Organized/forced Conversion As Sedition

ramana · 04-20-2007, 11:16 PM

QUOTEHowever, secularism was defined by Christian societies who ensured that core Christianity would be bypassed by secularism by defining religion as "private".


Yes Secularism was defined in Western Europe to reduce the role of the Church in their temporal life- running of their lives throught state control. This was possible due to the Enlightenment movement of the 1800s. The beginings were from the Reformation (Luther) through various thinkers and led to the Enlightenment after contact with the Hindu worldview via William Jones and German brothers.

04-21-2007, 06:03 AM

A thought occurred to me . . don't know how relevant it is - but it may be of some value.

The words "private" and "public" each have two different meanings.

Microsoft is a private company
Sex is a private act

HAL is a public sector company
Cubbon park is a public park

The secular definition of religion made religion "private" in the manner of "sex is a private affair". Not in the manner of "Microsoft is a private company"

Microsoft, despite being a private company is very very public. It is advertised all over the place, it has products that affect people's lives, it employs thousands of people and is hardly restricted to Bill and Melinda Gates (unlike sex)

So when you say that religion is a private affair, "I can do what I want" - religion is similarly being referred to like sex where you may want 69 or something more kinky-"I can do what I want". But religion is NOT private any more than Microsoft is private and in that sense religion impinges on public life. Mass conversions are public acts that are done with the excuse that it is OK - religion being a private affair.

I suspect that there may be some legal implications of these semantics.

The reason I dwell on semantics and definitions of sedition etc - are to examine possible legal routes by which evanjihadism in India can be challenged.

04-21-2007, 06:39 AM

QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 20 2007, 10:03 PM)Hindus are the most subversive people for these faiths and they are not as dumb as imagined. A lot of Hindus follow multiple Gods because they feel that they get extra points for that. Many converts are only half -converts who do whatever is convenient. These "half converts" are not victories for rigid faiths - they are doomed to be failures in the long term.

[right][snapback]67530[/snapback][/right]


Shiv, It could be that first generation half converts are failures for the converted religion. But the next generations will be totally lost from the hinduism point of view. Most muslims in india are converts from Hinduism. Probably the first converts were half converts. Does that make any difference now?

04-21-2007, 06:45 AM

QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 20 2007, 10:45 PM)Let me make a provocative post.

Caste barriers are being removed in India. Nevertheless, each individual who is a child descended from a family of a particular caste carries with him the unique memories and narrative that his caste alone carried till date.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the people who oppose conversions today consist of a group of Hindus who are descended from every caste equi-proportionally. Or is it possible that descendants of some particular caste groups are more vehemently against conversion than descendants from other caste groups.

This statistic is a politically explosive one and it is worth answering the question with an honest poll/census. If we don't do it, sooner or later Church/NGO funded sociologists will do it.

If it can be shown,for example that conversions are opposed predominantly by the descendants of relatively forward caste people it would be a victory for the people who curse Hindus. However, even if that were true it should serve as a lesson for everyone in trying to understand what it is in the narratives of some Hindus that make them opposed to conversion, and what it is in the history/narrative of descendants of other caste groups to make them see things differently.

Whatever the truth, there are lessons to be learned. Are we going to learn them by ourselves, or are we going to wait for a church group to do it first, slap us on the face with some egregious info and whine reactively?
[right][snapback]67533[/snapback][/right]


Can we do a poll here and see how many hindus oppose coerced conversions and how many among them are actually from so called forward castes?

04-21-2007, 07:31 AM

QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 21 2007, 06:03 AM)The reason I dwell on semantics and definitions of sedition etc - are to examine possible legal routes by which evanjihadism in India can be challenged.
[right][snapback]67566[/snapback][/right]


If you are trying to find out (or make us find out) what needs to be protected in Hinduism, how can we conclude that legal routes need to be taken? Wouldn't the Judge ask the same question that you are asking?

04-21-2007, 07:37 AM

QUOTE(raj @ Apr 21 2007, 06:39 AM)
Shiv,Â It could be that first generation half converts are failures for the converted religion. But the next generations will be totally lost from the Hinduism point of view. Most muslims in india are converts from Hinduism. Probably the first converts were half converts. Does that make any difference now?
[right][snapback]67567[/snapback][/right]


In fact it does make a difference- but there is no sense in my trying to force my experience down your throat or vice versa. We don't have poll statitistics (nobody has polled this sort of thing) and we have to depend on subjective observations.

However I see your point. But unless we can convert Hindu belief into an impermeable "oil droplet" that does not allow the soakage of other belief systems (like Islam and to an extent Chritsianity) there is no getting around this problem other than depending on the superior ability of Hinduism to offer alternative worldview choices to disgruntled and unhappy Muslims and Christians.

The ability to soak up, accommodate and subversively bend other belief systems is Hinduism's USP (unique selling point) and the lack of a coherent Hindu narrative has kept this away from the population of the world at large. But again - I am digressing from the point of this thread.

