Religion Thread - 8

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 03 Apr 2007 11:18

Calvin wrote: I am still struggling to understand *how* the system will function under Dharma. Note, I am not suggesting that I don't believe it will work, but that I am curious as to the mechanism by which it would function. Who decides what, and on what basis?

Calvin,

I believe you'll need to qualify your statement with exact issues you have with a Dharmic centric constitution, if your statement wishes to be taken seriously.

Has there not been Dharmic state structures (prior to arrival of Islam)? Did they not ensure the well being the belief system of minorities likes Parsis, Jews and Christians?
Did they not provided congenial atmosphere for competing systems like Buddhism and Jainism (at the cost of their SD's own existence)? Did they not tolerate and respect hedonistic and atheist sects like Charvakas within the larger framework?

A Dharmic centric state system worked well. Indeed I may ask as why a so called "secular" system has failed to satisfy majority, minority and everyone between them.

My question for you: Can SD survive, flourish and enrich in an atmosphere of an unjust/borrowed state system, wherein numerous rules and regulations fail to address SD concerns?

If your answer is yes, then thread has the potential to move towards minority appeasement issues right away.

If your answer is no, then my view is India is the original homeland of SDF adherents. We are living in our own land. We are not looters, invaders, refugees or squatters.
We do have a choice. We can either permit in people, shelter them and let them adapt or we can shut them out and avoid trouble later on.

Sajan · Post by **Sajan** » 03 Apr 2007 11:19

Now what will the response from one god traditions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) be if the govt of india endorsed a version of 10 commandments that said.

That is precisely what you are doing when you ask for cow-slaughter ban because that offends the sensibilities of "majority". Turning the plates, display of 10 commandments was probably perfectly fine with majority, but it was taken down because of minority sentiments - i.e. to protect the individual rights guaranteed irrespective of whether you are in minority or majority (apart from the violation of first amendment).

If you are unable to relate these two, I can not help you here as you are pretending to be asleep. No one can awake someone pretending to be asleep.

Vishy_mulay · Post by **Vishy_mulay** » 03 Apr 2007 11:22

This is an important point, which is that there are a limited number of "rights" that are inalienable. Perhaps the question is whether consuming beef falls into that category. If one is a habitual beef eater, it probably feels this way. But then, probably so did the cigarette smoker and the peyote smoker.

Do I see some reasoning finally? I mean why we wasted last 48hrs on beef consumption?

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 03 Apr 2007 11:23

Has there not been Dharmic state structures

Even if there were, were they democratic in nature? The power of the majority can be considerably greater than the power of a despot.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 03 Apr 2007 11:27

I don't understand why Calvin keeps applying idealistic test on Dharma (whatever that means to him) where he finds no other country or religion standing up to that test. He seems to get riled up when he sees words Dharma and tolerance in the same context/sentence.

He does so by bringing in individual rights in to this. Why is he expecting Dharma to carry such a big baggage. By doing this, it looks like, he intends to achieve his objective, that Dharma too is intolerant as those middle east born religions. Equal=Equal.

Tolerance of the Dharma (using his nomenclature even though I don't agree with such use of this word), is proved empirically as there there is more diversity in India than any other country. It gave birth to more religions (peaceful ones) than the blood sucking middle east. What is the real significance of not having any proselytizeactivities in Dharma? Is it tolerance or intolerance?

Before you apply the test of individual rights to Dharma, you need to first prove that it is possible in any theoritical setting first. Asking a country like India, which has quite a few problems of its own, thanks to the marauders who screwed India for centuries, to stand to this test is not only laughable but hints at a malicious intent of disparaging the Dharma.

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 03 Apr 2007 11:33

Calvin wrote:
Has there not been Dharmic state structures
Even if there were, were they democratic in nature? The power of the majority can be considerably greater than the power of a despot.

First, your issue is democracy or minority welfare? Lets not try to obfuscate the issue here.

Second, on the specific query from you there were 16 republics in India at the time of Mauryan rise. Villages were autonomous in function. The republican feature was in force till early middle ages (try to Google about the start of Pala kingdom of Bengal), wherein rulers were elected by local commanders, village representatives, merchant classes.

