"Christian" Fundamentalism in West

[Pranav]

Even if one goes along with your version of the meaning, that does not make exclusivism any less dangerous to society. Christianity has always been big on 'persecution' as a motivating factor for its proseletyzers...and as per your interpretation - it is explicitly justifying the breakup and creation of disharmony within families and within societies as an acceptable practice. Polytheistic religions on the other hand take the opposite tack of not wanting to create disharmony within existing believers of an alternate God - by accepting their Gods as part of the pantheon.

Harbansji is possibly pointing to the fact that exclusivism combined with aggressive expansionism would necessarily lead to conflict. The conflict might initially start small (within families) - but as more and more families in a region suffer the consequence, is bound to lead to larger scale societal repurcussions that are likely to manifest in warfare / rioting / civil war.

The spirit of the words is somewhat different ... here is another similar quotation - "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

Now, this is not about literally maiming yourself. The correct interpretation is that one must be willing to ruthlessly sever every attachment to family, bodily comfort and material wealth, if one wants to free oneself from the "everlasting fire" of endless, unfulfilled desires. In Sanatan Dharma too, similar sentiments are expressed as regards non-attachment.

Ramakrishna Paramhansa had said iirc, that you will find enlightenment if your desire for it is more than a drowning man's gasping for air.

Now it's true that the Catholic and other Churches are primarily political organizations, for the purpose of manipulating people as per the agenda of foreign elites. But we can keep that separate from the original intent of Jesus.

[ManishH]

Now it's true that the Catholic and other Churches are primarily political organizations, for the purpose of manipulating people as per the agenda of foreign elites. But we can keep that separate from the original intent of Jesus.

+1 to that

SD won't be served by studying and looking for offensive meanings in biblical text. The zeal that's often devoted to assigning aetiological blames on xtian texts is better used in studying, disseminating and deriving inspiration from our own Indic texts.

[Arjun]

Pranav, if that is your interpretation that I am fine with it. I am not as much concerned with the literal interpretation of the scriptures as much as understanding the learning that adherants derive from the passage.

Irrespective of the scriptural texts, what I am concerned with is this - are there adherants who take exclusivist messages literally - ie who genuinely believe that there is no God other than ----, all other Gods are false et al ?

Unless somebody can present me a clear rationale as to why this is not a problem - it is my conviction that exclusvism is the primary cause of bloodshed and large scale conflict globally and historically - and unless this elephant in the room is recognized and addressed there will be no moving forward for the world at large.

Theo, just to make explicit that I am not a Hindutva fan (unless you define Hindutva as anti-exclusivism which some folks have done)...Fyi, I am an agnostic, and I have far more faith in logic than I have in Vishnu, Siva or Jesus. Dogma is a big no-no for me.

Hinduism had serious problems with caste and with excessive ritualism - this is largely regarded as a drawback by Hindus and the religion is being reformed. I do think religions that have historically placed high emphasis on exclusivism need to first acknowledge this as a drawback and dilute this aspect going forward.

[RajeshA]

Pranav, if that is your interpretation that I am fine with it. I am not as much concerned with the literal interpretation of the scriptures as much as understanding the learning that adherants derive from the passage.

Irrespective of the scriptural texts, what I am concerned with is this - are there adherants who take exclusivist messages literally - ie who genuinely believe that there is no God other than ----, all other Gods are false et al ?

Unless somebody can present me a clear rationale as to why this is not a problem - it is my conviction that exclusvism is the primary cause of bloodshed and large scale conflict globally and historically - and unless this elephant in the room is recognized and addressed there will be no moving forward for the world at large.

<snip>

Fyi, I am an agnostic, and I have far more faith in logic than I have in Vishnu, Siva or Jesus. Dogma is a big no-no for me.

<snip>

I do think religions that have historically placed high emphasis on exclusivism need to first acknowledge this as a drawback and dilute this aspect going forward.

Arjun ji,

consider this.

Some people, whose ideology may be that the human should attain the best genetic constitution and are irritated by the disturbance caused by religion, would tend to advocate a wholesale genetic engineering of the human genome by each and every human to somehow take out the genes for "gullibility", "insecurity" and "faith"!

Some people, who are atheists and believe that religion itself is the core problem for the social disturbance cause by religion, would probably like all religions to be banned, for these simply propagate some "God mumbo-jumbo" what nobody has ever seen, and for which there is no evidence that satisfies them.

Agnostics who have no disposition towards faith, would probably not appreciate the tendency of the faithful of some religion to believe in the truth in their religion, regardless of whether they exclusivist or not. Agnostics may say that all "concocted up" Gods deserve equal accessibility from people, and thus exclusivism may be a problem, and thus may like to legislate that, bulldozing over the faith of the adherents of exclusivist religions.

Of course there are others who may find other philosophical problems with God and religions.

Then there are those, like me, who say, that the problem is not in what people believe but rather in how people act, and people need to be made responsible for their actions, as actions are the building blocks of justice, and not beliefs.

One can find fault with any one of the links forming the existential chain of the phenomena of religion based ideological predatoriness, intimidation and violence!

The question is "which is the link in the chain, where an intervention would be acceptable by society?"

Should we

1. legislate our genetic makeup curbing our genetic disposition to faith, or
2. should we legislate the evolution of human society curbing freedom of religion completely, or
3. should we legislate the contents of a belief system curbing the freedom of thought, or
4. should we legislate the behavior of man, or

one could even consider exterminating the whole human race to get rid of religion!

Because you are agnostic, you may feel the tendency to intervene at a particular link, but as far as I see it, it is impracticable as the over 4 billion adherents of the Abrahamic religions in the world have no appetite to even consider such a view as worthy of a second though! And more importantly it lacks a sound philosophical justification as a subject capable of legislation.

Recognizing an aspect of the problem, is simply a case of a blind-folded man trying to fathom an elephant by feeling one of his body-parts! Any place you touch upon the problem of religion is society would be true, that it constitutes a part of the problem, but you cannot make the elephant move by tickling any arbitrary part.

