02-23-2008, 02:22 AM
|
Christian Subversion And Missionary Activities - 4
|
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Feb 23 2008, 02:22 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Feb 23 2008, 02:22 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->A Critique of Inter-country Adoption
by Lee Sam-dol (Tobias) warning: strong language used [right][snapback]78886[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Brilliant find. I've always had a problem with the abduction of non-western children by (christo)western countries. They invariably get christoised and lose out on who they are. They are often also victimised. And criticising the phenomenon of the west adopting non-western kids is regarded as uncharitable: "those orphans were utterly ignored by their community in Africa/Guatemala/Polynesia/India/.... and would have died if not for us". When quite often, orphans are looked after by their traditional communities, and even more frequently, the kids are not orphans at all but are kidnapped from their parents in all those countries. No strong language in the actual text: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Introduction</b> What is fundamentally wrong with intercountry adoption is that white Westerners adopt children, while non-whites in non-Western countries relinquish and supply those children. Intercountry adoption is in other words a one-way traffic and not an equal exchange of children in need between countries. Since its beginning after World War II when the supply of working-class children for domestic adoption started to run short, intercountry adoption has been the last resort to have a child for infertile couples belonging to the elite who feel a strong social pressure to fulfill the standard of the nuclear family. Intercountry adoption is widely perceived as a progressive and anti-racist act of rescuing a non-white child from the miseries of the Third World, something which legitimizes the practice in the first place. Besides, the bizarre situation is loaded with demands of loyalty, guilt and gratefulness as the wealthiest of the rich in the receiving countries adopt the most shunned and unwanted in the Third World. <b>Historical prerequisites</b> Before World War II, no Westerner thought about adopting a non-white child. Racism was the order of the day of the colonial world order in a time when the West ruled the world. Before the war, different humanitarian organizations actually tried to place Jewish refugee children from Central Europe as a part of the Kindertransport into Swedish homes. Today we can read about the difficulties in placing those children through letters preserved at the National Archive of Sweden: "We don't want Jewish children. Aren't there any Aryan children?" How could Westerners be prepared to adopt "non-Aryan" children from Korea already at the beginning of the 1950s? The answers are the Holocaust and de-colonization. The scope of the Holocaust created such a shock that the West was forced to change its worldview. The West realized that the Holocaust couldn't just be a German deed, and that instead all Western countries were "guilty" after 2,000 years of Anti-Semitism. The West went from open racism to the idea of equality for all races, at least theoretically. This idea destroyed the world order having dominated the last 500 years: that the West had the right to conquer, exterminate and rule over non-white people. De-colonization was followed by violent conflicts, and the first intercountry adoptees soon started to arrive. <b>The Korean and Swedish cases</b> The Korean War was not just a Korean war. It was a cynical and dirty war between the super powers that happened to take place on the Korean peninsula as two Korean states were dominated by two Western powers as pawns in the game. 3.5 million Koreans were killed on both sides representing over 10 percent of the population. The Korean War is considered one of the bloodiest in history considering the limitation in time and in geography, and the losses correspond to one fifth of the global war casualties since World War II. During the years of war, soldiers from the UN-army started to adopt children. The UN-army contained most of the countries which would adopt the majority of the Korean children: Australia, Canada, Luxemburg, United States, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Witnesses describe the Korean War as something close to genocide. The UN-soldiers killed tens of thousands of Koreans on both sides indiscriminately, and it is also important to bear in mind that almost all of the first Korean adoptees were products of unequal relations between UN-soldiers and Korean women. The same pattern followed in other countries. De-colonized countries like India and Ethiopia became supplying countries as a consequence of international aid efforts. Especially in East Asia, dominating intercountry adoption as a region, the Korean situation became the standard. Wars and catastrophes in countries like Vietnam and Thailand resulted in intercountry adoption from those countries. Worth noting is also that many leading supplying countries in the field of intercountry adoption fall under America's sphere of influence or have been subjected to American warfare: Korea, Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines in Asia, and Colombia, Chile and Guatemala in South America. Sweden played an important role everywhere. The result is that Sweden has brought in the largest number of adoptees among all Western countries in relation to the native population: almost 45,000 from 130 different countries. After a pro-Nazi war history and a long tradition of race thinking, self-righteous Sweden after 1945 wanted to be the paradise for human rights, democracy and anti-racism. Another less idealistic motive worth mentioning was the sudden disappearance of adoptable Swedish children during the decade as a result of rapid economic growth and a high participation of women in the labor force, as well as the development of an advanced social welfare system. Even more important is Sweden's self image as the world's most democratic country, a self-image recently challenged by the sudden appearance of a vigorous National Socialist movement and racism towards non-Western immigrants including adoptees. Intercountry adoption is in Sweden nothing else but a national project to uphold the country's self-image. For countries like Korea, the almost insatiable demand for children has created huge social problems. Intercountry adoption has destroyed all attempts to develop an internal social welfare