The idea of starting this thread is to gather opinions and views as to how we could effectively preserve the vedic culture and develop an action plan that will enable us to combat the degeneration of our customs and traditions under the attack of the urban pseudo - cable culture of globalization having not only changed our social behavior but also gradually alienating us from our roots .Any ideas and suggestions are welcome in containing this trend .It will build distinction from what is real understanding of the Saanaathana Dharma and what has been diluted by interpolation by bigots and anti – Brahmins .I intent to sponsor a Patshala that will take the best of the suggestions here.The following work really made me sit up and think as why we remain so passive to threats


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Book Coming Soon

Crimes Against India

And The Need to Protect its Ancient Vedic Tradition

1000 Years of Attacks on Hinduism And What to do About it

by Stephen Knapp



India is a most resilient country, and is presently becoming a great economic power in the world. It also has one of the oldest and dynamic cultures the world has ever known, but few people seem to understand the many trials and difficulties that the country has faced, or the present problems India is still forced to deal with in preserving the culture of the majority Hindus who live in the country. This is described in the real history of the country, which a decreasing number of people seem to recall.

Therefore, this book is to honor the efforts that have been shown by those in the past who fought and worked to protect India and its culture, and to help preserve India as the homeland of a living and dynamic Vedic tradition of Sanatana-dharma (the eternal path of duty and wisdom).

There are also many people who do not know of the many angles and ways in which this profound heritage is being attacked and threatened today, and what we can do about it. There is much to do to protect this culture, and until we are aware of how it has been assaulted in the past, and how it is threatened in the present, we will not have the motivation to take a stand and defend it.



Therefore, we should carefully understand:

· How there is presently a war against Hinduism and its yoga culture.

· The weaknesses of India that allowed invaders to conquer her.

· Lessons from India’s real history that should not be forgotten.

· The atrocities committed by the Muslim invaders, and how they tried to destroy Vedic culture and its many temples, and slaughtered thousands of Indian Hindus.

· How the British viciously exploited India and its people for its resources.

· How the cruelest of all Christian Inquisitions in Goa tortured and killed thousands of Hindus.

<b>· Action plans for preserving and strengthening Vedic India today.</b>

<b>· How all Hindus and concerned people must stand up and be strong for protecting the universal spiritual traditions of Vedic culture. </b>


In the darkest of eras that this world has seen and will see in the future, the Vedic tradition, the culture of yoga, will remain India’s gift to the people who inhabit this planet. It is this spiritual culture of Sanatana-dharma that remains the spiritual guide of humanity. This is the reason why India is here, and for the contribution that she makes, and the reason why we must work to protect it.

[Three Part Series]

<span style='color:red'>The Cure for Terrorism is Virat Brihad Hindutva </span>

<b>Part I</b>

<i>Subramanian Swamy (Nov. 2008)</i>


What does the despicable terror and mayhem in Mumbai on November 26th signify for India? Shorn of the human tragedy, wanton destruction, and obnoxious audacity of the terrorists, it signifies a challenge to the identity of India from radical Islam. Cinema actor Shahrukh Khan may wax eloquent about the "true Islam" on TV, but it is clear that he and other such Muslims have not read any authoritative translations of the Koran, Sira and Hadith which three together constitute Islam as a theology, and which is a complete menu of intolerance of peoples of other faiths derisively labeled as kafirs. Hence instead of talking about the "correct interpretation" of Islam they ought instead be urging for a new Islamic theology consistent with democratic principles.