There are two separate issues at stake. One is to make a saleable Hindu narrative to attack and occupy the world with the freedom of thought that it provides. That is the discussion in the other thread.

This thread is to look at chinks in the armor of Evanjihadism that can be exploited by various means - including legal action.

04-21-2007, 07:42 AM

QUOTE(SwamyG @ Apr 21 2007, 07:31 AM)
If you are trying to find out (or make us find out) what needs to be protected in Hinduism, how can we conclude that legal routes need to be taken? Wouldn't the Judge ask the same question that you are asking?
[right][snapback]67575[/snapback][/right]

<!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />
Good question.

I am thinking on two tracks simultaneously.

One is to oppose evanjihadism on legalities and technicalities whether it is a threat or not.

The other is to find out how it is a threat.

Overall I consider it to be an egregious insult to my belief by closed minds. No harm in looking at all possibilities.

04-21-2007, 08:26 AM

Shiv: Sorry to be nitpicking, but if you have not concluded that it is a threat, on what grounds are you opposing? 'Insult' is a weak argument. Slander and libel might stand a chance.

As a Hindu I do not like Hindus numbers to be dwindling. Even the peon in the court would <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blow.gif' /> the case.

04-21-2007, 08:43 AM

Religion is not a legal entity, a company is a legal construct. Private in the company sense is therefore only a legal construct, not functional semantics as the word privacy normally implies.

I don't know if this will work, but a way forward might be to examine the legal entities that support a religion. For example, they are declared non-profits or non-governmental organizations, basically any entity that has some financial dealings. Then it may be possibe to take the following track:
1. All financial entities must pay tax. The tax is minimal for religious organizations in keeping with our secular nature, but taxes must be filed.
2. Any organization that is deemed, a determination made by the govt., to be a religious organization will be required to have operating, savings or investment accounts of type Ordinary Religion Account. A permit must be obtained from the RBI, which is freely given, for opening this account, by submitting bonafides.
3. On your tax returns must declare all sources of income (including donations).

These returns are public and may be examined under PILs freedom of information acts etc. So may be we can arm the people with information without the government getting involved in religion per se. I don't know if this is already done. I'm sure I have not got it, but I wonder if something along these lines will be useful. I don't know how it will falter, just some thoughts, between dinner and bedtime.

I don't buy the sedition argument at all, in the sense that
a) People are free to convert in a free country. There is no sedition.
b) If it can actually be demonstrated that people were made to do something against their will (coerced) in a legal sense, anything, then invoking sedition is unnecessary because individual's constitutional rights will have been violated. Sue them!

At any rate, before we tease out how sedition follows from conversion, it may be useful to define what forced conversion is, legally...I am not sure I understand except for what I hear informally from people.

QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 20 2007, 08:33 PM)A thought occurred to me . . don't know how relevant it is - but it may be of some value.

The words "private" and "public" each have two different meanings.

Microsoft is a private company
Sex is a private act

HAL is a public sector company
Cubbon park is a public park

The secular definition of religion made religion "private" in the manner of "sex is a private affair". Not in the manner of "Microsoft is a private company"

Microsoft, despite being a private company is very very public. It is advertised all over the place, it has products that affect people's lives, it employs thousands of people and is hardly restricted to Bill and Melinda Gates (unlike sex)

So when you say that religion is a private affair, "I can do what I want" - religion is similarly being referred to like sex where you may want 69 or something more kinky-"I can do what I want". But religion is NOT private any more than Microsoft is private and in that sense religion impinges on public life. Mass conversions are public acts that are done with the excuse that it is OK - religion being a private affair.

I suspect that there may be some legal implications of these semantics.

The reason I dwell on semantics and definitions of sedition etc - are to examine possible legal routes by which evanjihadism in India can be challenged.
[right][snapback]67566[/snapback][/right]

04-21-2007, 08:50 AM

QUOTE(SwamyG @ Apr 21 2007, 08:26 AM)Shiv: Sorry to be nitpicking, but if you have not concluded that it is a threat, on what grounds are you opposing? 'Insult' is a weak argument. Slander and libel might stand a chance.



Let me start with pure bigotry. I'm Hindu right? I must be a bigot.

More seriously, I don't think pissing on the road is threat. But I oppose it because it is a public nuisance and invades my space and sense of propriety and am looking for excuses to slam everything that does that.

But hey - slander and libel sound good. Keep the ideas flowing <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Husky · (This post was last modified: 04-22-2007, 10:06 AM by Husky.)

Deja vu. Think everything I've written in this thread I wrote a long time back in some other IF threads. Apologies to anyone who minds the repetition.

More points have been raised. The most important being:

QUOTEI have seen a great deal of anger at conversions but no clear explanation as to why Hindus should be against conversions - other than that they are angry.QUOTEI have made attempts to read some good arguments, but have found none that convinces me enough. The one argument I have heard is the state of affairs in NE India and their anti-nationalism. QUOTEWhatever the motivation of the people in the North east - a rigid paranoia of Christianity is not in our interest. Paranoia implies unnecessary fear - often of what is not there. It does not apply here, because there is every reason for any sane (wo)man to fear christianity, just like there is to fear islam.