system, and the position of the Korean woman has remained unchanged. The Swedes have been forced to accept unwed mothers for a long time, but in Korea the children born out-of-wedlock instead disappeared abroad. In the 1970s, during the golden days of Korean adoption when Korean children like pets and mascots became status symbols among progressive whites, the pressure was enormous on Korea to find adoptable children. Temporarily relinquished children at institutions and those who simply got lost from their parents on the streets disappeared forever from the country. Intercountry adoption was also linked to the amount of money Western organizations gave to the institutions: as more children delivered, as more money received. The consequences of intercountry adoption for supplying countries in terms of a national trauma and destroyed lives for the biological parents are today obvious in a country like Korea, the country in the world which has sent away the largest number of children: more than 150,000 in 15 Western countries. Interestingly, Swedish documentaries on intercountry adoption are always focusing on the "positive" side, while the equivalents in Korea always focus on "negative" aspects. <b>"In the best interest of the child"</b> The expression "in the best interest of the child" is used as a mantra by intercountry adoption proponents. It is a fact that intercountry adoption has always worked for the interests of adoptive parents and receiving countries, never for the interests of adopted children or supplying countries. If it would have been "in the best interest of the child", then siblings would never have been separated, and every adoptive parent would have been forced to travel to the supplying country and pick up the child and at least tried to learn something of the child's language and culture. In 1969, during a visit to Sweden, the former adoption agency SWS' director Mr. Tahk said the following considering "in the best interest of the child": "We have to realize that Korea is not forced to give away children for adoption. We have to think about the children in the first place, not the parents. It would be better to find individual homes in Korea for these children, that is sponsoring activities." The last method is apparently considered to be "in the best interest of the child" for white children in the West: the Swedish foster children are not adoptable at all. Swedish and Korean children are simply not treated as equals. Adoptive parents have the right to choose between age, country, race, handicap et cetera. The fact that some countries have been favorites for adoptive parents says a lot about how much race thinking still continue to live on under the anti-racist surface. Korea in Asia, Ethiopia in Africa and Colombia in Latin America are countries whose children more easily can pass as whites compared to other countries in the same regions. Compare children from Korea to children from Malaysia, children from Ethiopia to children from Nigeria and children from Colombia to children from Bolivia. Furthermore, Swedish adoptive parents seem to have a clear preference for girls and "racially pure" children. Non-white girls are probably less threatening, especially for infertile men, and the last preference is nothing else but racism. A paternalistic and neo-colonial thinking consider us adoptees to be eternal children. We are forced into an identity as adopted children, not as adults. At the same time we are the children of the whole Swedish society more than any immigrant ever can be. And first and foremost we are Swedes, we are not allowed to explore our ethnic origin. In spite of this total lack of respect and integrity towards the adopted child, the adoptive family continues to act "mother, father and child" even if this social anomaly never will develop into a biological relationship. Is it a right to have children? Is it a right to take others' children? Only a privileged white middle-class person answers yes on these questions. <b>Parallels to the slave trade</b> The West has a long tradition of uprooting non-whites and transporting them involuntarily to their own countries and for their own purposes. Hundreds of thousands of non-whites, especially Africans, were transported to the Americas to satisfy the need for manpower. Nowadays hundreds of thousands of non-whites, especially East Asians, are transported to the West to satisfy the needs of infertile white middle-class couples. The message of intercountry adoption ideology is clearly that life in the West is the best, and that the West has the right to adopt children from non-Western countries in the name of paternalistic humanism and materialistic superiority, something which reminds of the pro-slavery arguments from the 19th century Â| by leaving war-stricken and impoverished West Africa the slaves were considered given a better life in the New World. Contemporary intercountry adoption having flown in close to half a million Third World children to the West during a period of half a century has many parallels to the Atlantic slave trade which between 1440-1870 shipped 11 million Africans to America, and to indentured labor dispatching 12 million Indians and Chinese to the European empires between 1834-1922. However, a crucial difference is of course that slave trade and indentured labor belong to history and are today almost universally condemned, while intercountry adoption is still continuing, perfectly accepted by Western societies and legalized through various international conventions. There are indeed numerous striking similarities between the slave trade and intercountry adoption. Both practices are demand driven, utilizing a highly advanced system of pricing and commodification of human beings with the young and healthy as the most valued, as well as being dependent on the existence of intermediaries in the forms of slave hunters and adoption agencies and a reliable transportation system of ships and planes. <b>Both the African slaves and the Third World children are stripped of their identities as they are separated from their parents and siblings, baptized and Christianized, losing their language and culture and in the end only retaining a fetishized non-white body that has been branded or given a case number.