In 2003, two years after the 9/11 murderous and perfidious Islamic assault on USA, resulting in killing of more than 3000 persons within two hours, and which was perpetrated by leveraging the democratic freedoms in USA, the Saudi Arabian Embassy in the website of its Islamic Affairs Department [www.iad.org] laid down what a "good" Muslim is expected to do. Dr. Steven Stalinsky of the Middle East Media Research Institute [MEMRI] based in Washington DC accessed it and published it in issue No.23, of the Institute newsletter, dated November 26 [what irony!] 2003. I have to thank a NRI in US, Dr. Muthuswamy for this reference. In that site it is stated:

" The Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world, to remove all forms of injustice and oppression, and to defend the Muslims. If Muslims do not take up the sword, the evil tyrants of this earth will be able to continue oppressing the weak and helpless"

Now who is more authoritative—Sharukh Khan or Saudi Arabia ? Obviously the latter.The above quote is what in substance is being taught in every madrassa in India, and can be traced back to the sayings of Prophet Mohammed. I can quote a plethora of verses from a Saudi Arabian translated Koran [e.g., verses 8:12, 8:60, and 33:26] which verses justify brutal violence against non-believers. If I delved into Sira and Hadith for more quotes, then I could risk generating much hatred, so it will suffice to say that Islam is not only a theology, but it spans a brutal political ideology which we have to combat sooner or later in realm of ideas.

Some may quote back at me verses from Manusmriti about brutality to women and scheduled castes. But as a Hindu I have the liberty to disown these verses [since it is a Smriti] and even to seek to re-write a new smriti as many, for example, Yajnavalkya have done to date. Reform and renaissance is thus inbuilt into Hinduism. But in Islam, the word of the Prophet is final. Sharukh Khan and other gloss artists cannot disown these verses, or say that they would re-write the offensive verses of the Koran. If they do, then they would have to run for their lives as Rushdie and Taslima have had to do. Leave alone re-writing, if anyone draws a cartoon of Prophet Mohammed, there will follow world-wide violent rioting. But if Hussein draws Durga in the most pornographic posture, the Hindus will only groan but not violently rampage.

We Hindus have a long recognized tradition of being religious liberals by nature. We have already proved it enough by welcoming to our country and nurturing Parsis, Jews, Syrian Christians, and Moplah Muslim Arabs who were persecuted elsewhere, when we were 100% Hindu country.

Moreover, despite a 1000 years of most savage brutalization of Hindus by Islamic invaders and self-demeaning brain washing by the Christians, even then, Hindus as a majority have adopted secularism as a creed. We have not asked for an apology and compensation for these atrocities. But the position of Hindus in this land of Bharatmata, where Muslims and Christians locally are in majority, in pockets---such as in Kashmir and Nagaland, or in small enclaves such as town panchayats of Tamil Nadu, is terrible and despicable. Even in Kerala where Hindus are 52% of the population, they have only 25% of all the prime jobs in the state, and are silently suffering their plight at the hands of 48% who vote as a vote bank. .

The 26/11Mumbai slaughter therefore should teach us Hindus that the time has come to wake up and stand up—it is now or never. If we do not stand up now to Islamic terrorism, then India will end up like Beirut, a permanent battlefield of international terrorists, buccaneers, pirates and missionaries.

What does it mean in the 21st century for Hindus to stand up ? I mean by that a mental clarity of the Hindus to defend themselves by effective deterrent retaliation, and also an intelligent co-option of other religious groups into the Hindu cultural continuum.

Mental clarity can only come if we are clear about the identity of the nation. What is India ? An ancient but continuing civilization or is it a geographical entity incorporated in 1947 by the Indian Independence Act of the British Parliament? What then does it means to say "I am an Indian" ? A mere passport holder of the Republic of India or a descendent of the great seers and visionaries of more than 10,000 years? Obviously our identity should be of a nation of an ancient and continuing Hindu civilization, legatees of great rishis and munis, and a highly sophisticated sanatana philosophy.

If Hindu culture is our defining identity then how can we co-opt non-Hindus, especially Muslims and Christians? By persuading them by saam, dhaan, bheda and dand that they acknowledge with pride the truth that their ancestors are Hindus. If they do, it means that they accept Hindu culture and enlightened mores. That is, change of religion does not mean change of culture. Then we should treat such Muslims and Christians as part of our Brihad Hindu family.

Noted author and editor M.J. Akbar calls this identity as of "Blood Brothers". It is an undeniable fact that Muslims and Christians in India are descendents of Hindus. In a recent article in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, an analysis of genetic samples [DNA] show that Muslims in north India are overwhelmingly of the same DNA as Hindus proving that Muslims here are descendents of Hindus who had been converted to Islam, rather than repositories of foreign DNA deposited by waves of invaders.