[Arjun]

Agnostics who have no disposition towards faith, would probably not appreciate the tendency of the faithful of some religion to believe in the truth in their religion, regardless of whether they exclusivist or not. Agnostics may say that all "concocted up" Gods deserve equal accessibility from people, and thus exclusivism may be a problem, and thus may like to legislate that, bulldozing over the faith of the adherents of exclusivist religions.

RajeshA ji, I have no disposition towards Faith myself, but I respect and understand that faith is a big driver for very many and faith is very useful in situations which are dire enough that one's resolve is tested. However, I am also strongly against dogma as a part of faith, specifically when the dogma can have negative repercussions on society. Religious liberals, incidentally, have also been traditionally opposed to dogma imposed as a part of faith.

As an example, caste was a dogma imposed on Hindu society - and thankfully Hindus who see this dogma for what it is and also understand the negative impact on society are in the majority. Hindus have gone beyond the legislative requirement of no discrimination on the basis of caste - to even questioning whether they should be thinking on caste lines or even have names that denote their caste. So, one could say there is a 'social compact' that realizes that a mindset change is required more than just simple legislation to address this issue.

Exclusivism, specifically in the more virulent form that looks down on pagans - is just the same kind of dogma imposed in the name of faith. Whether legislation is required or a social compact would do to address this is a separate question.

You would notice that historically India has had a 'social compact' that has been anti-exclusvism. Why do you think the song 'Ishwar Allah tere naam' was popularized? India has always civilizationally laid stress on this aspect.

Bottomline is if Hindu society, no doubt strongly egged on by non-Hindu critics, could consider reforming their religion so as to remove prevalent dogma - on what basis would you say that other religions should be exempt?

Certainly India has no jurisdiction over the 4 billion plus adherants of Islam and Christianity globally, but it certainly has jurisdiction over its own population to either lay down a social code or legislate, whichever is deemed more appropriate.

[sanjeevpunj]

There is fear in the west of a Hindu government emerging in India in the long run, and this could upset many equations. The church politicians might be attempting to grab their stakes while they can, in India.That's why so much support for Maino.A common social code, acceptable to all religions will be a wonderful gift to the world by India if and when it materialises. India has the potency for it.Theoretically at least this is possible.We just make a list of all the common Do's and Don'ts in each religion, strike off those that are not common, and we arrive at a fundamental list of Do's and Don'ts that form an integral part of the Common Social Code, and we add the important existing laws,that are stable and have helped maintain India,and we then enforce this Common Social Code.Anna Hazare and his team could work on that perhaps!

[Theo_Fidel]

We have such a code already. It is called the constitution of India. You may not like it but so far we are the only country to have balanced all the claims of different Religions and found a way to make it work. I am more thankful for this document every day than the religious text I have faith in. It is never the commonalities that are the problem but how you handle the obvious differences.

[sanjeevpunj]

^^^ Right on, nearly forgot we have a constitution that ensures this sort of idea.Cheers.

[atma]

That is the conundrum in the case of Norway and Anders Behring Brevik, who is being called a "Christian extremist" or "Christian terrorist."

http://news.yahoo.com/christian-terrori ... 59379.html

[brihaspati]

We have such a code already. It is called the constitution of India. You may not like it but so far we are the only country to have balanced all the claims of different Religions and found a way to make it work. I am more thankful for this document every day than the religious text I have faith in. It is never the commonalities that are the problem but how you handle the obvious differences.

The Constitution has really not worked. It has directly or indirectly recognized newly-created identity claims of distinction [like "Dalit" - we never find the word in the sense used now as an abstract category in the literature of the so-called hated "brahminism"] and further protected only the claims of the mullahs and the fathers/padres about their respective religions. It has freely intervened and "reformed" the non-Christian and the non-Muslim - and detached it from political influence over the state. But it has done the opposite for the christian and the muslim. It has allowed religious leaders of the proselytizing strands of the Abrahamic to reinforce and strengthen their own power structure, their sense of distinction from the "others" - and these religious leaders and institutions have been defacto given the right to stand in between the rashtra and its citizens.

A request not to bring in issues of "caste" and Hindus == to other atrocious behaviour from other atrocious ideologies. The claims of "caste-based" discrimination and atrocities should be seen at best as controversial claims which do not satisfy the criteria of authenticity used to trash claims of Christian and Islamist atrocities.

There are deeper questions here we are not addressing:

(1) no rashtra can deal with exclusivist ideologies by equally distancing itself from all religions and without intervening into how ideologies shape up within the society

(2) no rashtra can deal with religious ideologies by following no-value-system. A vacuum values principle always leads to subversion of the rashtra by aggressive power-seeking ideologies created as a smokescreen to satisfy the paranoid hunger of deeply insecure individuals who take on the mantle of prophets and religious leaders - for overwhelming power over everything.

(3) A vacuum value rashtra is like an empty shell - a kind of biological cell devoid of nucleus, which a bacteriophage/virus enters to placeits own code into the nucleus. The biological structure and resources of the cell-the rashtra- then can be used by the virus to replicate itself. The absence of values prevents the rashtra from even recognizing which ideologies/religions need surveillance and control or intervention to preserve the cell overall.

If you are not sure about what are your basic principles how can you even recognize what is "wrong" and what is not? This is the gap used by Marxists or EJ's or the mullahs to push through their claims of their values being unrejectable.

(4) West European countries have drifted to this stage of vacuum value rashtra - as a result of multiple factors, including development of the mercantile mentality pushing global financial flows and networks, different factional ideological strands within "western" traditions themselves undermining any stable value-system - like the marxians. Thus they became vulnerable to the subversive attempts of both the Marxists as well as Islamists.

(5) India started on the path earlier - and perhaps deliberately helped along by colonial transfer of power scheme, as well as the dynastic need for keeping rashtra free of values of the majority of the "subject" society because a "societal value system" creates obstacles in dynastic power. A vacuum value rashtra will be forced to look towards the dynastic scion for providing the "value" which the scion can provide according to her/his needs. The result has been that the outward shell now acts as a preserver and enhancer of Islamist and EJ-ist interests under cover of "secularism" using resources drawn from non-Muslim non-EJ majority.