The simplest - and only reason even needed - to fear christianity and conversions is this: that of intolerance. Intolerance is ingrained in christianity as it is in islam. I've often argued that they are two quarelling sects of one the same intolerant religion.
But let's discuss christianity. Indians tend to think of the Goa inquisitions as a one-off. That the genocide of the native Americans was done by christians ignorant of the 'good teachings' of their religion. That the witch hunts and inquisitions in Europe were the result of the barbarity of the middle ages. The list is endless and is even now being appended to.
But the one constant in this entire list - and curiously the one thing overlooked by all - is the part the christian ideology has played in it. Even the Indians who have learnt to recognise the hand of islam in past and present islamoterrorism, are either too afraid or ignorant to see the unmistakable signature of christianity in all the horrid events just listed.
And the more ignorant would say: remember how the Romans persecuted the christians?

Someone mentioned anti-nationalism. Yes, it's indeed a very regular consequence of conversions. It is but one consequence however. And not even the worst.

You've asked the questions. The answers will take some reading on your part, if you're willing. First just read through my post if you will, then if you're interested you can choose to read the stuff at the links.

Let's start with Rome. The Romans are made out to have persecuted christianity ruthlessly. It turns out that historians have exposed that the opposite was in fact the case, and that of the allegations against many Roman emperors, only a few of them persecuted and that these were infinitely milder than the christian claims made them out to be:
- http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3b.htm "Persecuted by Rome" and more lies
Although the Ancient Romans were trying to be respectful, the christians kept flouting their intolerant ideology in their faces and insulting the Roman Religion and Gods, vandalising Roman temples and other nasty behaviour.
This section also shows how christians were in fact traitors to the pagan Roman Empire (but loyal subjects of the same when it came under christian dictatorship and the christian religion started to be forced on the Romans)
- http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3b.htm#EdictAndCodes Who did the persecuting?
How christians had to force the terrorist ideology down Roman throats
- http://freetruth.50webs.org/A2b.htm Age of Ignorance
how christianity destroyed all the schools in the Roman empire and reduced it from a nation where most (even slaves) were literate into christian lands where the aristocrats could do no more than put a cross down as their 'signature'.
- http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3c.htm#Morality Christian morality versus that of ancient Rome
Why Romans did not consider christianity an 'attractive, virtuous' religion in spite of the dawaganda and history whitewash the church has made of it today

Then moving on to Greece:
- http://www.ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=en...ovestories Christian persecution against the Hellenes
How the Greeks resisted conversions, so the christians murdered many - in concentration camps
- http://freetruth.50webs.org/A1.htm Hatred for Ancient Greek culture (and again, Rome too)
How christians destroyed Greco-Roman temples to build churches over them. You have one poor old Greco-Roman (retired?) official authoring a book Pro Templis ('In defense of the temples') to explain why the temples ought to be spared and protected against the raging christian monks bringing the temples and libraries down.

http://freetruth.50webs.org/A2a.htm The Early Church Councils: murder, heresy and shaping future beliefs
How once the christians had wrested control of the Roman Empire, the various christian sects - already drunk on the blood of the Romans of the Old Religion - started persecuting each other. Why? Intolerant ideology, of course. It never gets along. Finding heresies and identifying heretics was their favourite pastime.

The history of the conversion of the rest of Europe was brutal (
http://freetruth.50webs.org/ ). I'm sure one can find other sites and books detailing these things.

In Persia too, christianity was attempting all kinds of anti-national things. And it was not only in the early centuries that this happened. When the church turned its roving eye onto Asia, its conversion drives in Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam all went coupled with great persecutions of the Buddhist and Taoist and Shintoist local populace. Of course, another consequence was once again anti-national movements. ( http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4c.htm and http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4d.htm )

Oh, but that was all in the past, you say. How right you are. The inquisitions, reformations, none of it matters. The 8-9 million women murdered by the witch hunts - peanuts, right? It wasn't Ze True Christianity people might say (what is?)

But here is a great one-line summary of christianity, by none other than that Doctor of the Church, celebrated Saint and all-round christian hero Aquinas:
QUOTE"Unbelievers deserve not only to be separated from the Church, but also... to be exterminated from the World by death."
- Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1271Just in case you think you know better than him: don't try it. The man's a pro in his field.