Akbar thus asks rhetorically: "When have the Muslims of India gone wrong?" and answers: " When they have forgotten their Indian roots". How apt! Enlightened Muslims like Akbar therefore must rise to the occasion and challenge the reactionary religious fundamentalists. That is India is not Darul harab to be trifled with. In a conciliatory atmosphere the minorities would willingly accept this. It is also in their interest to accept this reality. Hindus must persuade by the time-honoured methods Muslims and Christians to accept this and its logical consequences.

This identity was not understood by us earlier because of the distorted outlook of Jawarharlal Nehru who occupied the Prime Minister's chair for seventeen formative years after 1947 and for narrow political ends, had fanned a separatist outlook in Muslims and Christians.

The failure to date, to resolve this Nehru-created crisis, has not only confused the majority but confounded the minorities as well in India. This confusion has deepened with winter migratory birds such as Amartya Sen descending on the campus of the India International Centre to preach inane taxonomies such as "multiple identities".

There has to be an overriding identity called national identity, and hence we should not be derailed by pedestrian concepts of multiple or sub-identities.

`````````Without a resolution of the identity crisis today, which requires an explicit clear answer to this question of who we are, the majority will never understand how to relate to the legacy of the nation and in turn to the minorities. Minorities would not understand how to adjust with the majority if this identity crisis is not resolved. In other words, the present dysfunctional perceptional mismatch in understanding who we are as a people, is behind most of the communal tension and inter-community distrust in the country.

`````In India, the majority is the conglomerate or Brihad Hindu community which represents about 81% of the total Indian population, while minorities are constituted by Muslims [13%] and Christians [3%]. Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, and some other microscopic religious groups, represent the remaining three percent. Though also considered minorities, but really are so close to the majority community in culture that they are considered as a part of Hindu society. Unlike Islam and Christianity, these minority religions were founded as dissenting theologies of Hinduism. Even Zoroaster can be traced to leader of Vahikas in Mahabharata who migrated to Persia. Kaikeyi in Ramayana was from Persia when that country was hundred percent Hindu. Thus these religions share the core concepts with Hindus such as re-incarnation, equality of all religions, and ability to meet God in this life. That they feel increasingly alienated from Hindu society nowadays is also the consequence of India's identity crisis caused by British historians and their Indian tutees in JNU.

The India of today would not have been in existence had the attempts to divide Hindus succeeded. In the 20th century, a sinister attempt to divide the Hindu community on caste basis was made in 1932 when the British imperialists offered the scheduled castes a separate electorate. But shrewdly understanding the conspiracy to divide India, Mahatma Gandhi by his fast unto death and Dr. Ambedkar by his visionary rejection of separate electorate, foiled the attempt by signing the Poona Pact.

But the possibility exists that such attempts at dividing India socially may be made again in the future, a possibility that cannot be ruled out. Indian patriots will have to watch against such attempts very carefully. Segmentation, fragmentation, and finally balkanization have been part of the historical process in many countries to destroy national identity and thereby cause the political division of the nation itself. Yugoslavia is a recent example of this, which has now been divided into four countries, largely due to Islamic separatism and Serbian over-reaction.

Virat Hindutva can be achieved in the first stage by Hindu consolidation, that is achieved by Hindus holding that they are Hindus first and last, by disowning primacy to their caste and regional loyalties. This would require a renaissance in thinking and outlook, that can be fostered only by patient advocacy and intellectual ferment.

For this we need a new History text, and a proper understanding of the distinction between the four varnas and jati [which is birth based and mostly for marriages]. Just as Valmiki and Vyasa are regarded as Maharshis despite being of different jati from Parasuram, hence Dr. Ambedkar should be called a Maharishi for his sheer depth of knowledge of Indian history. That he had become bitter because of Nehru systematically sidelining him is no reason not to do so.