</b> Especially the so-called "House Negroes" in America must be the closest parallels to intercountry adoptees as both are living with their masters, treated like their children and legally a part of the household and family. Finally, last but not least both groups are brought over only to please and satisfy the needs and desires of their well-to-do buyers, slave owners and adoptive parents respectively. <b>Cultural genocide and racism </b> When we arrive to Sweden, we have to give up our Korean identity, and it doesn't matter whether we are five weeks or seven years old. We are emptied of our Koreanness including, and are filled up with Swedishness. One effect is that few adoptees remember their childhood in their birth country. Everything un-Swedish is considered "forbidden": we are here on the Swedes' conditions. Everything linked to Korea is taboo or slandered. Korea is contemptuously considered to be a "bad" and "poor" country. Many adoptive parents have strange fantasies about Korea with strong sexual undertones: "your mother was a prostitute", "you are an incest child" and "if you had been in Korea today, either you would have been dead or a prostitute". The adoptive parents want the adopted children to feel "chosen", but in reality adoption is nothing else but a grim lottery. Behind this is the demand from the adoptive parents to feel eternally grateful, loyal, satisfied and happy. The truth is that we would never have been here in the West without a colonial history of 500 years, without today's unequal world order, and without the dominating ideal of the middle-class nuclear family. When the adoptee leaves the adoptive family to become an adult, the immigrant identity is waiting. From a privileged adopted child with adoptive parents who fight to make their adopted children believe that they are "special", not immigrants, the adult adoptee becomes just one of many other non-white immigrants. That is the African-Americans' strongest opinion against interracial adoption: white parents can never teach their non-white children strategies how to survive in a racist society. A similar argument was heard from some African countries refusing to use intercountry adoption already in the 1970s: "You don't treat our children with respect and dignity." However, these arguments have oddly enough rarely reached the world of intercountry adoption. Instead it is assumed that there are no special problems, emotional or psychological costs being a non-white adoptee in a white adoptive family and living in a predominantly white surrounding. <b>Consequently, assimilation becomes the ideal as the adoptee is stripped of name, language, religion and culture, while the bonds to the biological family and the country of origin are cut off. Adoptees who are consciously dissociating themselves from their country of origin and see themselves as whites are interpreted as examples of successful adjustments, while interest in cultural heritage and biological roots is seen as an indication of poor mental health or condemned as expressions of biologism and Nationalism. Recently, proponents of inter-country adoption have also started to attack the "politically correct" ban on interracial adoption.</b> The structural racism against non-whites of course also affects us adoptees. It is important to remember that tens of millions of white Europeans today again vote for openly racist parties with strong National Socialist leanings. I have the feeling that we are "stranded" here in the West, in an aggressive and arrogant culture treating us like animals. We are prisoners and hostages of the West, deadly vulnerable and without the place of refuge which immigrants have. To feel subordinated is not only the adoptee's experience. There are some parallels to immigrants belonging to the second generation, and to people of mixed blood. The difference is that those can find strength in a birth culture our adoptive parents refused us access to. The question is not: Am I a Swede or a Korean? The question is: How can I survive as a marginalized East Asian in Sweden? To be an adopted Korean is practically to live outside both cultures. We will never be considered as Swedes, and we cannot return to Korea. The Orientalist imagery Racism against East Asians is still an accepted racism so much that it doesn't even count as racism. Racism against East Asians is ridicularization and collectivization. We are ugly, fussing and something to laugh about. We are outsiders, Martians, numerous, tiresome, subservient and idle, and it is impossible to separate us from each other. Our unique situation as adoptees and non-whites who have grown up with whites make us especially sensitive to racism. We intercountry adoptees know more about the West than any other non-white non-westerner on this planet. None except us adoptees are living so close to the whites. We have lived together with the "enemy", slept with him, eaten together with him. The stereotyped sex roles are disastrous for us East Asians. The feminization and infantilization hitting both sexes, have direct consequences in our daily lives. East Asian men are desexualized, and are attractive only for some homosexual men or pedophiles. East Asian women are on the other hand hyper-sexualized but in a way that cannot be called sexuality: it is rather a question of power, violence and strains of pedophilia. This is a pattern being the reality in United States. Ever since arriving in the 19th century, Asian-Americans have had strong difficulties to build their own stable communities. Asian-Americans have the highest ratio of interracial relations. It is no surprise that this concerns Asian women, not Asian men. In some generations and ethnic groups as many as 80 percent of the Asian-American women have left their own community for white men. The consequence is that every generation produces a bachelor society among Asian men, and a huge number of Amerasian children. Every year tens of thousands of white men of whom many are academics in Asian Studies travel to East Asia to find a wife, and they are not making any difference between countries like Korea or Thailand. East Asia is for a white man an enormous sexual fantasy with its rape myths and colonial subordination. These white men are tramping in the same footsteps as their heroes, the American soldiers who raped East Asian women and killed Asian men in countries like Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan. The white men's sexual fantasies are reproduced in that pornographic genre called "Asian girls", a genre showing strong pedophile influences. Whites' views on us East Asians have been taken for granted especially among us adoptees. The men feel ugly, while the women feel "special" and interpret the totally unselective attention from white men as compliments. The men remain bachelors, while the women marry white men. The last aspect has in my opinion also to do with basic