Vishy_mulay · Post by **Vishy_mulay** » 03 Apr 2007 11:33

By doing this, it looks like, he intends to achieve his objective, that Dharma too is intolerant as those middle east born religions. Equal=Equal

Is it not only me who thinks Forum Administrator suffers from bias.

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 03 Apr 2007 11:38

My issue is individual rights - frankly with no distinction made on the basis of religion, income, color and so on. Characterizing my issue in religious terms is creating a straw man.

Before you apply the test of individual rights to Dharma, you need to first prove that it is possible in any theoretical setting first.

Well, there is a pretty decent approximation to individual rights in the Indian Constitution as it stands today, as well as in the US constitution. Neither of these are perfect, but they are pretty decent approximations. More to the point, if a law is passed that takes away some fundamental rights, there is a mechanism (supreme court) that can throw this law away, on the basis of the laws in the constitution.

The only reason to talk about Dharma being above the constitution was because that was one of the suggestions earlier on in this discussion. All I did, was to try and think through how this would be applied. This is particularly important since there are diverse points of view on just about any topic. How does this system decide what laws are acceptable and what is not? Does the system effectively become just a rubber stamp of the legislators?

RajeshG · Post by **RajeshG** » 03 Apr 2007 11:39

Ayodhya And The Future India

http://www.cpsindia.org/ayodhya_con.html

Some excerpts from introduction by Sri Bajaj

http://www.cpsindia.org/ayodhya_chap1.html

[quote]The nucleus of the Qutb Minar complex is formed by the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque, founded by Qutb-ud-din Aibak in 1191 to commemorate the capture of Delhi and to celebrate, as the name of the mosque implies, the â€˜Might of Islamâ€™. An inscription on the east gate of this mosque states that it was built from materials collected from the demolition of â€œtwenty-seven idolatrous shrines of the unbelieversâ€

Vishy_mulay · Post by **Vishy_mulay** » 03 Apr 2007 11:40

Then this is a wrong thread for your posts. We can discuss all issues regarding individual rights in a separate thread.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 03 Apr 2007 11:42

Calvin wrote:My issue is individual rights - frankly with no distinction made on the basis of religion, income, color and so on. Characterizing my issue in religious terms is creating a straw man.

Then why don't you create a separate thread to discuss that topic. I am sure that causes less confusion and many here might be able to contribute to that topic wholeheateadly.

Why do you think individual rights is relevent here?

vina · Post by **vina** » 03 Apr 2007 11:44

Sajan wrote:That is precisely what you are doing when you ask for cow-slaughter ban because that offends the sensibilities of "majority". Turning the plates, display of 10 commandments was probably perfectly fine with majority, but it was taken down because of minority sentiments - i.e. to protect the individual rights guaranteed irrespective of whether you are in minority or majority (apart from the violation of first amendment).

If you are unable to relate these two, I can not help you here as you are pretending to be asleep. No one can awake someone pretending to be asleep.

You need to think deeper before you do any relating of 10 commandments to the beef issue.

One of the key reasons .for separation of religion and state . nay the fundamental reason is to ensure that the state remains neutral to religion and that it does not PROMOTE RELIGION (any religion) in a secular state.. That is constitutionally not allowed in India and also in the US (unlike some Oieropean states that have a state religion but are secular in practice. UK, Scandinavian countries etc).

Now with
1) Thou shalt have no gods other than me and
2) Thou shall not worship graven images

What you end up doing is promoting religion and that too a particular one .. the Judeo-Christian-Islamic one god version of religion. That is what was successfully challenged..

I dont see how cows come into the picture. The 10 commandments ban was a legal constituional violation and not a "sentiment" ..

The equivalence of the beef thingy is the the alcohol ban on Sundays in many US states.. (yeah , yeah ..go ahead and say that is for "public health" reasons) .. Not the 10 commandments. .. As far as I can see , the alcohol on Sunday challenge must have withstood several challenges in court to be still around. That does not make the US less secular or even handed.

