shows that they are not equal. what do you do when it becomes evident that they are not equal?

[svinayak]

"There have been non-violent protests, demonstrations at government buildings. I think this is actually good news. I attribute this, partly at least, to the success that the Gospel has had in the last 10 to 15 years in India."

Stravers explains that the Gospel message runs counter to the message of the Hindu caste. As a result, the Church is growing faster than those in power are comfortable with.

Foreign ideology does not have any legitimacy in India
Indian protest have been there from national independence movement and hindu society is the one looks for its interest.

[chetak]

"There have been non-violent protests, demonstrations at government buildings. I think this is actually good news. I attribute this, partly at least, to the success that the Gospel has had in the last 10 to 15 years in India."

Stravers explains that the Gospel message runs counter to the message of the Hindu caste. As a result, the Church is growing faster than those in power are comfortable with.

Foreign ideology does not have any legitimacy in India
Indian protest have been there from national independence movement and hindu society is the one looks for its interest.

Acharya ji,

Just mere opportunitists clambering shamelessly and belatedly on to the bandwagon.

Like the bible thumper above,

Suddenly they seem to have discovered that "Corruption is forbidden in Islam and the corrupt would never be pardoned by the Allah"


Interesting that they kept very very quiet during the confrontation with the kangressi government.

Imams from MP to join in Hazare''s agitation at Ramlila Maidan

Bhopal, Aug 19

Over 40 imams (Muslim religious heads) from Madhya Pradesh are going to Delhi to join in social activist Anna Hazare's agitation for Jan-lokpal Bill. "The issues raised by Anna through the Lokpal bill campaign is aimed at the betterment of the country and therefore we have decided to extend full support," All India Imam Sangathan's Secretary and city `Qazi' of Guna, Noorullah Yusuf Zai said. "Nearly 40-45 imams from various districts of the state will join Annaji at Ramlila Maidan tomorrow in his campaign," Zai told PTI. He said they were responding to the call given by All India Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind's General Secretary, Maulana Mehmood Madni. Imams from Ujjain, Guna, Bhopal, Indore, Khargone, Shivpuri, Guna and other places will reach the national capital tomorrow, he said. Corruption is forbidden in Islam and the corrupt would never be pardoned by the Allah, Zai said, adding that the holy month of Ramzan was the best time to extend support for the noble cause.

Let's see just how the pseudo sickulars who objected to Baba RamDev 's participation will welcome this mullah brigade.

[svinayak]

Just mere opportunitists clambering shamelessly and belatedly on to the bandwagon.

Suddenly they seem to have discovered that "Corruption is forbidden in Islam and the corrupt would never be pardoned by the Allah"


Interesting that they kept very very quiet during the confrontation with the kangressi government.

Let's see just how the pseudo sickulars who objected to Baba RamDev 's participation will welcome this mullah brigade.

We have to make jokers out of these p secularists who wanted to remove the bharat mata icon from the protest.

[Theo_Fidel]

Hinduism cannot be bracketed with the more overtly political religions.

This is OT here. But simply not true. Read some of the distorted history thread. All religion has to be political, a means to control the proles.

[Theo_Fidel]

As for Christianity - just like Islam - it succeeds only against non-exclusive, and diversity tolerant societies [yes Roman empire fitted the bill - in spite of all the propaganda otherwise], where elite factions are struggling for absolute power, and always needs the militant coercive power of the state to ensure dominance over that society.... .....If in any society Christianity is spreading - it means that it is one way or the other being supported by one or more aspects of the rashtryia coercive power.

A large part of Christian pushiness is to check mate Islam. If Christians don't get there first Islam does not bother with any of the niceties that we are talking about here. An Islamic India would be the Christian fundamentalists (or even any Christians) worst nightmare. Paki x 100. Same in Africa & Asia.

[RajeshA]

A large part of Christian pushiness is to check mate Islam. If Christians don't get there first Islam does not bother with any of the niceties that we are talking about here. An Islamic India would be the Christian fundamentalists (or even any Christians) worst nightmare. Paki x 100. Same in Africa & Asia.

Perhaps some of the non-aligned politics that one being played out by Delhi to balance tilt towards America with a thriving business+ relationship with China, in order to achieve a situation where each party tries to woo India (not that it is working); can be applied to the Islamic vs Christian proselytization as well.

The idea is that if there is an open war between these two proselytization machines, then to force the Islamists and the Evanjehadists to leave the Hindu Continuum alone, if they do not wish Hindu Dharma to take the side of the other religion.