survival instincts: being married to a white man is honestly speaking a one-way ticket into the white society. <b>Outcomes of intercountry adoption</b> Studies on adoptees have been conducted ever since the first children arrived in their host countries in the 1950s, and the majority have been qualitative works based on small groups of children or adolescents with adoptive parents as informants and focusing on issues of attachment, adjustment and self-esteem. In the leading adopting regions of North America, Scandinavia and Western Europe, the field is heavily dominated by researchers who are either adoptive parents themselves or affiliated to adoption agencies. As a result of these obvious limitations, the outcomes of studies are almost without exceptions interpreted as positive, and problems that have been identified are attributed to a combination of pre-adoption and genetic factors as it is understood that there are no difficulties at all of being racially different in a white environment. As a consequence, there are few studies on adult adoptees and few quantitative population studies, while the politically sensitive issues of race and ethnicity are mostly dealt with in a shallow way. However, recently new research have come to light, based on thousands of adult intercountry adoptees in Sweden due to unique possibilities in the country of conducting quantitative register studies, showing a less positive picture of intercountry adoption. Antecedents to the Swedish studies were conducted in the Netherlands already in the 1990s showing high frequencies of behavior and emotional problems among adolescent intercountry adoptees compared to equivalent non-adopted control groups. The new Swedish studies, by far the most extensive ever conducted on intercountry adoptees in any Western country up to date, clearly indicate that intercountry adoption is not as unproblematic and idyllic as it generally is conceived as. Instead the Swedish studies should be seen as the most scientific way of assessing the outcomes of intercountry adoption. The adult intercountry adoptees were checked up in population registers and compared to equivalent control groups among ethnic Swedes. The results show that the group has substantial problems to establish themselves socio-economically in terms of level of education, labor market achievement and creating a family in spite of having been adopted to couples predominantly belonging to the Swedish elite. It is estimated that 90 percent of the adoptive parents belong to the upper and middle classes. In spite of this, 6.6 percent of the intercountry adoptees had a post-secondary education of three years or more compared to 20 percent among biological children of the adoptive parents whom they grew up with as siblings. 60.2 percent of the intercountry adoptees were employed compared to 77.1 percent among ethnic Swedes, and half of the former group belong to the lowest income category compared 28.6 percent for the latter. 29.2 percent of the intercountry adoptees were either married or co-habitants compared to 56.2 percent of the majority population. Intercountry adoptees have less often children, and those who are parents are more often living without their children if they are males or as single parents if they are females, thus sadly mimicking their biological parents' behavior. Males have more often than females indicators of social maladjustment. Moreover, epidemiological studies show high levels of psychiatric illness, addiction, criminality and suicide compared to the control groups. The odds ratio for psychiatric hospital care was found to be 3.2, for treatment for alcohol abuse 2.6 and for drug abuse 5.2. The odds ratio for severe criminality leading to imprisonment stood at 2.6 and for suicide attempt 3.6. Females have more often than males indicators of poor mental health. The most shocking finding is a <b>record high odds ratio of 5.0 for suicide compared to ethnic Swedes, in an international perspective only comparable to the staggering suicide rates registered among indigenous people in North America and Oceania, which makes parallels to cultural genocide ghastly topical. </b> In this perspective, it becomes more evident than ever that intercountry adoption is nothing else but an irresponsible social experiment of gigantic measures, from the beginning to the end. Tobias Hubinette The author is adopted from Korea and lives in Stockholm, Sweden.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What infuriates me in the Indian case is that christowesterners always make it a point to adopt Hindu children from India, as opposed to adopting Indian christian children.
02-23-2008, 08:02 AM
02-24-2008, 05:37 PM
We have western christian ideas coming to mainstream media.
Check this out. 10 years ago such news never made it to news http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Review/...how/2330020.cms The Cross and the Communist 2 Sep 2007, 0023 hrs IST,Ashley D'Mello,TNN Print Save EMail Write to Editor It's a question that many have asked over the years, and one that is being asked even more frequently after the arrests of activists Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves. The police have charged them with being Naxalites, a charge that both men and their families firmly repudiate. The question being asked is: What draws middle-class Christian boys from educated and fairly affluent backgrounds to Marxism? What makes them give up the comforts of the city to answer the call of the village? What few know is that for many of these boys the route to activism came not through Marx & Engels or Naxalbari but through a radical Christian ideology called Liberation Theology. An ideology, which most crucially, does not espouse the gun or grenade as a weapon of change. Liberation Theology originated in the poverty and slums of Latin America, where it deeply influenced Christian groups in the 1970s and 1980s, making them shun the elitist image of the Church and serve the poorest of the poor as Christ did. "During his student days, Vernon was influenced by Liberation Theology along with fellow student members of the All-India Catholic University Federation (AICUF)," said his wife Susan. "He later severed links with the AICUF and moved on to working for labourers in rural areas. He was also a union leader in the thermal power plants at Chandrapur." Arun Ferreira was a sociology student at St Xavier's College, but by his time, the radicalism in the AICUF had petered out. He was however active in the Social Service League in his college. One of his relatives was a priest who was in