Christianity doesn't behave like this anymore, you might argue. You'd be wrong.
Introducing peoples you never knew and soon might not have chance to know thanks to the genocidal christian machine carrying on the grand old tradition:
The Akha, Bayak Pygmees and numerous others. Some mentioned here:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/Overview4.htm

Most important example of all, because it is the most succinct and highly illustrative of the activities of christianity in modern times in an Asian nation:
Please do read the stuff at these three links, and see the images on the last:
http://www.buddhapia.com/eng/tedesco/2.html Buddhism under Siege in Korea 1982-1996
http://www.buddhapia.com/eng/tedesco/3.html Chronology of Events January 1997-December 1998
And look at some images of what christianity has accomplished in S Korea - thanks to the good christian converts:
http://www.buddhapia.com/eng/tedesco/pic1/list.html

This is what I mean with christianity = intolerance
Things are never going to change, unless christians (and muslims) toss out their scriptures altogether. Because you can have individual christians being tolerant, accepting even, of others - but they do so against their religion. Their children may not be so charitable, as we can see daily with the 'fundamentalists' of islam (who are the true muslims, because they are following the koran); or the genocidal christian missionaries working with the Akha and African and S American communities.

QUOTEThe rigidest followers are mostly the Priests (the Church) and Mullahs and supporting Sultans whose power depends on it.No. As you can see from that last link, bottom most image:
QUOTE"If I acted on what I believed I, too, could have vandalized temples. When I consider those who commit such acts I think to myself that they have a much stronger faith than me."
-- Deacon Lee Bahn-Sung "a former Buddhist turned Christian", BBC-World (TV), Asia Today, May 21, 1999. [Link]As you can see, this deacon (priest) is referring to the actual actions of lay christian S Koreans. And as is apparent from those images, regular converts are no less practised in the art of being good christians, off to cleanse the world of idolatrous images, making sure that they shall 'have no other Gods' before them, nor anyone else either!

Husky · (This post was last modified: 04-21-2007, 10:35 AM by Husky.)

Continuing on, here's a funny illustrative example of why christianity is, as it ever was, an intolerant ideology that can't even stand its own, let alone the heathens. I'm certain I must have pasted this before... Anyways, it's an example of christian history repeating itself:
QUOTEThe evangelical Churches that have sprung up in Latin America, for instance, don't get along:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE"This guy has been sent by Satan," screamed one of the preachers [of an Evangelical Church], Renildo Rodriguez da Silva. He pointed accusingly at a tall, well-dressed man in the crowd, an evangelical of a different stripe, and proclaimed, "He's evil."
The two soon were locked in a shoving match. Police had to rush in to break it up.From: Catholic Crossroads: Latin America - Fight of its life - Philadelphia Inquirer, June 06, 2006</div>( http://freetruth.50webs.org/C6.htm Intolerance between Christian denominations)

Look how nothing has changed in over 1600 years - the following happened from a time when christianity hadn't yet murdered out Roman Religion:
QUOTEIn the year 366 there was an election for the Papacy, which was now very rich. The successful candidate was "St." Damasus, and his methods were such that in one day his men left the corpses of 160 of his rival's supporters on the floor of a small church. The war lasted a week and was so furious that the Roman "police" were swept aside and the prefect driven out of the city.
-- How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism, by Joseph McCabe ( http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3c.htm )

There was news not many years back of a skirmish between two diffferent christian sects (baptist and catholic I think) in India's own NE, one that left many dead as well. I think they were fighting over a church. I've tried in vain to find it, but I can't remember any keywords with certainty. Anyone who remembers the occasion and knows to track it down: it would be much appreciated, because I'd like to add it to this post.

(By the way, I don't mean this case: http://www.christianaggression.org/item_di...S&id=1105665514
1 killed as Christian Fundamentalists Clash over Church)

Husky · (This post was last modified: 04-21-2007, 06:34 PM by Husky.)

The intolerance that is part and parcel of christianity seeks nothing less than to wipe out all other religions in any country. It will do so even at the cost of human life. It does not shudder from employing vandalism either.

QUOTEI would love to see the day when the RSS holds a bhajan and hymn singing session in a Church on the basis that all Gods are one. That is a far better pro-active "attacking move" than the reversion of converted Hindus.This suggestion is (1) neither new - Hindus have been trying it forever; (2) nor has it ever been successful.

Here's some basic human sense: Give respect to those who give you respect (back).
Hindus have forever been visiting churches, praying with their christian and muslim friends, praying to jesus, allah and jehovah and all kinds of inclusive, all-encompassing activities. None of this works.
All we've asked in return is that they do not keep to the exclusivist considerations of 'saved vs heathen' or 'infidel vs faithful' and show their usual intolerance by impinging on our personal space, harrassing us with pamphlets at our temples, during Melas and other pilgrimages, and try and put up crosses over our holy sites. And of course:
http://hamsa.org/interview.htm
QUOTEThis activity is especially evident in Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. In Arunachal Pradesh where proselytizing and conversion are illegal, Christians claim whole villages and put up signboards that say âNon-Christians Not Allowedâ at their entrances.
In Tamil Nadu Christian slogans appear on Hindu pilgrim routes to Tirupati and on the route around Arunachala Hill at Tiruvannamalai that pilgrims circumambulate on full moon days.
Another example of what they do in return:
http://www.christianaggression.org/item_di...S&id=1084904446
QUOTEBut religious expansionism is just one part of the zealots' dark work. More disturbingly, despite repeated warnings from the law enforcers, the bigots have been gathering up at Periamalai (a small hillock) regularly and shout out taunting remarks at Hindus and openly deride Hindu Gods.
(Rather like what early christians did to the Ancient Romans.)