This is still a half-baked idea, and I don't know really what options one has here.

[Arjun]

This is OT here. But simply not true. Read some of the distorted history thread. All religion has to be political, a means to control the proles.

Can you post a few pointers on why you think Hinduism is political as well? It should not be OT....I don't think you can discuss the problem of fundamentalism and political usage of Christianity on a standalone basis without bringing in other religions for comparative purpose. Not to give this opportunity on this thread, IMO would be quite unfair to Christians and to Christianity.

Note that there needs to be a distinction between involvement in political matters that is sanctioned by the clergy of a religion vs usage of a religion by political parties / royalty for their own purposes. So there are certainly cases of political parties in the current time and royal dynasties in the past that have used Hinduism for their own ends - as is the case with Christianity and Islam.

What I am concerned with is somewhat different - the degree to which the Clergy & Scriptures in a particular religion have objectives that can be best described as political, and the degree to which they sanction involvement of the Clergy & Places of Worship in political activity and political statements.

[Arjun]

A large part of Christian pushiness is to check mate Islam. If Christians don't get there first Islam does not bother with any of the niceties that we are talking about here. An Islamic India would be the Christian fundamentalists (or even any Christians) worst nightmare. Paki x 100. Same in Africa & Asia.

Partly agree with you.

While Christianity can be accused of deracinating the original Europeans from their earlier cultures, supplanting an alien Middle Eastern religion on their lands and leaving little visible trace of their rich and diverse pasts - it certainly played a key role in preventing Europe from falling under the sword of Islam.

Religious exclusivist dogma is like the nuclear option. It is best if the world were to be free from it - but if one competitor uses it then others have to develop their own version. In that sense, Christianity has developed some of the necessary tools, though not the entire 'dirty bomb' tool set that the Islamics have.

With reference to India, I think we would all much prefer seeing India take moral leadership in and become 'Ground Zero' for the war against all forms of religious exclusivist dogma - rather than as yet another venue for tired and outdated dogmas to slug it out. The world needs India to take leadership on this score.

[RajeshA]

Religious exclusivist dogma is like the nuclear option. It is best if the world were to be free from it - but if one competitor uses it then others have to develop their own version. In that sense, Christianity has developed some of the necessary tools, though not the entire 'dirty bomb' tool set that the Islamics have.

With reference to India, I think we would all much prefer seeing India take moral leadership in and become 'Ground Zero' for the war against all forms of religious exclusivist dogma - rather than as yet another venue for tired and outdated dogmas to slug it out. The world needs India to take leadership on this score.

For such a program one needs clarity and the right weaponry. What use is a sword against a ghost?

When one starts mixing up issues of cultural protection, with issues of dogmatic exclusivism, then the whole struggle starts getting muddied. One can fight a demon by making a small cut in his achilles tendon, or one can try to keep on pounding his well guarded upper body in vain.

Going after dogmatic exclusivism is the surest way to put the enemy on guard and on attack. And basically one would run into an immovable wall. While the ravaging that these "religious exclusivist dogma" on world culture, is the achilles heel of these dogmas, and they are severely vulnerable to such an attack!

But the world is free to try to bring down a mountain with one's pocket knife!

[brihaspati]

As for Christianity - just like Islam - it succeeds only against non-exclusive, and diversity tolerant societies [yes Roman empire fitted the bill - in spite of all the propaganda otherwise], where elite factions are struggling for absolute power, and always needs the militant coercive power of the state to ensure dominance over that society.... .....If in any society Christianity is spreading - it means that it is one way or the other being supported by one or more aspects of the rashtryia coercive power.

A large part of Christian pushiness is to check mate Islam. If Christians don't get there first Islam does not bother with any of the niceties that we are talking about here. An Islamic India would be the Christian fundamentalists (or even any Christians) worst nightmare. Paki x 100. Same in Africa & Asia.

Partly true from polemical claims. But they never prove it by their actions. They never seriously go after converting Islamics. They are simply being opportunists. They go after what they see as the softest spot. Moreover it has always been a consistent feature of Christian "success" onlee against liberal, or diversity tolerant complex and otherwise materially stronger cultures [or against simpler, materially weaker cultures, backed up by military coercion] - that I guess has coloured Christian proselytization manuals. The manuals available are hilarious and fascinating as well - but they are not allowed to get circulated among lay or lower circles of the orgs.