(6) the western countries are facing up to the problem about now. Their process of vacuum-ization drift has led them to a point where the rashtra is being perceived by sections of their own society as pushing for or covering for ideologies intent on using the rashtra for power seeking individuals under pretensions of divine right.

(7) we cannot fail to identify the key characteristic of religions which are essentially a garb for a political-military complex to satisfy the sadistic power hunger for individuals who nowadays when defeated would be termed psychopathic loonies [if they win they become inspired visionary revealers of suprahuman will] - such religions will always, always be obsessed with and aiming always for rashtryia power and fusion of all "secular" power into a single leader.

Ultimately, no logical system can be completed without any axioms at all. So a rashtra to deal with "religions" needs a set of "rashtryia values" that clearly is able to discriminate between rival claims of religions. In the process the rashtra necessarily has to develop its own ideology. Now which one becomes the starting set of values is the question. But do not fall into the Marxian/islamist trap that non-Marxist non-Islamist rashtras must be driven by "vacuum ideologies".

It works for both the "west" and India.

[SaiK]

Fundamentally separating religions from constitution is what we want.. basically a common civil code, where it applies all types in general. sorry, yindoo muslim or chrisitian or aethist.

We can't see future, if we are driving the constitution to support religious segregation and not thinking about uniting the people with a common goal approach.

Constitution must support more science, and common rules, while keep religion away from gov decision making. Gov can only act as regulatory body, as courts will take on religious issues.

People should graduate themselves to understand religion is for peace and social setup, and nothing more.

[brihaspati]

By the way - the Constitution as it stands is not a "common" code. OT anyway. It does discriminate or recognize distinctions in its citizens based on religious affiliation. It does not also provide value criteria that is declared to be overriding if it contradicts any religious claims. It also does not specify any preference ordering between fundamental rights and directives. That is crucial to overrule religious claims when contradicting rashtryia values.

[brihaspati]

For Europe the common EU acceptance of certain "human rights" which includes "freedom of faith" is the basic obstacle. What should have come up in "human rights declarations" is that the "right to religion" comes the lowest in order of preference of all other human rights. This would have immediately placed various rights we now see as fitting current human perceptions of liberty and equality - over and above special exclusivist claims of religions. First beneficiaries would be women and children, and the greatest beneficiaries would of course be men in the long run. I am not being ironic.

[Pranav]

Pranav, if that is your interpretation that I am fine with it. I am not as much concerned with the literal interpretation of the scriptures as much as understanding the learning that adherants derive from the passage.

Unfortunately the adherents will derive a meaning sanctioned by "religious" organizations that function as political fronts, intelligence agencies and social engineering tools, in the service of foreign elites.

[Theo_Fidel]

Bji,

No offense. But you are barking up the wrong tree.

The Constitution does not seek to be perfect. It is a center point between several major Religions. 90% of Indian constitution appears to be from as far back as Greek Hellenic, Roman, Hammurapi, & Ashokan times. Are you going to say those laws had no religious component.

The more offensive things you say about a particular religion the more you give them a reason to move to a more exclusive position. Missionary activity in India was fairly desultory and haphazard till Graham Staines. Remember him. That incident served as a rallying point of Christian activity in India. He is considered a Martyr now by many diocese. Twice in the past year the Church I go to here in Massaland had a prayer service to remember him and raise money for his 'mission'. My Church in TN has a Sunday sale every January. Right after Pongal celebrations. I won't tell you how much money was raised, it might shock people here.

Till that point the Christian faith was gradually turning more vernacular and localized. In fact there were constant fears the Christianity was gradually blending in. Too much inter-marriage and people moving abroad, Esp. the young. Not any more. The youth groups are being more aggressive and fearless. They don't listen to the 'older' geezers anymore. The anti-conversion law has made it almost impossible to slow down the youth approach to it as a 'challenge'. Young pastors, Esp. the vernacular kind, look at it as a cause to martyr themselves for.

The moment you go outside the Constitution you will be going to an extreme position by default. This excuses extreme behavior from other quarters.

[Agnimitra]

^^^ +1 Fidel. "Eliminationism" is no path to integration. Integration can happen only by Indic civilization "shepherding" all faith communities within its boundaries. The constitution is a good legal instrument to serve this end, if handled by a wise elite. Tejo Mahalay vadis need to see this IMHO.

[RajeshA]

That incident served as a rallying point of Christian activity in India. He is considered a Martyr now by many diocese.

The reason is because the Hindus do not offer a philosophically and rhetorically consistent response to proselytization drives by Islam and EJs.

Anti-Conversion Law was IMHO a haphazardly justified, and much terminology was not adequately defined.

[svinayak]

We have such a code already. It is called the constitution of India. You may not like it but so far we are the only country to have balanced all the claims of different Religions and found a way to make it work. I am more thankful for this document every day than the religious text I have faith in. It is never the commonalities that are the problem but how you handle the obvious differences.

India is also the home of many religions and philosophy. Hinduism is also the stability for the country and is the basis of the balanced constitution. The false sense of secular politics will not last long and has to be replaced by an Indian version. Foriegn interpretation of Indian things will be taken out.

[brihaspati]

Bji,

No offense. But you are barking up the wrong tree.

The Constitution does not seek to be perfect. It is a center point between several major Religions. 90% of Indian constitution appears to be from as far back as Greek Hellenic, Roman, Hammurapi, & Ashokan times. Are you going to say those laws had no religious component.

The more offensive things you say about a particular religion the more you give them a reason to move to a more exclusive position. Missionary activity in India was fairly desultory and haphazard till Graham Staines. Remember him. That incident served as a rallying point of Christian activity in India. He is considered a Martyr now by many diocese. Twice in the past year the Church I go to here in Massaland had a prayer service to remember him and raise money for his 'mission'. My Church in TN has a Sunday sale every January. Right after Pongal celebrations. I won't tell you how much money was raised, it might shock people here.