I think we fundamentally have to realize that in large complex , multi denominatal countries like the US and India.. there will be grey area and it cannot be a hard and fast rule. There is the every day process of negotiation, give and take , live and let live, mutual tolerance and respect,... fundamental things that will allow the diverse populations to live together without friction.. It is not perfect (nothing is), but it largely is and I submit is hugely sensitive (especially in India) the the concerns of the minorities and others( in many many areas).. The more we appreciate it the better.. This mutual tolerance thing is a living breathing thing , soemthing like a marriage and needs constant work and re-affirmation from all sides.. Just like a marriage it is lot more than just a legal document and like marriage again cannot be reduced to a set of laws or rules alone ..

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 03 Apr 2007 11:46

Individual rights are relevant here precisely because the genesis of this particular discussion pertained to Evangelization, and the right to practice and "propagate" one's religion. The contention is that this right to "propagate" one's religion is a concept that doesn't exist in Dharma, is ultimately injurious to Dharma Followers, and therefore should never have been part of the constitution.

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 03 Apr 2007 11:47

Calvin wrote:My issue is individual rights - frankly with no distinction made on the basis of religion, income, color and so on. Characterizing my issue in religious terms is creating a straw man.

What is "individual rights"? Is it quantifiable? Does it have upper and lower bounds? Can you provide a standard definition?

Abhijit · Post by **Abhijit** » 03 Apr 2007 11:49

Calvin wrote:My issue is individual rights - frankly with no distinction made on the basis of religion, income, color and so on. Characterizing my issue in religious terms is creating a straw man.

Individual rights is such a nebulous term. Do I have a right not to be considered 'hell'-bound by the believers of books that I don't believe in? More importantly do those believers have a right to announce that I am hell-bound because I don't believe in their book? Does a convent-going Hindu kid have a right to not be subjected to Christian propaganda? Do I have a right to be offended by the sight of cross on a church on my street in India?

Vishy_mulay · Post by **Vishy_mulay** » 03 Apr 2007 11:52

The contention is that this right to "propagate" one's religion is a concept that doesn't exist in Dharma, is ultimately injurious to Dharma Followers, and therefore should never have been part of the constitution.

Is it your interpretation? OR someone suggested it on this thread? I am asking in all seriousness has there been political or social movement in India for what you have mentioned? Ban on conversion is relatively recent phenomenon and can be legally challenged in SC. People have filed cases and I don't know whether there will ever be a constitutional amendment to ban conversion.

Alok_N · Post by **Alok_N** » 03 Apr 2007 11:56

this "individual rights" business is a huge bugaboo created by a bunch of white guys ...

the jokers had no clues about diversity ... they didn't give votes to blacks and women ...

someone told me that one of the jokers (Madison?) was in favor of votes proportional to acres of land someone owned ... no land no vote ... is this true?

when we have a superior concept like Dharma, why fall for snake oil like "individual rights"?

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 03 Apr 2007 11:56

There is a write up on Wikipedia on Individual Rights. The distinctions with "human rights", "civil rights" are all relevant, particularly the notion that these rights derive to an individual by virtue of being a human being and are not granted by anyone, or by society. The Declaration of Independence is a famously abridged version of this, as are the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/

VISHY: I am going to assume that you are being sincere in your questions for one last time. The answer to your question is that I am making NO ASSUMPTIONS OR INTERPRETATIONS with regard to the "propagate" clause. You are a johnny-come-lately that expects the rest of us to stop and answer your arrogant questions with humility.

Abhijit · Post by **Abhijit** » 03 Apr 2007 11:59

The contention is that this right to "propagate" one's religion is a concept that doesn't exist in Dharma, is ultimately injurious to Dharma Followers, and therefore should never have been part of the constitution.

Finally. Give this man a cigar or a coconut as per his predilection!.
Evangelism is an organized activity. The individual right of 'propagating' one's religion has been usurped by the EJ organizations using foreign funding and marketing. Once the 'propagation' turns into a group activity it ceases to enjoy the same right as an individual. A person on his/her own can propagate to his/her heart's content and we have no issues with it. But that is not the case, no?

Vishy_mulay · Post by **Vishy_mulay** » 03 Apr 2007 12:03

Calvin, man the Bill of Rights was passed for White Man with Farm land in USA. We never discussed this point because you conveniently forgot to answer my question. US SC played a very important role in interpretation of BOL in today's context. When it was written there were no individual rights granted for american indians, blacks, women and landless white men. So far for your bench marks.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 03 Apr 2007 12:04

Calvin wrote:
Has there not been Dharmic state structures
Even if there were, were they democratic in nature? The power of the majority can be considerably greater than the power of a despot.