the forefront of the movement in India. Liberation Theology transformed the way many Catholics viewed charity and social work. It contained elements of Marxist analysis and came out in support of the poor, spurring them to action to change their lot. It quoted the Bible to show that Christ and his apostles practised a form of early socialism by sharing their belongings and food. To many Catholics, used to serving in educational institutions which catered to the middle class and the rich, it came as an eye-opener. They suddenly realised they were serving a class which did not need their charity. Among the earliest to embrace it were the Jesuits, sometimes dubbed the ideological stormtroopers of the Catholic faith. Several prominent theologians such as the late Fr George Soares in Pune, Samuel Ryan, and the late Sebastian Kappen supported the new thinking. In 1978 in Mumbai, two Jesuit priests, Peter D'Mello and Niki Cordoso, both working with the Catholic Mission at Dahanu, broke away and formed a group called the Kashtakari Sanghatana. This group called for a more direct and radical approach to help poor tribals in the Thane district. The Sanghatana is now run on secular left-of-centre lines, and has been joined by Brian, another Bandra boy who has settled in Dahanu and married a tribal woman. Twenty-five years after he left the Jesuits, Nikki Cordoso recalled the role he played in Dahanu with emotion. "The then superior general of the Jesuits, Pedro Aruppe, told the church, do not work with the poor, walk with them. Another slogan was âFrom Alms to Arms', but by arms we did not mean guns but empowerment of the poor and the marginalised by asking them to stand up for their rights." The authorities cracked down, labelling them Naxalites, said Cordoso. "We were handcuffed and tied in ropes and later jailed to serve as an example to anyone who wanted the uplift of tribals." This line of thinking was also prevalent in Kerala. When questioned about taking to the streets for fishermen's rights, several nuns openly stated that standing up for human rights was what they believed in, and the role played by traditional-minded Catholics like Mother Teresa, who built homes for the sick and needy, was no longer relevant. "Instead of picking up people from the streets, Christians should try and stop people being thrown on the streets," the nuns argued. Mumbai had its own bunch of radicals in the AICUF, whose advisor, the late Fr Raymond D'Silva played a crucial role in mentoring students, several of whom who went on to work with unions, Bennett D'Costa and Franklyn D'Souza being two prominent examples. Prof Fleur D'Souza, who was part of the AICUF group in 1977 in Mumbai, said that a number of students were inspired to work with labour unions instead of choosing a regular career. However, Vernon's brother Kenneth Gonsalves, who was also a member of AICUF, said that it was not Liberation Theology alone but a number of factors that led to the burst of democratic activity which followed the lifting of the Emergency. Others who were also called to unionism, like CITU leader Vivek Monetiro, said they were untouched by the winds of change from Latin America. Fr Rudy Heredia, a sociologist with the Indian Social Institute in New Delhi, and Bishop Thomas Dabre from Vasai said that one of the issues that troubled the Indian Church about the new ideology was the Marxist inclination to use violence to change social structures. "The Church which was wedded to the ideals of Christ could not condone violence," said Dabre. While violence was seen as antithetical to Christian values, the Marxist method of analysis was welcomed by many, said theologian, Julian Saldhana. It made Catholics realise that poverty, illiteracy and corruption were man-made and not God-ordained. "The new philosophy, however, placed too much emphasis on economic issues ignoring the vital spiritual dimensio of everyday life," he added. The Vatican came down heavily on the new theology. It condemned the connection with Marxism and sidelined senior clergy. Pope John Paul II was particularly bitter about priests who had joined the leftist Sandinista government as ministers in the 1980s. In India, Liberation Theology failed to blossom into a strong movement due to various factors. The minority status of the Catholic groups meant that they were not able to communicate their ideas to other groups. They also came under attack from right-wing sections which found them to too radical while the mainstream Left was suspicious of them. In fact, some of the liberation activists were even dubbed "agents of the West" by the more hardline Leftists.
02-24-2008, 06:22 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-"Tim"+-->QUOTE("Tim")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Multatuli -
"...the US has a ruling elite that is extremely well educated and knows what they are doing." But what are they educated in? Very few know anything about India or the region. Look at the course offerings at major universities, and the numbers of students who take courses on the region. Look at the major conferences that are offered - the University of Wisconsin, for example, offers a very large conference on South Asian Studies every October. There are hundreds of panels, and tens of thousands of books available - and almost none are on modern history or contemporary politics. It's easy to get a good education in an awful lot of things in the US. It's not easy to get a good education on India, or regional affairs. Tim<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> They dont need to learn about Indians since they can hire Indians in sociology and South Asian Studies dept to get the expertise. from the colonial days UK and then later US has cultivated a large groups of Indians who are informers for the west. They keep a steady flow of Information about India and Indian society to the west year round. West dont have to study modern history since they have control/influence over the Indian media and an Indian elite which copies and tries hard to act like Americans and westerners. Indian political philosophy is heavily influenced by western ideas and thoughts with many political/religious strategists kiving in the west. Indian education and history is Euro centric and westernized for the comfort of western elite.
they are trained to evaluate and interrogate every culture and practice from the viewpoint of a few half-baked theories. they have the psychopathic assuredness of religion. and they fancy themselves as agents of necessary and benevolent change. These are all a deadly combination.