Till that point the Christian faith was gradually turning more vernacular and localized. In fact there were constant fears the Christianity was gradually blending in. Too much inter-marriage and people moving abroad, Esp. the young. Not any more. The youth groups are being more aggressive and fearless. They don't listen to the 'older' geezers anymore. The anti-conversion law has made it almost impossible to slow down the youth approach to it as a 'challenge'. Young pastors, Esp. the vernacular kind, look at it as a cause to martyr themselves for.

The moment you go outside the Constitution you will be going to an extreme position by default. This excuses extreme behavior from other quarters.

I did not say we need to go out of the "Constitution" - but that this particular Constitution has already dug its own grave by accepting religious identity claims based distinctions in its citizens. Moreover, it has treated some religions as "extra equal" compared to others. It has strengthened the powers of particular religious systems leaders onlee - by selectively accepting their exclusivity claims.

Staines was an error on whoever did it. Or maybe not - sometimes provocations can be carefully arranged knowing that the other side would not have the maturity not to fall for the trap. There are similar cases from the "other side" in the "deep south" of "religious liberation from supposed darkness of pagan torture" -which are quickly suppressed so that the corresponding faith-organizations do not get exposed. What happened with Staines was that whoever fell for the trap - failed to realize the real character of the existing rashtra - that similar behaviour from the other side would never make it to the courts, through the police, and into the media. Whereas from the "hated" side - it would instantly be meted out with justice.

Do you think that this contrast in treatment works well for the future of favoured religious organizations? What you are saying for youth of particular "denominations" is not new - I have seen it in many parts of lower GV, way before Staines, and the NE. It does not wait for and never waited for a Staines. The "fear" of indigenization that you meant was the real cause of this move - and we are aware of the steps and instructions sent out to tackle this. I think I have mentioned this long before in some thread - and many of my church contacts are not entirely happy with this, but they could "disappear" if they came out. Because I have come face to face with the underlying "jighangsa" of all the three "churches" - the Islamist, EJ and the Maoist, and know how they dispose off opposition or dissent and what their external support bases are, I am amused whenever I hear of their "peaceful" and onlee supposedly "reactive" nature. Dont worry - I think the same of Anandamargis.

But again, Theo ji - you are a reasonable and foresighted man. In spite of accusations of group-think on the forum - I think you and I have disproved that in the Libyan thread or the nuke threads. Just for a moment think of the reverse effect - of unequal treatment. A point will come when the "provocation" angle will go beyond control of those who planned the game. The situation is fluid, and what appears to be a solid support base may actually prove to be elusive. I know of several dissenting trends that could eventually tear the whole movement apart along the eastern coast. God's own country will be the only refuge then.

Opposition to EJ and Islamist political ambitions as they have been protected and nurtured and enhanced under Constitutional sanction from Nehruvian discrimination on religious reform to Shah Bano and Ayodhya and Tasleema - could come from a very non-religious position too. But comments like "Tejo Mahalaaya vaadis" shows that the real target of so-called "shepherding" is the "eliminationism" on another supposed religion.

But are we not moving away from the topic?

[Agnimitra]

India is also the home of many religions and philosophy. Hinduism is also the stability for the country and is the basis of the balanced constitution. The false sense of secular politics will not last long and has to be replaced by an Indian version. Foriegn interpretation of Indian things will be taken out.

+1
"Hinduism" is a cultural context which has evolved with time so that various competing schools and subcultures could operate "safely" within it, without crashing the civilization. The last line above is the real semantic issue.

[svinayak]

India is also the home of many religions and philosophy. Hinduism is also the stability for the country and is the basis of the balanced constitution. The false sense of secular politics will not last long and has to be replaced by an Indian version. Foriegn interpretation of Indian things will be taken out.

+1
"Hinduism" is a cultural context which has evolved with time so that various competing schools and subcultures could operate "safely" within it, without crashing the civilization. The last line above is the real semantic issue.

Also the constitution is not a secular system and has the Indian religion with the Ashoka symbol and stupas as the image of the Indian constitution.

The western media created hysteria of the conversion and the grievance will be exposed and the public will become aware of the massive global system of EJs

[brihaspati]

Also the constitution is not a secular system and has the Indian religion with the Ashoka symbol and stupas as the image of the Indian constitution.

The western media created hysteria of the conversion and the grievance will be exposed and the public will become aware of the massive global system of EJs

As for Ashoka-symbol, that also has deeper controversial aspects - and has been discussed in the issue of the flag elsewhere on the forum. How can you select just one part of the supposedly many strands of the Indic and use that to represent "all"? But again, are we not going OT?

[brihaspati]

http://www.publicgood.org/reports/belief/
A dated, but a good intro.

Consulting encyclopedias of religious sects show that America -- and the Los Angeles region in particular -- has produced more religions, sects and cults than any other region of the world. Some minority beliefs can become vastly more influential than mere numbers alone would suggest.

One such religion is Christian Identity. Incorporated in Los Angeles in 1948, Wesley Swift's Church of Jesus Christ Christian was initially an racist sect which became Christian Identity. Christian Patriots see themselves as godly people fighting a satanic conspiracy. The central belief in Identity doctrine is the existence of two races on earth: a godly white race descended from Adam and a satanic race fathered by Satan.

Swift, a Klan leader and preacher at Amy Semple McPherson's Foursquare Church in Los Angles, was never able to make much of a success out of his doctrine, but it attracted several people who became central to what was later named "Christian Identity": San Jacinto Capt, William Potter Gale and Richard Girnt Butler.

Capt was a California Klan leader and a believer in British Israelism, a doctrine which holds that the Israelites of the Bible are not the Jews, but rather Aryan/Anglo-Saxons. Gale was a stock-broker and former Army officer who briefly served on Gen. MacArthur's staff in the Philippines. Gale in turn recruited Butler to Swift's church during the 1950's. In 1970, Swift died, triggering a dispute between Gale and Butler. Ultimately, Butler assumed control and moved the church to Idaho, where he renamed it Aryan Nations - Church of Jesus Christ Christian.