Moreover, Christianity and Islam differs only in who gets to lord it over all and who gets total homage. Theologiocally the roots of difference between the two is about specific semi-divine persons and their roles, but otherwise all other foundational/value based constructs stem from a common root. Hence Christianity finds it difficult to counter Islamics on a theological basis - except each side shouting about the superiority of their respective icons over the others.

It is much easier to go after Hindus.

[brihaspati]

A large part of Christian pushiness is to check mate Islam. If Christians don't get there first Islam does not bother with any of the niceties that we are talking about here. An Islamic India would be the Christian fundamentalists (or even any Christians) worst nightmare. Paki x 100. Same in Africa & Asia.

Partly agree with you.

While Christianity can be accused of deracinating the original Europeans from their earlier cultures, supplanting an alien Middle Eastern religion on their lands and leaving little visible trace of their rich and diverse pasts - it certainly played a key role in preventing Europe from falling under the sword of Islam.

Religious exclusivist dogma is like the nuclear option. It is best if the world were to be free from it - but if one competitor uses it then others have to develop their own version. In that sense, Christianity has developed some of the necessary tools, though not the entire 'dirty bomb' tool set that the Islamics have.

With reference to India, I think we would all much prefer seeing India take moral leadership in and become 'Ground Zero' for the war against all forms of religious exclusivist dogma - rather than as yet another venue for tired and outdated dogmas to slug it out. The world needs India to take leadership on this score.

As pointed out in my previous post, Christian-Islamic conflicts cannot progress much on theological and conversion lines. Europe took it up more as an ethnic conflict. The strongest resistance to Islamics was afforded by the Germanics - who had opposed even Roman Christianity by at first taking up Arrianic Christianity. They had been in a perpetual confict with those lying south of the Alps. In that sense the "pagan" German has never really adjusted to the religions of the "south" - the Christian/Islamic. Reformation was just a modern expression of that ancient hostility. Hence the conflicts were always military. Perhaps this persistent attempt by ME religions to conquer the Germanics led to a hardening of racist attitudes, where ideological opposition became difficult.

[sanjaykumar]

Non Abrahamic totemists should remain strictly neutral in the true-path warfare. It is none of Hindus' business. Let the followers of the prince of peace and the Islam-means-peace continue to slaughter each other in the name of their respective holies. Heathens should encourage them to test the strength of their respective gods.

[vishvak]

Does opinions like this in USA count as

1) Extreme Left of Right

2) Left

3) Right of Left

4) normal

In USA?


How about the same w.r.t. (relative) secularism in India?

Any gyan sajjan?

[vishvak]

Non Abrahamic totemists should remain strictly neutral in the true-path warfare. It is none of Hindus' business. Let the followers of the prince of peace and the Islam-means-peace continue to slaughter each other in the name of their respective holies. Heathens should encourage them to test the strength of their respective gods.

No one lives on an island. Where the conflict is not so much directly on the path to barbaric cut-off of countries, by using voting and passing it off as legit as in Sudan, others may have to watch out for numerous mutually uninterrupted or even combined pool till it gets there.

[Theo_Fidel]

It is much easier to go after Hindus.

And vice versa.

OT again but I've always said Christian pushiness in India would reduce if Hindu society was pushy about proselytizing as well. But for that a lot of social reform would be necessary. As in which community the converts would belong to. Every time I bring this up I get another dharmic run around about how this is not Hinduism. Poppycock. Take a look at the long history of Hindu Proselytizing. Sankracharia and beyond to SE Asia and Indonesia. They didn't become Hindu just randomly. There seems to be trouble with admitting others into the community, need to reform that.

[vishvak]

It is much easier to go after Hindus.

Is there a list already of 'developed western countries' in which religions like Hinduism are yet to be recognized?

[vishvak]

It is much easier to go after Hindus.

And vice versa.

OT again but I've always said Christian pushiness in India would reduce if Hindu society was pushy about proselytizing as well. But for that a lot of social reform would be necessary. As in which community the converts would belong to. Every time I bring this up I get another dharmic run around about how this is not Hinduism. Poppycock. Take a look at the long history of Hindu Proselytizing. Sankracharia and beyond to SE Asia and Indonesia. They didn't become Hindu just randomly. There seems to be trouble with admitting others into the community, need to reform that.

Christian pushiness in India would reduce if Hindu society was pushy about proselytizing as well - how is that? Hindus are not even the usual normal 'people of the book'!