India thus needs a Hindu renaissance today that incorporates modern principles, e.g., of the irrelevance of birth antecedents, fostering gender equality, ensuring equality before law, and accountability for all. It is also essential to integrate the entire Indian society on those principles, irrespective of religion. Uniform civil code for example, is something that the vast majority of Muslim women want, but because this demand has been usurped by those who deny the equality of nationality to the Muslims, hence comes the resistance to a eminently reasonable value. The Muslims think that this is the first step in several to subjugate them or wipe out their identity. But Muslims have quietly accepted Uniform Criminal Code [the IPC] despite that it contradicts the Sharia.

In other words, Hindutva has two components-- -one that Hindus can accept [such as caste abolition, eradication of dowry etc.] without any other religion's interests to consider. The other is the embracing by minorities of the core secular Indian values which have Hindu roots. This would require, particularly Muslims and Christians, to acknowledge that their ancestry is Hindu, and thus own the entire Hindu past as their own legacy, and to thus tailor their outlook on that basis. This would integrate Indian society and make the concept of an inclusive [Brihad] Hindutva and rooted in India's continuing civilization.

Thus, if India has to decide to have or not have good relations with Israel, Pakistan, Iran or US, it cannot be on the basis how it will impact on India's Muslims and Christians, but on what India's national interests require. If India has to dispatch troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka or Nepal to combat terrorism, that policy too has to be decided on what is good for India, and not what any religious or linguistic group identifies as it's interest.

Thus such an Hindutva is positive in outlook, while raw Hindu xenophobia is negative and based on Hindu hegemony which will frighten all. Such an Hindutva will resolve our current energy-sapping identity crisis, which otherwise will completely emasculate India in the long run. The choice for the patriotic Indian is thus clear: We need a clear and positive view of our national identity based on our Hindu past and a Hindu renaissance to unite the Hindus with constructive mind-set as well as persuade the minorities to be co-opted culturally with Hindu society.

Once being Indian means virat brihad Hindutva, we can tackle terrorism by an effective strategy of defence. What are the components of that strategy is the subject matter of my next column here.

In other words, Hindutva has two components-- -one that Hindus can accept [such as caste abolition, eradication of dowry etc.] without any other religion's interests to consider. The other is the embracing by minorities of the core secular Indian values which have Hindu roots. This would require, particularly Muslims and Christians, to acknowledge that their ancestry is Hindu, and thus own the entire Hindu past as their own legacy, and to thus tailor their outlook on that basis. This would integrate Indian society and make the concept of an inclusive [Brihad] Hindutva and rooted in India's continuing civilization.

(contd.)

I just came across this article after searching for this word after being called a 'desi' by another Indian living in the UK.

I have never understood the word desi before, known where it came from, nor why Indian people kept on using this word to describe themselves and other Indians, so I first looked up the definition of desi:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Desi (or Deshi) is a word originally from Sanskrit literally meaning "from the country" or "of the country". The term "Desi" refers to a person of South Asian heritage, from either Pakistan, India, or Bangladesh

It is mainly used by those of South Asian origins themselves, rarely by the majority population, and carries a subtext of inclusiveness and unity. It allows South Asians to refer to their broader immigrant community, rather than requiring a specific, nationalistic label such as "Indian" or "Pakistani". As such, its connotations are positive, alluding to the shared values, bonds and experiences of descendants of the entire region.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This definition makes the word sound fine to use, but I still did not feel too comfortable about people running around yelling 'desi' at me, so I furthur looked up desi and racism and read this artice:

http://www.indiacurrents.com/news/view_art...4472a08cf77270c

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->My friend’s five-year-old came home from school one evening with a note. She had referred to her Chinese friend as a “Chinki” and her teacher wanted to know why. My friend looked sheepish as she read the note.

“She must’ve picked it up from us. We sometimes do say ‘Chinki,’ you know,” she revealed guiltily.

We Indians love labels, don’t we? And I don’t mean Guccis and Pradas. I mean labels for people, of both Indian and non-Indian origin. It helps us match person to personality, gives us a ready manual for assessing behavior and associated characteristics. We don’t like being caught unawares by unfamiliar personality types and don’t seem to realize that our love for quick allocations could amount to a serious affliction: racism.