02-25-2008, 10:52 PM
I think this should be seen in an positive way and the inter-faith dialogue that was started between RSS and christain organisations must be restarted and the difference of opinion should be reconciled and our combined energies should redirected towards national development.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Episcopal Christians apologise to Hindus for discrimination, proselytisation</b> http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/feb/25apology.htm February 25, 2008 An unqualified apology from a Christian community to Hindus worldwide, which also denounced proselytisation by Christian missionaries, has triggered a debate among pastors across the United States. The apology, tendered by Right Reverend J Jon Bruno, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, is arguably the first of its kind by a major Christian congregation, and was issued 'for centuries-old acts of religious discrimination by Christians, including attempts to convert them.' While some Episcopal Christians have protested against the apology, made during an Indian-style Mass complete with aarti and kirtans, on January 19 in the presence of over 100 Hindu spiritual leaders and lay people, organisers of the event insist it was the right step in the right direction. 'I believe that the world cannot afford for us to repeat the errors of our past, in which we sought to dominate rather than to serve,' Bruno, who owing to a personal emergency could not be present, said in a statement that was read out by the Right Reverend Chester Talton. 'In this spirit, and in order to take another step in building trust between our two great religious traditions, I offer a sincere apology to the Hindu religious community.' The apology was made in a ceremony to mark three years of dialogue between Hindus and Christians, initiated among others by the Reverend Karen MacQueen, better known as Mother Karen. She is deeply influenced by Vedanta philosophy, and fiercely opposes the conversions-for-kindness methodology. The apology was a small act compared to Pope John Paul II's unprecedented apology for the sins of Christians through the ages, made a few years ago. 'We forgive and we ask forgiveness,' the Pope had said during a historic Lenten liturgy in St Peter's Basilica. He, along with Vatican officials, pronounced a 'request for pardon' for 'sins against Christian unity, the use of violence in serving the truth, hostility toward Jews and other religions, the marginalisation of women, and wrongs - like abortion - against society's weakest members.' "In our case, the apology is part of the dialogue we initiated with a few Hindu leaders three years ago," Mother Karen said. "The healing process will continue," she said but she wasn't sure certain Christian denomination will change their conversion tactics. The ceremony started with the Hindu priestess Pravrajika Saradeshaprana blowing into a conch shell three times, in a call to Hindu and Episcopal religious leaders to join the ceremony. The rare joint service included chants from the Temple Bhajan Band of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and a moving rendition of Bless the Lord, O My Soul sung by the St John's choir, the LA Times reported. The newspaper, which gave considerable space to the story, however erroneously, reported that Hindus had received the Holy Eucharist. "They ran a correction," Mother Karen said. But by then many Christians were upset. "The fact remains that there were many Indian Christians who received the Eucharist," she said. The newspaper mistook them for the Hindus, she said chuckling. In its correction, the LA Times wrote, 'Hindu-Episcopal service: An article in Sunday's California section about a joint religious service involving Hindus and Episcopalians said that all those attending the service at St John's Cathedral in Los Angeles were invited to Holy Communion. Although attendees walked toward the Communion table, only Christians were encouraged to partake of Communion. Out of respect for Hindu beliefs, the Hindus were invited to take a flower. Also, the article described Hindus consuming bread during Communion, but some of those worshippers were Christians wearing traditional Indian dress'. Bishop Bruno's stand against 'proselytising' has meanwhile impressed many Hindus. Swami Sarvadevananda, of the Vedanta Society of Southern California, called Bruno's stance 'a great and courageous step' that binds the two communities. 'By declaring that there will be no more proselytising, the bishop has opened a new door of understanding,' he told the LA Times. 'The modern religious man must expand his understanding and love of religions and their practices.' Mother Karen, who has visited India many times since her first sojourn at Mother Teresa's hospice in Kolkota, wishes to see Hindu-Christian dialogue in India. "But it cannot be done effectively when some church leaders are going around converting people in the name of charitable work," she said. "There are enough Christians in the world. What we need to see is more Christians leading an exemplary life and truly loving their fellow man." In her homily 'A Vision for Inter-Religious Dialogue' at the church event, Mother Karen said in both Hinduism and Christianity, devotees believe that 'the Divine Presence' illuminates the whole world. Mother Karen, who continues to study Hinduism, also said both faiths revere 'great figures who embody the divine light, who teach the divine truth.'<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
regarding the episcopalian event:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"a Eucharist was celebrated and the Hindus invited to receive the consecrated elements, though some Hindus who abstain from alcohol received only the host, the Los Angeles Times said." "Added to the Communion service was a veneration of an icon. While a Hindu band sang a hymn the Anglican celebrant anointed the icon with sandalwood paste, draped a garland of flowers over the icon and lit a lamp, âas a sign of Christ, the light in the darkness." "The diocese reported the Eucharist was celebrated according to the liturgy of the Church of South India and the <b>âtradition of Bede Griffithsâ</b> and incorporated an âArati, the Service of Light, and Kirtan, congregational chanting of the Holy Names."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Harshvardan+Feb 25 2008, 10:52 PM-->QUOTE(Harshvardan @ Feb 25 2008, 10:52 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I think this should be seen in an positive way and the inter-faith dialogue that was started between RSS and christain organisations must be restarted and the difference of opinion should be reconciled and our combined energies should redirected towards national development.