Every time I bring this up I get another dharmic run around about how this is not Hinduism! ...They didn't become Hindu just randomly.
Yindus are really ancient dhoti-wearing & senile is all I can say!

Sankracharia did not go with an army or cloak and dagger approach IIRC, unlike Colonial invasions that was distributed as rights to different Colonial powers in rather religious manner such as Treaty of Tordesillas, Inter caetera, etc. Who can complain really? In fact Yindus are confused even now how to blame God exactly when Alex invaded India, with all the massacre and loot-&-burn routines just because he declared himself related somehow to God.

More here (may not be exhaustive) Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex, Aeterni regis, Treaty of Alcáçovas, etc.

From Long term implications of Treaty of Alcáçovas:

...first international documents formally outlining the principle that European powers are empowered to divide the rest of the world into "spheres of influence" and colonise the territories located within such spheres, and that any indigenous peoples living there need not be asked for their consent (or even be informed that their fate was being decided upon). This would remain a generally-accepted principle in the ideology and practice of European powers up to the 20th century decolonization. The Treaty of Alcáçovas could be regarded as the ancestor of many later international treaties and instruments based on the same basic principle ...

From Dum Diversas,

"We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery

.

[sanjaykumar]

Please be clear:

Papal degeneracy-nothing to do with Christianity

Inter-denominational mutual massacring-nothing to do with Christianity

Looting expeditions including the Crusades (misnomer, of course)-nothing to do with Christianity

Slavery-nothing to do with Christianity

Extermination of indigenous peoples-nothing to do with Christianity

Colonisation and 'unfair' taxation-nothing to do with Christianity

Man sponsored famines-nothing to do with Christianity

Death camps in Africa-nothing to do with Christianity

Genocide of Jewry-nothing to do with Christianity

And....prohibition of zero-nothing to do with Christianity, murder of Bruno and witches, heretics, atheists-nothing to do with Christianity

[brihaspati]

It is much easier to go after Hindus.

And vice versa.

OT again but I've always said Christian pushiness in India would reduce if Hindu society was pushy about proselytizing as well. But for that a lot of social reform would be necessary. As in which community the converts would belong to. Every time I bring this up I get another dharmic run around about how this is not Hinduism. Poppycock. Take a look at the long history of Hindu Proselytizing. Sankracharia and beyond to SE Asia and Indonesia. They didn't become Hindu just randomly. There seems to be trouble with admitting others into the community, need to reform that.

Ah - Theo ji, you will bring in bradmin admonitions on us again! In some other thread?

[Theo_Fidel]

Ah - Theo ji, you will bring in bradmin admonitions on us again! In some other thread?

Bji,

I can't say much more on this topic. Too much takleef.

This is something Hindu community needs to think(introspect?) and start a conversation on.

[devesh]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/us/20 ... nandbelief

Son of Evangelical Royalty Turns His Back, and Tells the Tale

In every line of work, there are family businesses. But no business is more defined by dynasties and nepotism than evangelical preaching. Lyman Beecher, Bob Jones, Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Robert H. Schuller, Jim Bakker: all had sons who became ministers.

It is never easy stepping into Dad’s shoes, of course. But when the family business is religion, it is especially perilous. That is one of the central laments, anyway, of “Sex, Mom, & God,” a new memoir by Frank Schaeffer. To secular Americans, the name Frank Schaeffer means nothing. But to millions of evangelical Christians, the Schaeffer name is royal, and Frank is the reluctant, wayward, traitorous prince. His crime is not financial profligacy, like some pastors’ sons, but turning his back on Christian conservatives.

Mr. Schaeffer, who is now 59 and lives north of Boston, grew up in L’Abri, a Christian community in Switzerland founded by his parents, Francis and Edith Schaeffer. In the 1960s, L’Abri was known in Christian circles as a drop-by haven for intellectually curious evangelicals, who could live in the mountains for a few days or even a few years, talking with Francis and Edith about the Bible, Christian art or existentialism. Mr. Schaeffer grew up surrounded by heady talk and, as he discusses in his memoir, tempted by the young women who passed through. He got one of them pregnant when he was 17, then married her.