We are desis in a foreign country. Indian-Americans raised in the United States are promptly tagged ABCDs (American Born Confused Desis). And for a certain population of desis, the Chinese become “Chinkis,” African-Americans become “Kallus,” and white people become “Goras.” We see nothing wrong in making casual use of these names. We permit ourselves to do the very thing that would likely offend us if we were on the receiving end. If one were to ever refer to us as “brownies” or, even more disturbingly, as “rag heads,” we would be screaming “racism!” from the rooftops.

Racism is ill defined within the Indian community. I have come across people who think that only the discrimination on part of white people is racist. Their own discriminatory behavior, however, is permissible.

Bollywood’s portrayal of Caucasians, for example, makes me wonder if we have been fighting the freedom struggle a little too long after independence. Most white characters are portrayed as money-hungry, double-crossing villains who the hero mocks in Hindi or triumphs over in the end.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Is ethnic labeling within the Indian community itself considered to be acceptable and fine? I have never been comfortable with my parents over use of the words 'Gora' and 'Kallah', and feel uncomfortable when these racial words are used, often in a deregratory manner. I have however, never heard my parents, nor anyone of the older generations in my familly and Indian community use the word 'Desi' to call each other, in fact this word seems to be rarely used if anyone does use it, and only seems to be spoken carelessly by members of the younger Indian generation living in the UK who think it is a 'cool', or 'modern' name to call each other by (I am from the UK and rarely ever hear the word Desi used, and when I do I feel just as offended as the words 'Gora' and 'Kallah' have made me feel throughout my years, and also just as offended as a black person would be if called a N*gger, or a Pakistani person in this country called a P*ki).

So am I the only Indian person that finds it offensive for someone to come up to me and call me a 'Desi'? What is wrong with calling me by my name, or if my race is being discussed, reffering to me as an Indian instead of a desi? Do you think that this label of desi is fine and acceptable to use? Do you or do you not refer to other Indians as desis, and would you like it if people of other races, e.g. 'Goras' and 'Kallahs' used strange words to refer to you by your race or skin color as well?

I know that I do not accept, nor like any kind of labelling or branding based on the grounds of skin colour and / or race. I have never been called anything personally at school, university, at work, or by friends, teachers and employers of all races other then my name, and my race is never discussed in any enjoyable social situation, I find that I am better able to integrate and mix with people of any background if racial names, which I will in my opinion brand as racist name-calling, are left out of my discussions, and I only refer to people by their name, or preffered nick name, and not a name describing their race or skin colour.

I posted the below as a new thread, but apparently, the moderator doesn't want me to start new threads and wants me to use existing thread. Although, it beats me as to why, since there's no thread relevant to my post anywhere. But here goes nothing...I am reposting it below.

Discuss, if you care to. I've already lost faith in Hindus, so mean and cold, even when dealing with new posters. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> And we wonder why Hindus have so few friends.


Hello Friends! smile.gif

I've always been a social democrat, but the recent events (not just terrorism but also political developments) made me rethink my beliefs. It's clear that Hinduism and Hindus are under threat, but I am still not convinced that social democracy isn't the right way. And when I say social democracy, I am referring to the systems prevalent in Scandinavian countries, NOT to the nonsense being done in the name of socialism by our Indian communists/Nehruvian socialists. mad.gif So please, let's be clear on that.

I am confused as to how Hindutva or any ideology that's based on nationalism can ever be free of conflict, because inherent in such philosophies is the 'us vs them' attitude. So I'd like some clarification on that.

Also, I am surprised as to why no Hindu here and elsewhere fails to recognize capitalism as the real problem behind terrorism. For instance, if A is a terrorist and B the victim of the said terrorist, then a capitalist would rather sell arms to both parties and expand profits. So why would he try and solve the problem of terrorism, when keeping it alive would benefit him? mad.gif He wouldn't, which explains why western countries and our money-minded politicians keep terrorism alive. Capitalism views everything as a business opportunity, and terrorism is no exception.