Locals say the Christians bring in women, who are purportedly Hindus, and then ask them to throw their mettis and thalis into a fire. This is how the conversions happen. 'This is a very offensive show,' says Ramakrishnan a local.
(Thalis are Mangalasutras.)

These gatherings become more voluble when the locals come to worship at the nearby Murugan temple.

'Their (Christians) activities have a sinister touch. They have been systematic in their approach. They choose to increase their numbers on Hindu religious days. They have gone to the extent of damaging some of the sculptures in the Murugan temple,' says Vedachalam, another resident of the area.
We will always be unsaved infidels for them, because their religion - which requires them to absolutely obey it in everything - will not allow otherwise. The heathen must be converted, on pain of death. The kafir must be converted, on pain of death. It is naive to think it can be otherwise. For over 1800 yrs christianity has done nothing but convert or kill people, and islam's path has been the same for over 1300 years.

My question is why should we continue to tolerate intolerance? Can we not learn from the lessons bequeathed by the Ancient Romans (at heavy price), who tried to be inclusive of christianism and failed miserably. Where are they now?
If we will not learn from the past, we must be prepared to make the same mistakes again. And the price may well be extinction as it has been for others before.
The only solution is to stem the tide of conversions, to keep the number of christians down. This can only be done by raising awareness of why christianity is a destructive ideology. The Romans tried this, but the Emperor who gave the plan state support was murdered by the christians, so we don't know what would have happened if he'd survived (he seemed to be succeeding).

QUOTEI have prayed in a Church - but unfortunately I don't have the solid credentials of the RSS to score a publicity coup.Many Hindus have prayed in a Church. Many pagan Romans too - Emperors even, to show they were not against christianity. And ill it served them.

One emperor even kept a bust of the non-existent jesus alongside statues of his Roman Gods in his palatial quarters. Writes historian and ex-priest Joseph McCabe:
QUOTEAlexander Severus, actually put a bust of Christ in the private chapel of his palace.Another pagan Emperor, Diocletion - also accused of 'persecuting' the christians just like the Severus above:
QUOTEDiocletian (284-305) was the ablest and finest Roman Emperor since Hadrian, and he allowed remarkable freedom to Christians for nearly twenty years. They were permitted to build a large church near his palace at Nicomedia, and his wife and daughter joined the [Christian] sect.The christians in return were still intolerant, offended the Roman Gods, spoke against the emperor, were anti-national to boot; and so the emperor's wife and daughter left christianity, and the emperor had the churches closed or destroyed realising the sect was dangerous. ( http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3b.htm )

I've said this during some early posts of mine at IF: Zero tolerance for intolerance. Might have to scream myself hoarse one day. Intolerant ideologies will destroy all that Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, native Americans, African Religionists and others stand for. You can either recognise the problem exists and try (successfully/unsuccessfully) to find a solution, or pretend it's not there and have no chance whatsoever. Either way, the problem's not going to disappear by being ignored.
Hinduism will not be able to swallow up christoislamism and render it ineffectual. It has had centuries to try and has failed.

QUOTEThe ability to soak up, accommodate and subversively bend other belief systems is Hinduism's USP (unique selling point) and the lack of a coherent Hindu narrative has kept this away from the population of the world at large. But again - I am digressing from the point of this thread.It does not work. There's a backlash against Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and even Vivekananda, so too some other Yogi whose book reviews I read ('Yoga is evil' said the christo reviewers who claim to have previously learnt Yoga). The backlash against the Dalai Lama has also started, but that one is still in the initial phase. Hinduism and Eastern religions are not for everyone. Let people choose their religions. But one needs to oppose intolerant ideologies.
Christian society, mindset cannot take to Hinduism. They throw it off. They become resentful and start attacking. Don't enforce this 'universalism' on them. They don't like it.
People who by themselves make their way to Hinduism (or other Eastern Religions) often have no such problem.

QUOTEThe beginings were from the Reformation (Luther) through various thinkers and led to the Enlightenment after contact with the Hindu worldview via William Jones and German brothers. Luther only asked for religious tolerance when his movement was still small and so had no say, and while the catholic church still wielded all power. But when Luther became strong enough, he insisted on religious intolerance towards other christian sects including catholicism.
See http://vanallens.com/exchristian/calvin.htm:
QUOTE1. Views of Catholic and Protestant Historians
A. Johann von Dollinger

"Historically nothing is more incorrect than the assertion that the Reformation was a movement in favour of intellectual freedom. The exact contary is the truth. For themselves, it is true, Lutherans and Calvinists claimed liberty of conscience . . . but to grant it to others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side. The complete extirpation of the Catholic Church, and in fact of everything that stood in their way, was regarded by the reformers as something entirely natural." (51;v.6:268-9/1)

B. Preserved Smith (Secularist)
"If any one still harbors the traditional prejudice that the early Protestants were more liberal, he must be undeceived. Save for a few splendid sayings of Luther, confined to the early years when he was powerless, there is hardly anything to be found among the leading reformers in favor of freedom of conscience. As soon as they had the power to persecute they did." (115:177)

(And more)Very reminiscent of mohammed's 'there should be no compulsion in religion' when mo had but few backers, to his later hysterical commands to convert/kill the infidels.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 04-21-2007, 06:31 PM by Husky.)