The function of religion in the lives of these four men was to provide a theological justification for their racism and anti-Semitism. Stated another way, racism and anti-Semitism were their religion.

[svinayak]

How can you select just one part of the supposedly many strands of the Indic and use that to represent "all"? But again, are we not going OT?

That is just the beginning and to show the centrality of the Indian civilization identity to the Indian constitution.

[Pranav]

The more offensive things you say about a particular religion the more you give them a reason to move to a more exclusive position. Missionary activity in India was fairly desultory and haphazard till Graham Staines. Remember him. That incident served as a rallying point of Christian activity in India. He is considered a Martyr now by many diocese. Twice in the past year the Church I go to here in Massaland had a prayer service to remember him and raise money for his 'mission'. My Church in TN has a Sunday sale every January. Right after Pongal celebrations. I won't tell you how much money was raised, it might shock people here.

Till that point the Christian faith was gradually turning more vernacular and localized. In fact there were constant fears the Christianity was gradually blending in. Too much inter-marriage and people moving abroad, Esp. the young. Not any more. The youth groups are being more aggressive and fearless. They don't listen to the 'older' geezers anymore. The anti-conversion law has made it almost impossible to slow down the youth approach to it as a 'challenge'. Young pastors, Esp. the vernacular kind, look at it as a cause to martyr themselves for.

As regards the glorification of "martyrs", the following excerpt from a recent piece by Rajiv Malhotra (author of Breaking India) may be interesting:

The Dangerous Idea of Martyrdom

A martyr’s death was considered “baptism in blood,” cleansing him of sin. Parallels were drawn between Jesus’ sacrifice and that of martyrs to the extent that martyrs were even seen to have stored up an excess of grace in a kind of “account of merit” on which the Church could draw. Early Christians venerated martyrs as powerful intercessors, and their utterances were believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. The lives of the martyrs became a source of inspiration, and Christian chronicles of subsequent periods often exaggerated the persecutions. Kirsch writes that “the most bloodcurdling examples of torture originated in the imaginations of monks who sat safely in their cells and entertained themselves by inventing extravagant and indecent fictions.” The bloodiest suffering thus turned into a fetish.

Martyrs continue to be glorified today. The Joshua Project, based in Denver, Colorado, is a multi-billion-dollar global enterprise whose stated aim is the conversion of all humans to Christianity. The end seems to justify the means. One of its tactics is to publicize long lists of martyrs from the earliest Christians to the present. The lists are chronologically organized by country and district. For example, there is a continually updated list of names said to identify martyrs in any given district of India, and this heroism is publicized as a mark of honor for the local villages to emulate. This database is a veritable machine for generating misinformation about Christian deaths that could be blamed on others. What is rarely reported in the international media is that in most incidents of violence it is the Christian missionaries who cast the first stone, and in many of the incidents the Christians were killed by other Christians or for reasons unrelated to religion.

http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/06 ... rajiv.html

You mention all those aggressive young Christian pastors who are getting all fired up by the Staines incident. The unfortunate thing is that these folks are becoming useful idiots for foreign elites, such as those who are funding the Joshua Project. In all these prayer services for Staines, I suppose the murder of Laxmanananda by Christian Naxalites would find no mention?

Historically, the most well known alleged "martyrdom" incident in India is that of Saint Thomas who was supposedly killed by a Brahmin at Mylapore in Chennai. In actuality, there is no evidence that the said Thomas ever set foot in India, and the whole story appears to be a fabrication. The Church that stands on the site was built on the ruins of a demolished temple. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/25567894/1995 ... war-Sharan)

Here is a video of an excellent talk by Iain Buchanan, focusing particularly on World Vision -

Evangelicals in U.S. Imperialism - http://vimeo.com/14966663

[brihaspati]

How can you select just one part of the supposedly many strands of the Indic and use that to represent "all"? But again, are we not going OT?

That is just the beginning and to show the centrality of the Indian civilization identity to the Indian constitution.

Or a deliberate attempt at pinning one particular religion's image on "India" while consciously displacing other claimants.

[svinayak]

Or a deliberate attempt at pinning one particular religion's image on "India" while consciously displacing other claimants.

Fair enough but who can come close to the claim

[Manish_Sharma]

^^Brihaspati ji, I remember talking to a sikh friend last year regarding the drama that happened against "Dera Saccha Sauda" guru and all the violence with it. He said it was important to make all these "Deras" be defined as enemies so that no more sikhs convert to them. Suppose somebody is a sikh but was going to come across one of these gurus, be impressed and become a follower, due to this incident already he would start seeing them as enemies eating into sikh numbers.

What can be the way for indics to create a similar but non violent incidents so that already the indics start seeing the whole thing as "us" vs "them"?

Just finished reading Rajiv Malhotra's "Breaking India", situations seems so hopeless and dark. I mean even Bharatnatyam is being hijacked as christian.

And christian SCs are threatening non-christian SCs that they'll be removed from the list if they don't convert.

[sanjaykumar]

Sigh.

I believe the point is somewhat lost on heathens. There is no possible way that you can defend your faith, beliefs or culture against the Borg. Your heritage is positively repugnant and demonstrably evil to god's chosen people.

Yes try arguing the subtleties of Vedanta and you will have them rolling in the aisles, try the-each-his-own marg and they will be praying for you.

In India you will hear the Borg masquerading as liberals and libertines-the appeal is to human rights. There is no possible defense to this approach. However this does indeed suggest a more appropriate defense strategy.

The Borg are in fact atavistic and hence arch-conservatives. Humanism is anathema. Dinosaurs may be profitably engaged by small mammals if they are quick and resourceful in going for the vulnerable flank areas.

I suggest a careful examination of the Borg's home world. A most fruitful area of research is the question of the soul's flavour. It would appear the Borg believe that darker hued souls are destined for a particular heaven whereas the lighter hued ones are privileged to sit closer to the head Borg at such time. It is possible that martyrs from India bypass these restrictions. I am sure this is a benign system deigned to to avoid miscegenation in the Borg heaven. Not at all like that horrid caste system.