Second, if we identify ourselves as Hindus, we're pitted against Muslims, Christians, communists, capitalists, and these people are a huge number controlling 100 nations, oil and other resources, a powerful military, amongst other advantages. It's impossible to fight against such odds. sad.gif More importantly, a Hindu in India has nothing in common with a Muslim in Pakistan. But the same Hindu as a worker has a lot in common with the muslim worker in pakistan. So would it not be better to approach the whole problem as a socialist, rather than as a Hindu, because that way, we'll have something in common with all nations/cultures/races/religions?

Hopefully, I haven't offended anyone with this. I am not trying to impose socialism, just wondering whether Hindus, like the Jews of the 20th century, are in a position where they have to become socialists (by political orientation, NOT that they have to give up their religion) in order to become an international movement, and thereby gain strength. smile.gif

If you are an Indian Citizen, above age of 18 years as on 1-1-2008, and not yet a voter, or living at a place far from where you are registered, then <b>HURRY, Register Now!</b> to be able to vote for Lok Sabha 2009

<b>Am I eligible to vote? </b>

You are eligible to vote if:

1. You are an Indian citizen
2. You are 18 years or older as on 1st January of the year when the electoral rolls are getting prepared. Currently, this will be 1st January, 2008
3. You are an Ordinary Resident at your current location i.e. you have been living at your current address for 6 months or longer.

Here is a very good website which allows you to fill up all your details online, generate a pdf, take a print, and go submit it at the ERO office (the address of which in your city is also mentioned). Site even sends you SMS on status of your application.

http://www.jaagore.com/

You will need to submit an address proof and date of birth proof from a list of admissible documents.

Since it takes several weeks before you get your voter ID Card, DO IT NOW! It is easy. Also spread the word.

(Mods, kindly merge it to suitable thread after a couple of days.)

<b>Dawood provided logistics for terror attacks</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A Colaba-based businessman, suspected to be henchman of underworld don Dawood Ibrahim, handed over arms and explosives to the Lashkar e Tayiba terrorists for carrying out the attacks on Mumbai, in what is emerging as the first major joint operation by the Karachi-based gangster and the banned outfit, official sources said in Mumbai. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<b>10 killed in Mumbai terror attack</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mumbai was rocked by several incidents of firing at four different public places on Wednesday night, and ten people were reportedly killed in the suspected terror attacks. All incidents were within a radius of three kms in the posh South Mumbai.

The first incident of firing was reported at Leopold Cafe, a well-known watering hole for tourists and foreigners in Colaba.

The second incident was near Taj Mahal [Images] hotel, the third was near Oberoi hotel in Nariman Point and the fourth one was at Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus railway station. Two of them are Mumbai's iconic and best-known five-star hotels and the third is one of the busiest railway stations in the city.

No one including the police will confirm the reason behind the firing except the fact that some unknown people started firing indiscriminately.

Eyewitness also said that some grenades were thrown at a police van and also of two bomb blasts near the Oberoi hotel but it was not confirmed by officials. The Mumbai police have cordoned off all the areas.

A blast was also reported in a cab in Vile Parle in suburban Mumbai. This is near the Mumbai airport.

Additional Commissioner of Police Deven Bharti confirmed the shootout at Colaba but did not give out details.

Two persons armed with automatic weapons and hand grenades are reportedly holed up inside CST station.

Sounds of gunshots are still being heard. Hundreds of onlookers gathered outside the station. The station and premises have been evacuated

Sources in the Cuffe Parade police station said that the police was still looking for the miscreants behind the firing at Colaba Causeway.

Eyewitnesses said that they heard at least 20 shots in CST station. Policemen and ambulances have rushed to the affected areas, they said.
....

Maharashtra Director General of Police <b>A N Roy said </b>that this was a suspected terror attack. "The terrorists have been surrounded in Oberoi Hotel. Right now, the encounter is going on," he said.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Now lets see whom Indian Government will blame, come on Shame of India, you can do better. Hindu hater Roy is investigating , he can blame some Sadhu from Gangotri.