So many consecutive posts by me. Last in the sequence:
QUOTELet me make a provocative post.
Is there any evidence to suggest that the people who oppose conversions today consist of a group of Hindus who are descended from every caste equi-proportionally. Or is it possible that descendants of some particular caste groups are more vehemently against conversion than descendants from other caste groups.It is not provocative, it is of no meaning. Unless you know why people - especially tribal people and small communities who are the most vulnerable because they are essentially voiceless and invisible - all over the world are opposing christianism (which always means enforced conversions and erasure of real identity), you do not know enough of the situation to ponder about the Indian case.
Why do you think most people don't know about the Akha, the West Papuans, the Bayaka Pygmees, the various other Asian, African as well as S American tribes? The missionaries are terrorising when not genociding them outright. Why? Because they can. Their victims get no exposure.
( Do see http://freetruth.50webs.org/Overview4.htm and http://freetruth.50webs.org/D4a.htm#Miss...uthAmerica )
And they would do the exact same to all Hindu Harijan, Girijan and generally economically disadvantaged Hindus who resist conversion, if India was not such a visible country and if these Hindus were not part of a larger network. Even so, many of them are still tormented and most of their voices are still silenced. A very little makes it into the news now and again.

Why make a difference between forced conversion, conversion-by-allurement and conversion-through-propaganda at all? Christianity employs all three - based on who the target populace is. It mowes over tribal peoples all over the world, it tries to bribe poorer people in more visible areas (while still genociding inconvertibles in remote areas of an otherwise visible country like Thailand, India), and uses media's PR power and christian schools to brainwash children against the local religion and for the christian religion. The result is the same: destruction of the host country's natural religious character.

If really interested in stats, you'll find that the psecular Hindus are often 'brahmoons' (communists) and others who support 'freedom to convert' from their cosy theoretical standpoint. Meanwhile many Hindu communities, most of whom are ignored by the media, have been taking a stand against the mean-spirited conversions they've had to endure. However, having said that, you'll also find real Brahmanas especially Swamis, trying to do something to stem the tide of conversions and protect the very people being preyed on.
In reality, there are only three categories of Hindus involved: the Hindu who is aware of the problem, the Hindu who is unaware and of course the psecular 'Hindu' who is clueless and useless in this issue.

This is not a joke. People seem to think the matter is something to discuss while reclining on their armchair over a cup of tea. It is other peoples' lives we're talking about. They're not some fictional group living in your head, only to come out when the topic comes up. They are living, breathing now, and are vulnerable now. One should want all Hindus (and all of the world's unconverted populace) to feel safe, most particularly the vulnerable ones who get no protection because they get no media exposure.

QUOTECan we do a poll here and see how many hindus oppose coerced conversions and how many among them are actually from so called forward castes? <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /> And how representative would this poll be? How many of the disprivileged Hindu communities - or generally poor individuals/families - would by now have access to a computer and be connected to the net (know typing, English) and have discovered this site? For a more representative sample, consider going to India, travelling around and asking around Hindu communities.

Here's a good example of the kind of mental derangement that results when one puts Indian and christianity together: the Indian missionary who wipes out another culture. Give it up for the Indian christos - our own kind has become colonialist, imperialist, christoterrorist! <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' />
http://www.crusadewatch.org/index.php?opti...d=465&Itemid=36
QUOTEDestroyed cultures: The unfortunate story of Totos
Tuesday, 29 August 2006
The Totos are a small tribe of 1241 people that lives close to the Bhutan border. They have a small temple but gather in it only once a year for an annual ritual.

They are a ferocious and fighting people, and very proud of their culture and religion. Their main livelihood is pig farming.

The militant Nagas heard about them and sent missionaries to start a work among them. At first they had limited success. The Toto chief heard about them, and beat the missionaries terribly who fled for their lives.

In 1996, pastor P.M. Thomas a keralite representing Himalayan Evangelical Mission, a church planting organization approached Totos as a stranger.

He convinced the Totos to let him start an English medium school by adopting the education evangelism strategy.

Totos donated five acres of land let pastor Thomas start the school under the condition that he should not engage in converting their tribe.

1997 the school started functioning in Totopara with 65 students.Five more missionaries were brought in as teachers one of whom married the daughter of a Toto leader.

Pastor Thomas specifically told the missionaries not to baptize one-by-one and wait for atleast 50% of the population to be brought under their fold before performing mass conversion. He feared that any conversion on individual basis would bring a backlash for this valiant tribe and result in the killing of the convert and missionaries.