[brihaspati]

Friends, give me some time to respond. As I said, provocations are not bad - if the intended target knows how to turn it around back on the provocateur. I am not sure the "don't defend and don't protest ideological aggression because then you cannot win over the aggressor" was a well thought out provocation. I seriously want to get back to the topic - so let us start with this :

http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/inter ... 524855-all

Evangelical Christianity: Devils in high places
Published: Sunday, Mar 27, 2011, 2:00 IST
By Yogesh Pawar | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA

In his explosive new book The Armies Of God: A Study In Militant Christianity, British-born, Malaysia-based academic Iain Buchanan blows the lid off a subject that most scholars and journalists tend to shy away from: the rise of US evangelism as a force in global affairs.

His book looks at how some of the powerful evangelical outfits operate — often as US government proxies — in countries such as Indonesia, Thailand, and of course, India, and the disastrous effects this has had on the relationship between the Christian West and non-Christian cultures, religious communities and nations. He also unmasks the role played by the seemingly secular ‘success motivation’ industry, and its leadership gurus such as Zig Ziglar and Ken Blachard, who are not only management experts but also conscious agents of US-style Christian evangelism.
[...]
in the West, inherently decent things like liberal secularism and Christian spirituality (no necessary conflict here!) [my italics - he himself illustrates his contention of how christiano-secularism sets the parameters of expression] are so deeply corrupted by political power and so dishonestly vaunted as marks of cultural superiority.
[...]
Western culture is a deeply, subliminally Christian culture, and even committed secularists have trouble avoiding Christian parameters in their arguments, and recognising the Christian capacity for wrong-doing. Among other things, this leads to a rather benign view of the behaviour of our missionaries overseas — fed partly by ignorance, and partly by a sense that the Christian mission can be equated with civilisation. And such myopia has increased dramatically over the past 40 years, as the secular West has managed to define a global order largely in its own terms, with decisive help from its Christian missionaries.
[...]
Academics who have attempted to study the work of missionaries in India have been accused of helping the right-wing Hindutva brigade. Has this been your experience too?
The glib response to this would be to say that religious extremism of any kind needs to be exposed. But it is more complex than this. There is a need to go beyond the purely religious objection to Christian missionising, and examine the global forces which define it, and which are subverting countries like India in a far more comprehensive and profound way than most people realise.

A key contention of my book is that the extremism of Christian evangelicals is no more benign than the extremism found in non-Christian religious groups. Indeed, its local impact can be hugely destructive — precisely because of its ability to draw upon a vast global network of forces (including powerful secular ones), and its ability to penetrate and shape local forces, whether they be ethnic, religious, political, or social, according to alien priorities.
[...]
But there is no doubt at all that US strategy makes deliberate (and somewhat cynical) use of Christian agencies in pursuit of foreign policy — and that the distinction between the religious and the secular is deliberately blurred in the process. There are over 600 US-based evangelical groups, some as big as large corporations, and between them they constitute a vast and highly organised network of global influence, purposefully targeting non-Christians, and connecting and subverting every sector of life in the process.

Most of the major evangelical corporations (like World Vision, Campus Crusade, Youth with a Mission, and Samaritan’s Purse) operate in partnership with the US government in its pursuit of foreign policy goals. World Vision, which is effectively an arm of the State Department, is perhaps the most notable example of this. There is also the benefit of a custom-built legislation, with the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 providing necessary sanction to bring errant nations into line.

This means that evangelisation is an intensely secular pursuit, as well as a religious one. In turn, of course, the secular powers, whether they be departments of state or corporate businesses, find such evangelicals to be very effective partners.
[...]
But there are many cases, too, of evangelical missions which go into tribal areas with little respect for local realities, and with an agenda far removed from tribal welfare. In this, they may be no better and no worse than the home-grown oppressor. But there is an important difference. Such missionaries often belong to an evangelical network whose strategic purpose is defined elsewhere, and which has little loyalty to the local population, its cultures, its communities, and its welfare, let alone to the nation as a whole. This is particularly true of the new breed of US-inspired evangelicals, led by Baptists and Pentecostalist/Charismatics, who have spearheaded evangelisation over the past 50 years. It is the working of this wider, and self-consciously global, structure of behaviour which is of concern.
[...]
For the new evangelicals, distaste for paganism is just part of the equation — oppressed tribal groups are a relatively easy target to penetrate in a much wider war against non-Christians generally, and for influence in strategic (especially border) areas. In this respect, even a relatively long-established Christian presence — as in Nagaland — has utility as a strategic outpost.
[...]
It certainly seems, sometimes, that evangelicals thrive on suffering and disaster. India’s own KP Yohannan, for example, welcomed the tsunami of 2004 as “one of the greatest opportunities God has given us to share His love with people” — and he was only one of many expressing such sentiments. There is no question that many evangelicals exploit the poor and marginalised for reasons which have a lot to do with narrow theology and political self-interest, and relatively little to do with long-term practical help.

But evangelicals court the wealthy and the powerful of a society with equal passion. One of the most telling features of the new evangelism is the way it has turned Christianity into a force for protecting the rich and powerful. US Protestantism, in particular, has worked hard to undermine the impulse in the church towards social justice and reform. A measure of its success has been the defeat of Liberation Theology and the remarkable expansion of US Pentecostalism in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. More than a quarter of all Christians now belong to Pentecostalist and Charismatic churches.

In these, as in most new evangelical churches, great attention is paid to a ‘theology’ of economics which stresses individual profit, corporate obedience, the sanctity of making money, and the power of “miracles, signs, and wonders.”This ‘theology’ is a key part of modern imperialism: it offers something to both rich and poor, it is safely counter-revolutionary, and it ties tightly into the wider global network of more secular influences (in business, government, education, the media, the military) which underpins Western expansion.

Now the claims of being able to marshal such ideological violence and "eliminationism" all into a nice and comfortable "secular" Indic framework are interesting : if only historical attempts did not already prove the utter failure of this particular "integrative/syncretic" section to grasp the essential politico-military imperial nature of the religion in question.