Hello frineds

I started this thread before, but couln't find it after a couple of good responses. Hence I am re-initiating this interesting thread about your experiences in indian airports and opinions on security that exists in ground and air. Do you think the system is capable of ensuring seamless security? Please write the various experiences that you have undergone at indian and other airpots abroad. It could be a good lesson for lot of others.

The History of Western Philosophy-Bertrand Russel

History of Western Philosophy

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3054580/The-Hist...Bertrand-Russel

The Catholic Church was derived from three sources. Its sacred history was Jewish, its theology
was Greek, its government and canon law were, at least indirectly, Roman. The Reformation
rejected the Roman elements, softened the Greek elements, and greatly strengthened the Judaic
elements. It thus co-operated with the nationalist forces which were undoing the work of social
cohesion which had been effected first by the Roman Empire and then by the Roman Church. In
Catholic doctrine, divine revelation did not end with the scriptures, but continued from age to age
through the medium of the Church, to which, therefore, it was the duty of the individual to submit
his private opinions. Protestants, on the contrary, rejected the Church as a vehicle of revelation;
truth was to be sought only in the Bible, which each man could interpret for himself. If men
differed in their interpretation, there was no divinely appointed authority to decide the dispute. In
practice, the State claimed the right that had formerly belonged to the Church, but this was a
usurpation. In Protestant theory, there should be no earthly intermediary between the soul and
God.


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Betrand Russell was an eugenist:
<b>
"The ideas of eugenics are based on the assumption that men are unequal, while democracy is based on the assumption that they are equal. It is therefore, politically very difficult to carry out eugenic ideas in a democratic community when those ideas take the form, not of suggesting that there is a minority of inferior people, such as imbeciles, but of admitting that there is a minority of superior people. The former is pleasing to the majority, the latter unpleasing. Measures embodying the former fact can therefore win the support of the majority, while measures embodying the latter cannot." ( from The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law)</b>

These are the words of Bertrand Russell, who is being quoted by Professor Glanville Williams. Williams is the Rous Ball Professor of English law at Cambridge University, a fellow of the English Eugenics Society, and, for the last twenty three years, head of the English Abortion Law Reform Association. What Williams is saying is that the elitist ideas of eugenics can come to power in democracies by encouraging attacks on minorities, much as Hitler came to power by scapegoating the Jews.

...
It's time to debunk the myth of this "grand philosopher"
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Check the comment section
http://www.dailytech.com/Indian+Moon+Probe...rticle13450.htm


<b> Indian Moon Probe Hits Moon Surface at 3,100 MPH</b>
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - November 17, 2008 2:35 PM Smilin.. on Nov 18 at 9:49 AM )

Indian scientists say they meant to do that and hope for a future "soft" landing

Going to the moon is old news to most Americans after we sent a manned mission to Earth's satellite in the 1960's. Since then, several other countries have sent unmanned missions to the moon to study the satellite, but no one has yet replicated America's manned landing.

India has now joined the small cadre of nations to send unmanned missions to the moon including the U.S., China, Russia, ESA, and Japan. India launched its moon mission in October sending its spacecraft called Chandrayaan-1 towards the moon with a lunar probe onboard.

The probe was sent hurtling towards the surface of the moon to an eventual crash landing in the Shackleton crater on the moon's south pole. The lander was emblazoned with the Indian flag and hit the surface of the moon moving at about 3,100 miles per hour.

Indian scientists say that the crash was planned and that they will use the data collected by the probe during its descent to plan a future soft landing on the moon. The descent to the surface took 25-minutes according to Space.com. Instruments on the probe included a video imaging system, radar altimeter and a mass spectrometer.

The video system took pictures of the moon during the decent while the altimeter measured the rate of decent and the mass spectrometer studied the thin atmosphere on the moon. India released some raw images taken and said that it had not yet begun to analyze the data returned by the probe. India has plans to land a rover on the moon in 2011 and hopes to one day send a manned mission.


Check this bozo

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/81702