It seems that his team has achieved its goal of wiping off another native culture from the face of earth.Bunch o' terrorists.

04-21-2007, 07:13 PM

Ah - that's a lot of love there from you Husky.

Problem is that what you state is well known to people on here at least.

The problem also is that if I suddenly appear on the scene and start cursing someone and saying "XYZ is a murderous b@st@rd" - most people are going to get put off. A credibility gap instantly arises for people who have trusted and imagined that all is well.

That is exactly the problem that is faced by any Hindu organization.

Apart from describing the murderous culprits - do you have any ideas about how to convince anyone of what you keep saying? You have a tendency to dismiss things that others say claiming that everything has been done before and has not worked (which I suspect is more of a rhetorical manner of speech than the real truth) but you have not come up with any ideas about how to make anyone swallow a story that sounds completely preposterous to anyone who has been brought up to believe stories about "Love" and "peace"

I had an relative (now dead) who claimed that he had the most advanced missile technology for India (in the 1960s) - but thisman was totally unable to get along with anyone and although admittedly brilliant, his "ideas" which he repeated ad nauseam for decades died with him. It is one thing to know. It is a completely different ballgame to get the word around credibly to get more allies than sceptics.

You have implied that the RSS has tried singing bhajans and Hymns in a church and that hasn't worked. Please point me to some links/info sources about these events so I can see the details for myself.

What bothers me is a general Hindu inability to achieve simple public relations exercises that would make their words more credible in an environment that is pre-primed to consider them biased liars. I am sorry to say that your words, despite factual accuracy, fall into the same rut

04-22-2007, 07:50 AM

I would like to bring up another point as a feeling I have had that I am unable to flesh out completely - replete with examples and all.

When you state something that is anti-Christian, it gets dubbed as hate speech.
However, Hindus, with their "tolerance" (or subjugation??) have allowed a litany of negative references about Hindus and Hinduism to become so commonplace that these have become "acceptable" and do not qualify as "hate speech".

So this is the "handicap" that history has created for Hindu viewpoint.

These thoughts basically explain the two threads because of what I believe are two issues that need general attention

1) The unashamed telling of a Hindus story - "narrative" if you will, in order to document and inform, and also to deliberately spread the narrative so that it starts inviting adverse comment from the usual quarters who do not want it to be seen or heard.

The "Hindu narrative" is on the other thread and I believe the narrative is important because it is actually innocuous and not aimed at anyone else. Even that has been suppressed - but no more. It's telling will also bring out the worms from the woodwork.

2) The second "issue" is what this thread, and this post is about. Part of the handicap that now acts against Hindus is the need to continuously behave as if anything Christian is always good. A deviation from this path is "hate speech" and it invites like an avalanche, a whole load of carefully prepared and nurtured hate speech against Hindus to which we are not supposed to object. We are not supposed to call it hate speech - partly because these things have become "common knowledge" about egregious Hindus and they have never called it hate speech before - so how can guilty Hindus now start calling "established knowledge" as "hate speech"?

Anyone who now criticizes anything about Christianity is automatically "Hindutva-right wing - fundamentalist - forward caste suppressor of minorities- murderer of Graham Staines and Muslims in Gujarat"

It is interesting how religious Christian organizations act like a sieve to collect up news and information that is derogatory to Hindus and then "string them up" like a garland of thorns to form an alternate Hindu narrative that is hung around the neck of every Hindus who dares to object to anything in the Christian narrative. This is a carefully practised and nurtured art, and you can see the manner in which "new thorns" have been added to the garland in the form of Graham Staines and post Godhra action.

There is a lesson in this for us - in that the alternate anti-Hindu narrative used to smear Hindus is a living and dynamic beast that adds information every day and makes the thorny garland bigger and heavier. This is worth emulating.

To me this means that we cannot rest on old existing information about Christian excesses in history, but need to actively collect up snippets of new information to make an alternate garland of thorns to place around the neck of evangelists and John Dayals of the world - a garland that gets bigger and better known every day by constant repetition. It is well worth using this thread to create the first garland of thorns based on both historic info as well as contemporary news about Christiian excesses and intolerance.

The garland should be snippets of information that are strung together and repeated endlessly just like we are treated to "Hindutva-right wing - fundamentalist - forward caste suppressor of minorities- murderer of Graham Staines and Muslims in Gujarat"

All the old stories about Christian murders and mayhem are part and parcel of this alternate narrative/garland of thorns, but need to be added to other stories, including celibacy-pederasty, orgy stories.

This will, of course, be called "hate speech" but in fact do not even constitute a fraction of the volume and duration of insults that are heaped on and continue to be heaped on Hindus as a matter of "common knowledge". Hindu opinion and sensitivity are looked down with so much derision that they do not count at all.

I think a bit of the same medicine is required to be forced down some peaceful and loving throats.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 04-22-2007, 09:09 AM by Husky.)