Shifting stance, are you?

Your disingenuous query about whether Dharma is democratic or not has an obvious answer. There was no democracy like we have today in the first millenium.

And yet. Calvin, India had democracy 3-4 centuries before Greece invented it. So, one can say that Vedic Hinduism and democracy are not only mutually compatible, but also mutually supporting.

History shows that democratic states in India ended with the rise of Buddhism. And the less said about Christian and Islamic attitudes to democracy, the better.

Why don't you answer why Christians should continue to worship an autocratic, jealous, genocidal god? Oh, non-democratic as well.

RajeshG · Post by **RajeshG** » 03 Apr 2007 12:05

There is another, philosophical and theological, meaning of secularism, from which the political meaning above seems to have been derived. We have hinted at this meaning of secularism while referring to the western philosophical doctrine that neither man nor nature have any virtue in themselves, virtue arises from their being appointed in appropriate roles through human ingenuity. That thought needs some elaboration.

The Archbishop of Mylapore, Madras, in his presentation and especially in the subsequent discussion, explains the philosophical and theological meanings of secularism in some detail. His Grace begins with the simple formulation that secularism means to take the world seriously. This is perhaps a way of saying that the world is not to be taken as a mere extension of Brahman, His playful manifestation, the Leela, as the Indians call it. The world must be seen as an independent aspect of reality, independent of the God who creates it. God creates the world but does not inhere in it. He stays separate from it. And therefore God and the world must both be taken seriously, but separately.

Indians have long been aware of this doctrine of the essential separateness of the creator and the creation, and they have recognised it to be the distinguishing characteristic of alien thought, the yavanamata, as the classical texts put it.21 The doctrine, as is well known, is the cornerstone of what are known as the semitic religions. For Indians such thoughts constitute what they know to be primal ignorance, the avidya. According to the Indian view of the world, the universe is a manifestation of the creator Himself. Brahman, following the immutable flow of time, manifests Himself as the universe in its diverse forms, and in time contracts those forms back into Himself. The universe is not something that He creates from without. He is the universe. There is no separation between the creator and the creation. There is nothing in the world that is not divine in itself. And there is no way to split the universe into two distinct realities, the secular and the divine.22

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 03 Apr 2007 12:05

Calvin wrote: Well, there is a pretty decent approximation to individual rights in the Indian Constitution as it stands today, as well as in the US constitution. Neither of these are perfect, but they are pretty decent approximations. More to the point, if a law is passed that takes away some fundamental rights, there is a mechanism (supreme court) that can throw this law away, on the basis of the laws in the constitution.

Implicit in your statement is that majority agreed to give minority the said rights and enshrined in the constitution. Now, are you agreeing on the codification of rights or actual rights in the constitution?

If former, you are basically agreeing to the writ of the majority. In case of India, the writ happens to be those of majority, who unfortunately are Dharmics. Hence you need to agree that Dharmics are tolerant.

If latter, you can always find one person who disagrees with the rights in the constitution and wants more of it. So where do you draw the line?

The only reason to talk about Dharma being above the constitution was because that was one of the suggestions earlier on in this discussion. All I did, was to try and think through how this would be applied. This is particularly important since there are diverse points of view on just about any topic.

You should be knowing that there is no formal authority on dhamics, like POPE or some such figurehead, who keeps pumping money to countries like India to make converts in their goe-political goals.

How does this system decide what laws are acceptable and what is not? Does the system effectively become just a rubber stamp of the legislators?

I really don't understand. Once you say that constitution was good implying that people approve of what they consider it right. Now you are not sure that how the laws are accepted by the system (I think you mean Dharma here).

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 03 Apr 2007 12:09

Abhijit:

Do I have a right not to be considered 'hell'-bound by the believers of books that I don't believe in?

You cannot force another person to think in a particular way. Therefore if they think you are hell bound, you cannot change their point of view. I am not even sure how one would go about doing this by force.

More importantly do those believers have a right to announce that I am hell-bound because I don't believe in their book?

Since they are not threatening you with bodily harm, their right to free speech should stand.