In the 1970s, Mr. Schaeffer’s eccentric, relatively obscure family became wealthy and influential. Books like “The God Who Is There,” published in 1968, made his father a hero to American evangelicals, including future political activists like Jerry Falwell. Jesse Helms called the elder Schaeffer his favorite author. Edith Schaeffer also wrote books, and in 1977, Frank, an amateur filmmaker, directed his father in a 10-part documentary, “How Should We Then Live?,” in which Francis railed against the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Charles Darwin and abortion. The series was a sensation among evangelicals. Ryan Lizza recently wrote in The New Yorker that seeing “How Should We Then Live?” had a “profound influence” on the future presidential candidate Michele Bachmann.

The younger Mr. Schaeffer wrote his own Christian polemics and, helped by the family name, became a well-paid speaker on the evangelical circuit. Having met important Republicans at L’Abri — Barbara Bush, Bob Dole and Betty Ford all visited — Mr. Schaeffer morphed into a versatile right-wing connector. As a literary agent, he discovered Mary Pride, the Christian home-schooling guru. As he writes in “Sex, Mom, & God,” he and his father were present at meetings with Jack Kemp and Presidents Gerald R. Ford, Ronald Reagan and the elder George Bush “when the unholy marriage between the Republican Party” and the pro-life community “was gradually consummated.” He says that in 1984 he helped produce Mr. Reagan’s book “Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation.”

But “Sex, Mom, & God” is largely a story of Mr. Schaeffer’s doubts, which beset him throughout his career as a conservative activist. His break with conservatism, and with evangelicalism, came in the late 1980s. But he had long been skeptical of many of his bedfellows. He found the television pastor Pat Robertson and some of his colleagues to be “idiots,” he told me last week, when we met for coffee in western Massachusetts. Looking back, Mr. Schaeffer says that once he became disillusioned he “faked it the whole way.”

He faked it because it was easy, it was lucrative, and — rather poignant to say — he felt he had no other options.

“I had been home-schooled,” Mr. Schaeffer told me. “I had no education, no qualifications, and I was groomed to do this stuff. What was I going to do? If two lines are forming, and one has a $10,000 honorarium to go to a Christian Booksellers Association conference and keynote, and the other is to consider your doubts and get out with nothing else to do, what are you going to do?”

Mr. Schaeffer is still married to his teenage bride, and he now writes novels. He opted out of evangelicalism. But other heirs to Christian dynasties have struggled to uphold their fathers’ good names, and to preserve their institutions. Robert A. Schuller feuded with his father after taking over his father’s Crystal Cathedral ministry, which is now led by his sister — and is in bankruptcy. In 2007, Richard Roberts resigned as president of Oral Roberts University, founded by his father, after he was accused of misusing university funds.

“Any preacher with enough charisma, media savvy and fund-raising appeal can build his own empire,” says Molly Worthen, who teaches religious history at the University of Toronto and has written about L’Abri. “But they are like warlords in tribal Afghanistan, where leadership depends on relationships and force of personality rather than building institutions that can survive after the strongman passes the mantle to his son. Only those evangelical sons who have turned their effort to institution building, rather than trying to recreate their fathers’ charisma, have managed to make the dynasty prosper.”

Then there is Mr. Schaeffer’s more biting take, born of hard experience:

“North Korea and evangelical empires have the same principle of leadership: nepotism to the nth degree. You may not get the call, but you inherit the mailing list.”

[brihaspati]

Ah - Theo ji, you will bring in bradmin admonitions on us again! In some other thread?

Bji,

I can't say much more on this topic. Too much takleef.

This is something Hindu community needs to think(introspect?) and start a conversation on.

I would still be delighted to get your voice about it! In GDF - strat scenario? You know I don't shy away from facing up to unsavoury ideas! You never know - I might still surprise you!

[svinayak]

It is much easier to go after Hindus.

And vice versa.

OT again but I've always said Christian pushiness in India would reduce if Hindu society was pushy about proselytizing as well. Every time I bring this up I get another dharmic run around about how this is not Hinduism.

Xtianity already has bad name in India due to Xtian colonization for 250 years. Xtian do not have any legit in India but due to Hindu tolerance it has been there. With your kind of view they may not enjoy equal treatment from the 'natives'.
Think about which other country in the west atleast recognizes Hinduism.

[Arjun]

Please be clear:

Papal degeneracy-nothing to do with Christianity

Inter-denominational mutual massacring-nothing to do with Christianity

Looting expeditions including the Crusades (misnomer, of course)-nothing to do with Christianity

Slavery-nothing to do with Christianity

Extermination of indigenous peoples-nothing to do with Christianity
.....