How do people think we can provide a space for the following sentiments within Indic==oh-we-must-integrate-always-integrate-at-any-cost-and-whatever-concession-be-needed? And this is actually far milder than things I have heard in desh - in "special" inner congregations! Cannot say more here.

A recent issue of the Texas-based magazine, Gospel For Asia, says: “The Indian sub-continent with one billion people, is a living example of what happens when Satan rules the entire culture... India is one vast purgatory in which millions of people .... are literally living a cosmic lie! Could Satan have devised a more perfect system for causing misery?” How and why does such propaganda work in a developed country like the US in the era of the Internet and the media?

[brihaspati]

Actually the "more offensive things" angle is also interesting - because the EJ's seem to be getting away with abusing to the n-th degree and still gaining "converts"?

[brihaspati]

Or a deliberate attempt at pinning one particular religion's image on "India" while consciously displacing other claimants.

Fair enough but who can come close to the claim

Historical reconstructed identities are oh-so-bad and naughty - cannot ever adopt them. But then why adopt a historical claimed identity that no longer is the majority, or has a dominant, defining/characterizing presence -that truly, if ever, existed onlee in the past - and not now- in the all important "present"!

[sanjaykumar]

Ah yes the ever suffering Indoo-perpetually, tiresomely, outraged, "this is what they say".

The only liberation an Indoo needs is the knowledge that he may have to suffer Satan but he need not suffer fools.

[RamaY]

Historical reconstructed identities are oh-so-bad and naughty - cannot ever adopt them. But then why adopt a historical claimed identity that no longer is the majority, or has a dominant, defining/characterizing presence -that truly, if ever, existed onlee in the past - and not now- in the all important "present"!

It is due to a confused mindset that is struck between self-assertion and deracination. Something like "I am afraid of self-assertion, so I will go with a middle-path", same as "compromise even if it is not fair".

[brihaspati]

http://expressbuzz.com/magazine/sex-lie ... 17213.html
Here is one side of the story of this western religious imperialism and its effects on societies: and what he is saying is very much the story.

Shibu was a priest with the Vincentian order till March this year. Like Sr Jesme, he quit the priesthood and has written a 160-page book, Here is the Heart of a Priest, in which he talks about his experiences during his 24 years in the congregation. The most stunning revelations are the incidents of sexual misconduct. “If a woman has financial problems and is desperate, she will approach the priest,” says Shibu. “He will help her, but ask for sex in exchange. She gives in because she has no option.” Similarly, priests take advantage of widows, troubled women, and nuns.

“Most nuns are sexually frustrated,” says Shibu. “To lead a celibate life is unnatural.” Initially, they try to leave. But the older nuns persuade them that it’s not necessary, because things will get better in the future. “Since the elder nuns are trapped, they want to ensure that others also remain like them,” says Shibu. “Nobody is allowed to escape.” So the young nuns look for safe ways to have sex. “It is either through priests, servants, drivers, or the milkman,” says Shibu. “There are cases of nuns caught red-handed, but the matter is quickly hushed up. And the nun is transferred immediately.”

In the priestly life, sexual misconduct starts early. “Sexual abuse is rampant in the seminaries,” says Shibu. Since it is a dormitory system, it is easy for a boy to manipulate or exploit another boy for sex. “They have no other forms of entertainment, like watching films,” he says. “Neither do they have any contact with the opposite sex.” Shibu, who was a prefect in a seminary, has caught students in the act many times. “They are immediately sent away,” he says. “Sometimes, a few boys escape being caught and carry on their activities long after they have become priests.”

Apart from sex, money is a big attraction. “Nobody knows how much donation a priest receives in the name of helping the poor,” says Shibu. “The priest also gets cash gifts from parishioners after he blesses a new car or a home. The money can range from Rs 500 to Rs 1 lakh.”

He remembers the case of a businessman who gave Rs 1 lakh to a priest because he had conducted the baptism ceremony of his son. “The priest kept the money instead of giving it to the congregation,” says Shibu. Usually, they buy electronic goods, a car, insurance policies, or invest in shares and real estate. “Priests are so busy making money, that being a priest has become a secondary role,” he says. “But I heard allegations that the same thing is happening among pujaris and maulvis. I feel disheartened.”

But there were other reasons why Fr Shibu decided to quit. He had an MA in Sociology from the University of Pune, MEd from the Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, but was not given jobs commensurate with his qualifications. “The authorities wanted loyalists. They will not promote the meritorious, because they are afraid their positions could get shaky.” So he had to face the humiliation of seeing juniors appointed principals, while he was given a job as a teacher.

The priests in his congregation are aware of what is happening, but are afraid to speak out. “I thought to myself, ‘Why should I remain silent’?” he says. “I joined the priesthood because I wanted to serve God and serve humanity. But I was unable to do so. If I wanted I could have made a lot of money and led a very comfortable life. But I know that these compromises will prick at my conscience. So I thought it was better to quit.”
[...]
In person, Shibu comes across as straight-forward and intense, but under mental strain. A person close to him, but who does not wish to be identified, says he is under a lot of pressure from the Vincentians and also his own family, who are devout Catholics. They are displeased with him for writing the book and talking to the media. So, Shibu left.

He now works as a teacher of social science in an Indian school at Doha, Qatar. Shibu himself admits that the road ahead is tough. “But I have courage, determination, and the will to succeed,” he says.

His future plans include marriage and setting up a short-stay home for priests who want to leave the priesthood. “Initially, when they leave, they are not accepted by family or society,” says Shibu. “They go through a tough time. I will provide a room, with an attached bath, as well as a kitchen. A job will also be arranged.”

Asked whether Sr Jesme served as an inspiration, Shibu says, “Yes, her example was an impetus. What Jesme said is the truth, but it has not been accepted by the church. But there is one thing I can say with certainty: truth cannot be concealed forever. One day it will come out.”

[brihaspati]

Any recent update on Father Gasper Raj? Has he managed to switch over? what happens to him will be an important illustration about the character of the rashtra now! He is another important example of what Christian fundamentalism from the west is really about and what it means for us.