Does a convent-going Hindu kid have a right to not be subjected to Christian propaganda?

If this is a private school, and since it is a "convent school" we may assume this, then there is no such right.

Do I have a right to be offended by the sight of cross on a church on my street in India?

You absolutely have that right.

A person on his/her own can propagate to his/her heart's content and we have no issues with it. But that is not the case, no?

I think the disagreeable part of the "propagation" clause is that it happens, not that it happens in an organized fashion. If we insist on an "unorganized" method, surely these people are intelligent enough to come up with an "unorganized" method. How does it make a difference if this was an individual effort? Can this individual go to a church and listen to a sermon (er, training seminar) on how to individually proselytize - would that make it okay? I don't think so. Its got to be either okay or not. Or is this also a matter of shades of gray to you?[/quote]

negi · Post by **negi** » 03 Apr 2007 12:12

'Dharm' huh.. tali ek haath se nahin bajti while we all harp about how EJ's are busy making converts by hook or by crook,what about the 'Dharm' of the people who volunteer to get converted ?

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 03 Apr 2007 12:12

Calvin wrote:Individual rights are relevant here precisely because the genesis of this particular discussion pertained to Evangelization, and the right to practice and "propagate" one's religion. The contention is that this right to "propagate" one's religion is a concept that doesn't exist in Dharma, is ultimately injurious to Dharma Followers, and therefore should never have been part of the constitution.

Calvin, I think you have still not understood that in the Hindu mindset, conversion is a sin. An act of warfare against an individual's right not to be disturbed by anybody.

No matter how strongly religious christians feel about 'saving' souls, we the unsaved like to remain in the unsaved state.

. If you cannot understand that conversion is spiritual corruption according to the Hindu view, then you have not understood Hinduism.

For a Hindu, the right to be left alone also is an individual right.

Something that the EJs abuse. You seem to have a fixation that if the red carpet is not rolled for EJs in India by Hindus, then Hindus must be an intolerant people. I think the inherent contradiction of your view is obvious to anyone who is not god-toxified.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 03 Apr 2007 12:19

Calvin wrote:
More importantly do those believers have a right to announce that I am hell-bound because I don't believe in their book?
Since they are not threatening you with bodily harm, their right to free speech should stand.

Er, bodily harm is not the only kind of harm. If someone declares me hell bound, I am bound to question the sanity of his own religious beliefs. Remember that Xism, like all other religions, has an irratinal/faith based component which can be as easily ridiculed. Why would anyone really want ot go on that path?

-----------

OTOH, I think the thread is entering an interesting phase - the discussion seems to be veering towards whether Dharma-Shastras are still relevant today.

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 03 Apr 2007 12:22

Why don't you answer why Christians should continue to worship an autocratic, jealous, genocidal god? Oh, non-democratic as well.

I am tired of the flame baits, and any more of these and posting privileges will start getting revoked.

Giving you the benefit of doubt, I will answer some of your questions:

Your disingenuous query about whether Dharma is democratic or not has an obvious answer. There was no democracy like we have today in the first millenium.

So, if there was no democracy as we have today when the Dharmic States existed, we don't know how Dharma would have fared. It may have fared very well, but we just don't know.

India had democracy 3-4 centuries before Greece invented it. ...History shows that democratic states in India ended with the rise of Buddhism.

Now, this is news to me. What are you referring to, as "democracy"?

Now, are you agreeing on the codification of rights or actual rights in the constitution?

I am not sure I understand the question.

If latter, you can always find one person who disagrees with the rights in the constitution and wants more of it. So where do you draw the line?

Practically, the line is drawn by the Supremes and the Constitution. The majority continue to take away the rights of the minority, until they take away a right that the Supreme Court determines is beyond the "red line"

You should be knowing that there is no formal authority on dhamics, like POPE or some such figurehead, who keeps pumping money to countries like India to make converts in their goe-political goals.

