Husky, by the time I removed my post (which I did before I saw your response) to send it as PM to you, it is already late. So clarifications in order.
christianity = christian-ism = christoterrorism : both the ideological framework and its consistent past record, repeated many times and at many places, would attest to this. no doubt here.
my problem is only in assuming that all the people who appear to be following that religion also truely follow or consciously agree to its ideology. that is my trouble here - people, and not ideology.
The ideology is that which is evil, but what about the people who are by chance, by accident, by fraud, or due to lack of choice (such as being born to such parents?), forced to living in a religion of that ideology? That is my problem.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->some good individuals as 'examples' of how the religion in itself *cannot* be bad<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
no, no. my problem is not this. my problem is those 'good' individuals DESPITE (not because of) the religion. But as they do exist, as they continue within that religion for whatever reason - ignorant about its true nature, or unable to realize it completey, or not having enough courage, or just a momentum of inertia, or many other reasons - the confusion with me really is, how does one avoid targeting these people. And you are right, they may be unreal followers, far from their "true faith" which this ideology envisages, and eventually targets to re-convert into true faith, and yet, there is still nothing against them.
Wanting to fight the ideology without targeting these people. not possible?
One way, I think, is to target the ideology, along with specifically targeting (not literally) those people, past and present, who consciously and knowingly stand by, support or promote, that ideology, and at the same time, showing friendship towards the people who are accidentally there, not knowing where they really are, or if knowing not corageous to do anything about it.
So that was my only problem, a generalization of a group into one -"Indian Christians" - which includes people who are by compulsion in it, or by mistake, and certainly display the opposite traits than the generalizations often aims to show. Yet, the ideology, and its impacts on India, despite these people, might very well be generalized.
christianity = christian-ism = christoterrorism : both the ideological framework and its consistent past record, repeated many times and at many places, would attest to this. no doubt here.
my problem is only in assuming that all the people who appear to be following that religion also truely follow or consciously agree to its ideology. that is my trouble here - people, and not ideology.
The ideology is that which is evil, but what about the people who are by chance, by accident, by fraud, or due to lack of choice (such as being born to such parents?), forced to living in a religion of that ideology? That is my problem.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->some good individuals as 'examples' of how the religion in itself *cannot* be bad<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
no, no. my problem is not this. my problem is those 'good' individuals DESPITE (not because of) the religion. But as they do exist, as they continue within that religion for whatever reason - ignorant about its true nature, or unable to realize it completey, or not having enough courage, or just a momentum of inertia, or many other reasons - the confusion with me really is, how does one avoid targeting these people. And you are right, they may be unreal followers, far from their "true faith" which this ideology envisages, and eventually targets to re-convert into true faith, and yet, there is still nothing against them.
Wanting to fight the ideology without targeting these people. not possible?
One way, I think, is to target the ideology, along with specifically targeting (not literally) those people, past and present, who consciously and knowingly stand by, support or promote, that ideology, and at the same time, showing friendship towards the people who are accidentally there, not knowing where they really are, or if knowing not corageous to do anything about it.
So that was my only problem, a generalization of a group into one -"Indian Christians" - which includes people who are by compulsion in it, or by mistake, and certainly display the opposite traits than the generalizations often aims to show. Yet, the ideology, and its impacts on India, despite these people, might very well be generalized.