Add to the list -

Anders Breivik - nothing to do with Christianity

[sanjaykumar]

As an example of Christianity's curious detachment from it's adherents good works, please peruse Arundhati Suzanne Roy's International socialist review missive on the horrors of genocide, naturally concentrating on the Hindu acts in Gujarat-genocides can be Hindu but never Christian.

[vishvak]

It is much easier to go after Hindus.

And vice versa.

OT again but I've always said Christian pushiness in India would reduce if Hindu society was pushy about proselytizing as well. Every time I bring this up I get another dharmic run around about how this is not Hinduism.

Xtianity already has bad name in India due to Xtian colonization for 250 years. Xtian do not have any legit in India but due to Hindu tolerance it has been there. With your kind of view they may not enjoy equal treatment from the 'natives'.
Think about which other country in the west atleast recognizes Hinduism.

Suppose a state in India does not recognize Christianity as a religion. What happens then? What would be the kind of literature written against this? Now see where the developed countries stand as far as human rights( repeat, human rights, not just 'human rights of only some people' which is 'human rights of only some people') as a factor to measure civilized mentality is considered.

Are not all dhoti wearing rice eaters supposed to follow strictest rules of civilizations while the most advanced can assume the same without even recognizing it? Who all are part of the club of civilized as defined and 'owned' by the most advanced?

Where does Reginald Dyer stand in the civilized category between 0 to 10? He got away after a massacre during annual Baisakhi celebrations perhaps by saying he worked for the Queen.

This is something Christian community needs to think(introspect?) and start a conversation on.

[chetak]

Please be clear:

Papal degeneracy-nothing to do with Christianity

Inter-denominational mutual massacring-nothing to do with Christianity

Looting expeditions including the Crusades (misnomer, of course)-nothing to do with Christianity

Slavery-nothing to do with Christianity

Extermination of indigenous peoples-nothing to do with Christianity
.....

Add to the list -

Anders Breivik - nothing to do with Christianity

In shudha latin, "Nolo contendere".

[Arjun]

OT again but I've always said Christian pushiness in India would reduce if Hindu society was pushy about proselytizing as well. But for that a lot of social reform would be necessary. As in which community the converts would belong to. Every time I bring this up I get another dharmic run around about how this is not Hinduism. Poppycock. Take a look at the long history of Hindu Proselytizing. Sankracharia and beyond to SE Asia and Indonesia. They didn't become Hindu just randomly. There seems to be trouble with admitting others into the community, need to reform that.

Jews in Israel had exactly the same issue with Christian 'pushiness' ( The ultimate euphemism, if I may add). Jews don't proseletyze and have long protested prosletyzation attempts on Jews as being a form of anti-Semetism. Most EJ organizations today voluntarily refrain from proselytizing in Israel.

[chetak]

OT again but I've always said Christian pushiness in India would reduce if Hindu society was pushy about proselytizing as well. But for that a lot of social reform would be necessary. As in which community the converts would belong to. Every time I bring this up I get another dharmic run around about how this is not Hinduism. Poppycock. Take a look at the long history of Hindu Proselytizing. Sankracharia and beyond to SE Asia and Indonesia. They didn't become Hindu just randomly. There seems to be trouble with admitting others into the community, need to reform that.

Jews in Israel had exactly the same issue with Christian 'pushiness' ( The ultimate euphemism, if I may add). Jews don't proseletyze and have long protested prosletyzation attempts on Jews as being a form of anti-Semetism. Most EJ organizations today voluntarily refrain from proselytizing in Israel.

This is only because the jews can kick their EJ financial butts everywhere.

[chackojoseph]

Xtian do not have any legit in India but due to Hindu tolerance it has been there.

Hmm.... I thought that the Muslim and Christians came into India when India was allegdly Hindu majority. The first converts were Jews and Brahmins.

Let me refresh some minds here. There were independent states be fore the entity of India was formed. India forms a mix of multi enthic, multi cultural, multi religion etc. It was brought toghter by political entity and not religious. It came under the constitution of India. The idea of Indian state unified India and not Hindu state.

[vishvak]

Xtian do not have any legit in India but due to Hindu tolerance it has been there.

Hmm.... I thought that the Muslim and Christians came into India when India was allegdly Hindu majority. The first converts were Jews and Brahmins.