IF YOU WANT TO ENGAGE IN A DEBATE, YOU WOULD DO WELL TO ELIMINATE THESE GRATUITOUS AND IRRELEVANT COMMENTARY ABOUT "GOE-POLITICAL GOALS"

I am aware that there is no formal authority in the Dharmic system, hence my question as to how Dharma will resolve an issue regarding whether a new law is violative of individual rights or not.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 03 Apr 2007 12:23

Calvin wrote:Individual rights are relevant here precisely because the genesis of this particular discussion pertained to Evangelization, and the right to practice and "propagate" one's religion. The contention is that this right to "propagate" one's religion is a concept that doesn't exist in Dharma, is ultimately injurious to Dharma Followers, and therefore should never have been part of the constitution.

A very noble idea but oblivious of the realities behind propagation. Do you believe that countries have been formed, countries have been broken, wars have been waged in the name of religion. Is religion playing a role in current global issues? This is central to the discussion. Basically, do you believe or not that the EJ is a geo-political tool? If you don't agree than I would accuse of you either being blind or soft on EJ.

If you agree, then why do you think majority should allow propogation and thus reducing their own numbers and getting themselves screwed.

Please respond.

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 03 Apr 2007 12:26

I think you have still not understood that in the Hindu mindset, conversion is a sin. An act of warfare against an individual's right not to be disturbed by anybody.

bodily harm is not the only kind of harm

Yeah, but it is probably the only kind of tangible harm. The idea of psychological harm is generally not applied in criminal cases, and is used mainly in civil cases, IIRC.

If you agree, then why do you think majority should allow propogation and thus reducing their own numbers and getting themselves screwed.

I think the means are more important than the end. You probably believe the ends justify the means.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Apr 2007 12:27

abhischekcc wrote:

OTOH, I think the thread is entering an interesting phase - the discussion seems to be veering towards whether Dharma-Shastras are still relevant today.

That is the problem with this thread.
It should be about the political nature of religions over the last 1000 years who have moved to change the geopolitics.

It is not about any religions with any individual.

Vishy_mulay · Post by **Vishy_mulay** » 03 Apr 2007 12:30

VISHY: I am going to assume that you are being sincere in your questions for one last time. The answer to your question is that I am making NO ASSUMPTIONS OR INTERPRETATIONS with regard to the "propagate" clause. You are a johnny-come-lately that expects the rest of us to stop and answer your arrogant questions with humility.

the intention behind m y questions is not arrogance but irritation. First and foremost I agree with most of your points but I am irritated with your impossible efforts to apply Individual rights in context of religion. Religion is a social activity unless you happened to believe otherwise. Now there are majority followers and minority followers in any society. As majority has responsibility to make sure minority has full religious rights, minority also has some responsibilities towards majority sentiments. How under the pretext of "Individual rights" minority can ignore majority sentiments? Will it good for social harmony?
I will even accept that in complex society like India. Then why not individual rights of a devote vaishnav be protected if he/she feels it necessary to ban all animal killing? If food habits can come under individual rights, why not religious sentiments? OR majority religious sentiments do not get protection of individual rights? ie For minority "individual rights" are important but they cant be applied to majority?
I am still not clear about "propagation" issue. Has it been suggested in this thread that propagation of faith should be banned with constitutional amendment? I still don't understand what is your take on it. I think this is serious question and for which this thread was created. Please put frankly what point you want to raise. A illiterate like me cant comprehend your scholarly posts clearly.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 03 Apr 2007 12:32

Calvin wrote: I think the means are more important than the end. You probably believe the ends justify the means.

Sorry...I don't understand. Pl. elaborate.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 03 Apr 2007 12:37

Here, democracy in Ancient India: Democracy in Ancient India

Until the end of the last century, the only indication that this might not always have been the case came from Greek and Roman accounts of India, mostly histories of India during and just after Alexander the Great's invasion of India in 327-324 B.C. These works spoke of numerous cities and even larger areas being governed as oligarchies and democracies, but they were not always believed by scholars.

And more importantly:

Though evidence for non-monarchical government goes back to the Vedas, 12 republican polities were most common and vigorous in the Buddhist period, 600 B.C.-A.D. 200

So, there were non-monarchical governments (not-necessarily democratic) in the vedic period.

-----------------

And:
The rise of democracy

Two centuries prior to Athenian democracy, there were republics in and around the foothills of northern India, set up by Aryan tribes of the plains rebelling against the orthodoxy in the monarchies

Abhijit · Post by **Abhijit** » 03 Apr 2007 12:38

OK. Now we are getting somewhere at least.