QUOTEAh - that's a lot of love there from you Husky.Surprise is unnecessary. It's no secret that I have no love for christoislamism.

You wrote:QUOTE(Post 11 Smile

I have seen a great deal of anger at conversions but no clear explanation as to why Hindus should be against conversions - other than that they are angry.Then I wrote my posts in reply, explaining why the ongoing conversions to christoterrorism are bad. Then you wrote:
QUOTE(Post 35 Smile

Problem is that what you state is well known to people on here at least.My turn to be amazed. Would have thought these two statements don't mix.

QUOTEYou have implied that the RSS has tried singing bhajans and Hymns in a church and that hasn't worked. Please point me to some links/info sources about these events so I can see the details for myself.Please point me to where I implied this. I stated quite clearly that Hindus have been visiting churches and generally taking part in christoislamic events for a long time. I also said that Romans did the same. Christian gratitude was such, that even the Roman Emperor who owned a bust of christ and gave it a respectful place had for long been maligned as being one of the arch-persecutors of christianity in the Roman era. I also gave examples of christian 'gratitude' to Hindu acceptance.

I don't know why you'd still want Hindus or RSS to sing "bhajans and Hymns in a church", when you admit to knowing of the eternal terrorism of the christian ideology. While that religion is still exterminating many peoples on this planet, it seems you find Hindus ought to still show respect for that world oppressor. Such a suggestion is so far beyond what's understood as Stockholm Syndrome that I don't know they've invented a term for it yet.

QUOTEApart from describing the murderous culprits - do you have any ideas about how to convince anyone of what you keep saying? The same way I was convinced. By victims of christoterrorism, by people (S Koreans, Japanese) whose communities have been victimised, and by reading the bible for myself. And then eventually realising their experiences were not unique nor one-offs, but part of the christian pattern since the start of that religion.

04-22-2007, 08:05 AM

No Husky - I think you and I agree on the facts - but I believe that by saying things the way you are saying - you are only adding to Hindu handicap by allowing yourself to be described as a writer of "hate speech"

Your message can be spread with far more finesse. I believe the facts that you have collected can be spread far and wide - but are hampered by the manner in which you choose to spread them. But that is my opinion.

It may satisfy you to keep saying and doing the things that you believe but I see your methods as not going very far beyond yourself and as preaching to the converted.

The conversion of others to understand what you are saying requires a much more subtle approach. You have thus far failed to agree with almost anything anyone else says unless they agree with you and I doubt if you will agree with me. I am not asking for agreement.

However I still think your approach to spreading the facts that you know and getting a wider audience has never worked and will never work. But that is OK - I agree with the facts you present and will use my own methods of spread for what they are worth, because I have not seen your methods work at all in the wide world. You go right ahead and do what you are good at and I will do what I think I am good at.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 04-22-2007, 01:25 PM by Husky.)

QUOTEallowing yourself to be described as a writer of "hate speech"Hmm, possibly. Noticed that christians are quick to dismiss unsavoury facts as 'hate speech' and accuse anyone who refers to these as uttering 'hate speech' as well. Recently found out that the brilliant site called Christian Heritage has been pulled. Christian whining/lobbying no doubt. What next, a replay of the 'glorious' christian ages of book burning?

QUOTEYour message can be spread with far more finesse. I believe the facts that you have collected can be spread far and wide - but are hampered by the manner in which you choose to spread them. But that is my opinion.I've not started 'spreading the message'. All my friends are more aware of christoterrorism than I am, so who in my acquaintance do I have to spread it to? (There was an Indian christian girl in class who insulted both my Hinduism and my Taiwanese Buddhist friend in one go - but since then we no longer hang out with her... Whether she ever finds out the truth about her religion is her business, I care not.)

You wrongly suppose that my posts on IF are 'my attempts to spread the message'. Everyone here already knew (by all indications, long before I did) that christianity was nothing more than terrorism. It's what the English refer to as 'preaching to the choir'.
Never joined other forums - though I read bits of the contents of a few - nor have any intention of doing so. It was an accident of history I joined this one.

Certainly, forums or web sites wouldn't be the way I'd choose to get the point across. Have my own ideas <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> , but don't intend to shoot myself in the foot by making them public before implementing them.

04-22-2007, 10:48 AM

QUOTE(Husky @ Apr 22 2007, 09:43 AM)
You wrongly suppose that my posts on IF are 'my attempts to spread the message'. Everyone here already knew (by all indications, long before I did) that christianity was nothing more than terrorism. It's what the English refer to as 'preaching to the choir'.
Never joined other forums - though I read bits of the contents of a few - nor have any intention of doing so. It was an accident of history I joined this one.


Thank you for making this clear. My intention is to spread the truth in a manner that can, if possible, be swallowed, internalized and remembered and spread further by as many people as possible.

This will mean showing as much deceit and as much of a forked tongue as any evangelist. Every animal understands its own tongue better than any other and it will be necessary to use the methods that are already in use by mullahs and evangelists.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?