[brihaspati]

Another intro from within a marginal Christian critique :
http://www.discernment-ministries.org/C ... ialism.htm

For the past several decades the political Left has focused attention on the Christian Right’s political activism in America. Particularly, the Left has been highly critical of a select group of dominionists called Reconstructionists, whose aggressive verbiage, extreme Calvinist theologies, and religious political agendas have made it an ideal target for outrage. But, as Leftist researcher Sara Diamond has astutely observed, “the Reconstructionists’ religion of Calvinism. . . makes them unlikely to appeal to most evangelicals.”4 Indeed, few Reconstructionists would consider themselves to be evangelicals. Nevertheless, their influence has been considerable over the much larger group of patriotic evangelicals.

There are two other dominionist sects within evangelicalism that have escaped in-depth scrutiny from the Left. These dominionists have been able to function virtually incognito for several reasons: 1) They have been deeply embedded within the evangelical subculture; 2) They cloaked their dominionism with new terminologies and doctrines over a period of thirty years; and 3) They figured out how to package dominionism using sophisticated mass marketing techniques. Also noteworthy: these two other dominionist camps have been operating in a dialectical fashion – while one group appealed to the TBN charismatics with all of its emotional excesses, the other group carefully managed its more intellectual public image to conform to traditional evangelical standards.

This paper is a brief overview of the three main dominionist movements operating inside evangelicaldom and examines how all three of these sects are now converging around a global “kingdom” agenda. This paper is not a treatise on doctrine, nor is it an historical record, nor is it a thorough analysis of the multifarious streams of evangelical dominionism. This paper does not cover the broader issue of dominionist sects within other world religions, except for a few brief noteworthy mentions. To examine the totality of the individuals, the organizations, and their cross-linkages would require an exhaustive study which is beyond the scope of this brief synopsis. Even so, every point made in this paper could be validated by dozens, sometimes hundreds, of pieces of documentation. The inquiring reader may check out the footnotes and references.

this paper is written from within the christian interest position, but still points out the problematic aspects - as acutely as any insider factional opponent would do.

[Theo_Fidel]

Bji,

That is weak logic. If a document is biased one way or other based on your opinion, then every single Religious text would find itself barred for discriminating against this community or the other. At the time the documents were written this might have been accepted practice, but the world changes and what was acceptable is no longer so. The Constitution is superior as in it can be amended and changed. WRT religious thought only interpretation changes are possible. Hence the present conflict.

I would not address the Constitution of India as no longer living as in 'dug its own grave'. This is very offensive. Weakens your contribution and arguments. It may not seem much to you but others are sworn to uphold it. Certainly to the many Soldiers I know, esp. within my family. I've been chewed out for far less.

WRT the mission activity, it was always present but at funding and focus was relatively limited. Esp. local funding for mission pastors was relatively limited. Now the funding is out of this world. The point of view presented internally was to forgive Ravindra Pal but watch what the government did. First the Death penalty was declined. For burning two little children to death and watching them scream and burn and preventing others from saving them. Next ABV essentially stated that the problem was conversion. Internally this got translated into, "Apparently they deserved it". Finally the killer blow was Gladys Staines publicly forgiving the killers. This not in any way a justification for bad behavior. This is just how it is being projected internally.

The key thing to remember is that the Majority of Christians in India are now extremely lower class and highly discriminated against. This story plays in a very powerful way to them. They are different from the relatively longer term Christians. We will have to see how it all turns out.

Acharya,

I want to ask you. If you think we should go back to 'first principles' should we not then follow the ideas of Ancient Meluha.

[svinayak]

Acharya,

I want to ask you. If you think we should go back to 'first principles' should we not then follow the ideas of Ancient Meluha.

Not needed. India is a civilization.

[brihaspati]

Theo ji,
It may appear weak to you - but sociological experience suggests that once distinctive identities are acknowledged who also have special exlcusivist claims on those who do not belong to their identity, as well as on their own members - such identities almost never wither away. This is what has happened with the Constitution - since once it started recognizing such special "subgroups" with the assurance that it was onlee meant for a short time. But we have never been able to roll them back since then.

In an era of increasingly globalized political-military-financial networked influence patterns, every such created distinct exclusive identity is a potential goldmine for external interests, and they in turn will ensure that these identities never will fritter away.

So theoretically possible yes - but no, the Constitution in its current form with rashtryia continuity, will never really be amenable to roll back special status of exclusivist claims. If the tensions increase because of that, what do you think will be seen as the primary obstacle - the Constitution! By using the Constitution to selectively pamper religions or ideologies, our political legacy has weakened it to the degree that at some future time point the frustrations of an entire nation may look at it as the main legalistic mantle behind which imperialism flourishes.

Again, I frankly said whoever went against Staines - was in error. I think "error" is the most common term used to describe similar incidents when they happen from EJ or Islamist sources. The community is not responsible. The faith system is not responsible. Actually no one is responsible except the person actually involved. That seems to be the general line. I condemn such errors, and I fully sympathize with Staines family. I know the aggressive abusing that is employed in "preaching" first hand - and so I can understand the possible "provocation" or imagination of provocation. But do you also see why and how the years of subtle justification and ideological apologetics of reacting against "provocation/inflammatory speeches/intolerant words" - have done? It is not about "them deserving it", but more so the "method" which the prosleytizers and their supporters themselves established as apologetics and justification for their own activities.

Moreover, are we not casting doubts on the Indian judicial system if we talk so about the results of cases related to Staines? So you see, whenever any religion's interests are not being apparently served, we do consider the possibility that the rashtra might be biased or already subverted in favour of special subgroups. The Constitutional guarantees do not dispel our suspicions. That is a crucial pointer to the Constitution's weakness.

My point was actually rather different - and I have written about this long ago. It was about the rashtra not allowing any religious leadership or infrastructure stand and mediate between the rashtra and its citizens. There cannot be a third person between this intimate relationship between the two. My discussion was really an attempt to try to go back to the topic of christian fundamentalism and the west.