Let me refresh some minds here. There were independent states be fore the entity of India was formed. India forms a mix of multi enthic, multi cultural, multi religion etc. It was brought toghter by political entity and not religious. It came under the constitution of India. The idea of Indian state unified India and not Hindu state.

Allow me gracefully to present a few contradictions in above post.

"when India was allegdly Hindu majority" - could you clarify on the alleged part please?

"India forms a mix of multi enthic, multi cultural, multi religion etc. It was brought toghter by political entity and not religious. It came under the constitution of India. The idea of Indian state unified India"

It is the same constitution that never says that clerical class should sway public opinion, so how 'secular' is that? The multicultural essence of the constitution does not mean suppressing culture of natives and its expressions to be decided by clergy of a religion as 'wrong' which goes on still. The Idea of multicultural India does not need certificate of clergy class( which as this thread could point out, are not too multicultural historically) who point out how it is 'incorrect' because it incorporates any symbolism of native culture. Coincidentally, any 'way' pointed out by Bishops could definitely include 'idea's like pray, gatherings at Churches, love and compassion, devil hate (by the way, there is no Devil in this culture), and so on. So it any such 'way' any secular by the same standards, because it could be termed 'wrong' as well.

[uddu]

Let me refresh some minds here. There were independent states be fore the entity of India was formed. India forms a mix of multi enthic, multi cultural, multi religion etc. It was brought toghter by political entity

Even before birth of Mohammed and Christ, i do think there was someone called Ashoka who ruled India. There was am empire known as Mauryan empire. Even before that there was a Bharat.
Now will you guys pls stop this p...... contest and just keep this thread for Christian fundamentalism in the west.

[chackojoseph]

Allow me gracefully to present a few contradictions in above post.

"when India was allegdly Hindu majority" - could you clarify on the alleged part please?

"India forms a mix of multi enthic, multi cultural, multi religion etc. It was brought toghter by political entity and not religious. It came under the constitution of India. The idea of Indian state unified India"

It is the same constitution that never says that clerical class should sway public opinion, so how 'secular' is that? The multicultural essence of the constitution does not mean suppressing culture of natives and its expressions to be decided by clergy of a religion as 'wrong' which goes on still. The Idea of multicultural India does not need certificate of clergy class( which as this thread could point out, are not too multicultural historically) who point out how it is 'incorrect' because it incorporates any symbolism of native culture. Coincidentally, any 'way' pointed out by Bishops could definitely include 'idea's like pray, gatherings at Churches, love and compassion, devil hate (by the way, there is no Devil in this culture), and so on. So it any such 'way' any secular by the same standards, because it could be termed 'wrong' as well.

There was Muslim rule too - hence allegdly. its a tounge in cheek way of saying things.

The constitution also dosen't object to it. I read someone saying that Hindu priest don't sermon politics. How come BJP survives?

[vishvak]

...
Now will you guys pls stop this p...... contest and just keep this thread for Christian fundamentalism in the west.

Wrong thread, I will move it.

[chackojoseph]

Even before birth of Mohammed and Christ, i do think there was someone called Ashoka who ruled India. There was am empire known as Mauryan empire. Even before that there was a Bharat.
Now will you guys pls stop this p...... contest and just keep this thread for Christian fundamentalism in the west.

I thought Chandragupta maurya turned Jain.

I will quit this thread. I just replied to a lofty statement in the thread.

[uddu]

Even before birth of Mohammed and Christ, i do think there was someone called Ashoka who ruled India. There was am empire known as Mauryan empire. Even before that there was a Bharat.
Now will you guys pls stop this p...... contest and just keep this thread for Christian fundamentalism in the west.

I thought Chandragupta maurya turned Jain.

I will quit this thread. I just replied to a lofty statement in the thread.

Man, you don't understand. When I was pointing to your version of there is no united India, you still hanging on to religion? You're getting very much into religion and replying from the point of religion.

[uddu]

There was Muslim rule too - hence allegdly. its a tounge in cheek way of saying things.
The constitution also dosen't object to it. I read someone saying that Hindu priest don't sermon politics. How come BJP survives?

And Chacko, let me correct some wrong assumptions that you have. BJP is a party like Congress is a party. Hindu priests don't issue sermons in temple. They just do poojas. Keep that in mind. They don't have any political power. Their duty is to serve god and that starts with it and ends with it. Nothing more nothing less.
Chacko also how can you forget that there are parties and MLA's MP's who are affiliated with church as well.
Khutba, seems to be the Islamic variant of Sermon.