You cannot force another person to think in a particular way. Therefore if they think you are hell bound, you cannot change their point of view. I am not even sure how one would go about doing this by force.

Suppose this feeling of being considered hellbound turns into a legislative action whereby we constitutionally forbid people to publicly hold that view (practically it is impossible - especially in India because no matter what people may think, we ARE a tolerant bunch) would that be acceptable?

Since they are not threatening you with bodily harm, their right to free speech should stand.

is bodily harm the gold standard in determining the acceptability of free speech? What about mental anguish? Can I sue the Christians for libel since they cannot prove their statement?

If this is a private school, and since it is a "convent school" we may assume this, then there is no such right.

I am not sure if the convent schools do not use any Govt subsidies at all. If they do not do they have foreign fund sources? If they do then they should be regulated and every child must be given a right to excuse oneself from this propaganda. Even if it is a 100% indigenous funds, the children should not have the compulsion to listen to non-academic discourses especially if they infringe on their rights to not be subjected to proselytizing - remember, if an individual tries to proselytize to me, I have a right to tell him/her to f** off.

Do I have a right to be offended by the sight of cross on a church on my street in India?

You absolutely have that right.

Can I convert that right to legislate a destruction of the church ?

I think the disagreeable part of the "propagation" clause is that it happens, not that it happens in an organized fashion. If we insist on an "unorganized" method, surely these people are intelligent enough to come up with an "unorganized" method. How does it make a difference if this was an individual effort? Can this individual go to a church and listen to a sermon (er, training seminar) on how to individually proselytize - would that make it okay? I don't think so. Its got to be either okay or not. Or is this also a matter of shades of gray to you?

You are wrong on this count IMO. It is obvious that the EJ activities are group activities - there are traceable fund sources belonging to registered organizations. If we legislate against group activities, we can ban the umbrella organizations and it will have a huge effect on the conversions.
Before we proceed any further, I would like to ask you - Do you support the EJ activities, not on legalistic grounds but on ethical, moral or common sense grounds?

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 03 Apr 2007 12:44

I am tired of the flame baits, and any more of these and posting privileges will start getting revoked.

Whoohoo

. The penultimate stage, eh?

This is what happens when you start assuming things about another religion. Hinduism may not be perfect, but at least Hindus are aware of their imperfections.

We look for answers when we come across problems, not try to brush it under a faith based placebo.

Immutable mutability is the essence of Hinduism.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 03 Apr 2007 12:48

Calvin wrote:
You should be knowing that there is no formal authority on dhamics, like POPE or some such figurehead, who keeps pumping money to countries like India to make converts in their goe-political goals.
IF YOU WANT TO ENGAGE IN A DEBATE, YOU WOULD DO WELL TO ELIMINATE THESE GRATUITOUS AND IRRELEVANT COMMENTARY ABOUT "GOE-POLITICAL GOALS"

Why?

While the 'gratuitousness' of the statement is a matter of personal taste, I think bringing the pope into a discussion of EJs is very relevant to the thread. Didn't JP2 talk about the 'harvest of souls' in Asia? I have a right to concerned about situations that may effect my children or their children.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 03 Apr 2007 12:50

I am getting confused...Calvin..I request you to please respond to postor at a time in one post and don't mix up. This helps in clarity.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 03 Apr 2007 12:52

Satya_anveshi wrote:If you agree, then why do you think majority should allow propogation and thus reducing their own numbers and getting themselves screwed.

Indeed, what is incomprehensible to EJs and their friends in the media is that it is not in Hindus' interests to extend that 'freedom to convert' to any other. Removing that will indeed help our religion.

Pushing Hindus to the corner will bring about precisely the kind of response that EJ's don't want - a ban on conversions.

Vishy_mulay · Post by **Vishy_mulay** » 03 Apr 2007 12:58

Pushing Hindus to the corner will bring about precisely the kind of response that EJ's don't want - a ban on conversions.

Catch 22 situation. I think EJ activity has reached a turning point in India and we have started seeing reaction in the form of ban on conversion in different states. North East was lost because we never realised how big a problem EJs can be. Now it appears SDF are aware and are tacking EJ activities seriously.