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Episcopal Christians apologise to Hindus for discrimination, proselytisation</b> http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/feb/25apology.htm <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]78978[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Harshvardan, I have several problems with this. In fact, everyone should have. (1) Episcopalians are not considered christians by many another sect. Just like the other <i>comparatively</i> more tolerant christian sect of Unitarian Universalists. And it's just like the unique pro-abolition Quakers who were predictably never considered christian by other christians anyway. Example: http://freetruth.50webs.org/Overview3.htm <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. -- Statement made by Pat Robertson (Southern Baptist) on his televised program The 700 Club, January 14, 1991<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> (2) It's truly sweet of them to apologise. Christians like apologising. Just like the day the US has finally finished wiping off the native Americans of NA they will apologise for that as well. Just like the Oz minister J Howard recently got the sudden notion to finally apologise to the Australian Aboriginals with some hand-waving about past wrongs and 'never agains'. It's all really sweet. But nah. Sorry doesn't mean a thing when people have died, and entire civilisations have been destroyed (Greek, Roman, indigenous Australian, various African, native American of N, S, C America) by christianism. The christian gawd is a vengeful one and jeebus invented hell and according to his/their icky book, these poor episcopalians have just bought a one-way ticket to hell for saying sorry about 'converting Hindus' before the conversion process is complete. It's not me who says their hell is beckoning to them for this reason, but their non-existent deity would certainly put them there as per christianism's religious teachings and their babbling book for shirking their christian duty of converting. If anyone were truly apologetic about the wrongs they inflicted, they would try to set it right. Australia should try to restore Aboriginal religion and culture by spending as much effort and time as it may take. Native Americans should be encouraged to return to their religion, to their past numbers and to their infinitely more advanced society than the more petty American one (for example, native American society was not known to beat children and it had no confusions on gender equality). Likewise, the Episcopalians making pretty-sounding sermons <i>in America</i> might want to consider stopping their Baptist and Catholic brethren from terrorising Hindus back home <i>in India</i>: NE and Kerala, and TN and Gujarat (where converts had been breaking Hanuman statues of still-Hindus) and everywhere else where christianism has infested in India. I don't want christians in India to point to some American Episcopalian congregation and say: "Look they apologised, now stop talking about what we have done to Hindus in the NE and your temples in Goa and TN till today" How is this grand apology going to undo the damage they have done? (3) Where is the proof that this declaration promises good for us and will deliver? Christianism is THE religion of back-stabbing, feigned truces ('retreat, turn back and attack'). So too islam, but christianism has repeated their behaviour everywhere and all across history for longer, so we can stop being satisfied with a brief and non-descript concession (which will ultimately mean nothing more than words anyway). Look what they did to Julian, possibly the only western man who could have stopped christoislamicommunism dead in its tracks. It's an ideology that shouldn't be trusted. Turning one's back on the carnivore just because it tenders an apology for having chewed off your leg spells Fool to me. It says it's sorry. Oh how grand. It realises it has no right to bite and eat ya. How swell. Over 1.5 millennia of conduct is going to be miraculously changed because one sect - and that too considered heretical and hell-bound by the rest - has seen sense? (4) Finally, the problem is not solved by one or two or 10 christian sects agreeing that conversion is terrorism. (There are tens of thousands of christian sects, hardly any of which even agree that the others will go to heaven without some serious help/change and none of which appear to agree on how 'salvation' in christianism is achieved. Imagine how they feel about 'heathens'.) Yes, see here: http://freetruth.50webs.org/C1.htm <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->according to the World Christian Encyclopedia there are <b>over 20,800 Christian denominations</b> [Link]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> So pardon me if I don't jump up and down for joy when the marginalized-even-if-numerous Episcopalians happen to finally realise that conversion is terrorism. The problem is christianism. Even were a few christians or entire sects to realise that conversion is terrorism, it won't matter. Christianism has EVER carried within it the seed of intolerance. It may sleep for now in these particular Episcopalians. But one day the seed will sprout again, as it always has. And there has not been even an instance where the rule (of christianism being terrorism against others) has shown permanent exception. One may dream of national development. But while there are ideologies bent on world conquest by destruction of others' way of life - our way of life - national development will ever prove elusive. Nothing less than the following should satisfy/be accepted by Hindus as an apology: (1) Let the Indian church once and for all relinquish all fables about santa Thomas, jeebus-in-kashmir and similar inventions (2) Indian churches that are built on Hindu temples should of their own accord give their sites back and help in rebuilding temples on/near the original site on the original temple land (3) Churches should of their own initiative give back Hindu temple lands that they and their christocolonial bosses confiscated (4) Every single Indian christian should agree never to perform/support/endorse conversions and they should prove this in practise (even that is a problem: their children may start again when they read the injunction in the babble about "going forth" and terrorising/christianising the heathen nations). I will not say that we may not reconvert: precisely to undo the inherent dangers in future christian generations, we have no choice but to hope for christians and muslims reconverting. If Hindus had converted to Shinto or native American religion, I would not have the slightest problem. But christoislamism is intolerant of others by nature. (5) Let the church publicly admit to and teach the history of christian slavery; admit and teach of the christian origins of racism, gendercide and gender discrimination, and colonialism, and hence of the marginalisation and exploitation that followed; and of their own hypocritical stand on the caste issue. Let them teach the truths about sati, and other controversial issues like 'caste' even as the British observed it. Let them stop lying about the AIT and the Oryans, but they better NEVER claim that they ever opposed AIT. Only Hindus opposed the AIT. Christians invented it just like they invented similar terrorist lies/stories in Rwanda. They should stop making up and propagating lies like "Tribals are not Hindus". Unconverted Hindus are still Hindus. Let christians stop trying to hide christian-birthed paedophilia which is evident wherever the christoislamic religion has taken root (there are now even cases in Japanese churches). (6) Let them teach in their schools about the original temples that stood where the 'old' churches in Palestine are and how those churches were built by destroying the temples. Let them teach in christian schools about what happened to the Greeks and Romans and Europeans at the hands of christianism (for instance the contents at http://www.ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=en...ovestories ). Let them show what christianism has done to Korea. Let them teach about how they have been going about killing Hindus and other Dharmics in NE, about the temples they destroyed and are still destroying in India. (7) Let them teach about the latest findings regarding biblical archaeology (no Exodus, no Nazareth in jeebus alleged time) and scholarship (no apostles, bible put together much later and therefore not eye-witness testimony). (8) Let them add to their bible that the specific statement "thou shalt have no other Gods before me" should be a personal christian belief and not foisted on others. And let them cross out the line pushing them to go forth and teach other nations about jeebus and the babble. (9) They should not request the slightest monetary or other governmental support on the claim that they are a minority. (10) They should let go of lying in their schools and media and stop trying to infiltrate their kind into politics in order to force the rest of the country to christianise by lying about Hinduism and pretending christianism is supposedly a positive movement. (11) Let them stop allying themselves with their ideological selves ('brothers') islam and communism against Hindu Dharma. <b>ADDED:</b> (12) They should stop all attempts at inculturation. No claiming Hindu and other Dharmic religious culture as some 'psecular' Indian culture. No pottu/bindi, sari, other Hindu dress-items like gollasu (sp?), nosestuds. Absolutely no Dharmic names, they can keep to stolen Roman and Anglisi ones if they wish. (These are all used to trick Hindus into interacting with and even marrying christians; in fact, churches give advice on this dress stuff.) No crypto-christians. No building churches in the style of temples, no aartis, no stealing Pongal and other Hindu festivals and pretending they are cultural. No appropriating Bharatanatyam and Malayali or other Hindu dances; no appropriating Yoga or Kalari or Samskritam/Pali or Ayurveda as if they were some kind of 'psecular' Indian cultural achievements. No appropriating Hindu God names (like Eesan) for jeebus or using Hindu terms to describe christian ideas - use Aramaic or Anglisi or even Latin names for that. Absolutely NONE of this ever again. As a Hindu, I don't expect others to 'fit in', the way America forces others to 'fit in'. Appropriation is as an act of offense and will be recognised as such. In fact, like some native American communities, I have come to realise that all christian attempts to take part in our way of life is merely to steal from us to give themselves a false sense of having a culture, or to subvert our traditions if not to gain more sheep outright. (13) No making comparisons between christian figures and Hindu ones, or christianism and Hindu Dharma. Hindus should absolutely stop this too. (14) Christians should carry out the above in other non-European countries (partially) converted by christianism like the Phillipines, and in Korea. (15) Stop stealing others' children. <b>Forgiveness comes <i>after</i> adequate recompense has been made. Not by mere apologising.</b> It's beyond unlikely they'll do all this. But if they do and have proven their good intention for a number of consecutive generations (yeah, we're not going to fall for temporary truce), we can <i>consider</i> no longer mentioning jeebus (but if we're forced to, truth should compel us to admit he does not exist as described in the gospels and that there's no evidence that a jeebus of christianism existed). We should never turn our backs on christianism, because it <i>is</i> a mindvirus. What seems dormant today, may be back in full force the next day; in any case, it <i>will</i> return in its natural form eventually. So were we to accept an apology as I've just outlined above, we have to realise it will be eternal vigilance - watch christianism like a hawk and keep educating our own about the published truths concerning christianism, so that we are NEVER taken in again. I'm being charitable here. There should never be any relapse into considering christianism as being a 'dharmic' religion (induced by a false sense of brotherhood - the stupour we always put ourselves into when it comes to christoislamism). Because it is not a humane, natural tradition like native American religion and India's Dharma-based traditions are. It is a dangerous ideology that would only be allowed if 1-15 above hold because they would then have promised to pull out their own venomous teeth - who knows how long it will keep from regrowing. Even so, we'll be at the disadvantaged end, having to ever be on our guard. I don't like the arrangement at all - just like I wouldn't accept nazism on <i>any</i> terms - but other Hindus, the goody two-shoes kind, may not mind christianism so much after the necessary changes have been made. But as I said, this will never happen. Forgiveness is possible then, yes, but no forgetting. Never that. No self-delusion into trusting christianism ever again. Trust is reserved for those who have earned it. Whereas those who have broken it (and repeatedly so, in the case of christoislamicommunism) never again have the right to ask for it or to get it. Ever since I read somewhere how often christianism has apologised for terrorism (and invariably keeps terrorising, even if only elsewhere or at some other time) it makes me sick of reading about their 'sorries' altogether. Do forgive me for not getting up to cheer. <b>ADDED:</b> For those that think me harsh, after seeing images of ancient Korean Buddha vigrahams defaced by christianism and more recently, images of our own temple Vigrahams, I think I'm being rather generous. Why is it always expected of victims that they accept apologies? Why can't perpetrators learn not to follow their chosen terrorist ideologies - ideologies which have a long track-record of terrorism?
02-28-2008, 01:01 AM
<b>History of the Inquisition</b>
An historical overview of the Inquisition from the Medieval Source Book: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/inquisition1.html An historical overview of the Inquisition from a student project at Rice University: http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Stude...s/overview.html A timeline of the Spanish Inquisition, from 1220 A.D. until the present.: http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Stude...u/timeline.html <b>The Jews in the Inquisition</b> An article on Spanish Jewry leading up to the Inquisition: http://www.jtsa.edu/users/hsp/htm/empowere.html Guide to researching Sephardic and Jewish genealogy: http://www.sephardim.com/ <b>Documents</b> Henry Charles Lea Library at the University of Pennsylvania: http://www.library.upenn.edu/special/lea.html Mexican Inquisition documents of the Bancroft Libarary (at UC Berkeley) : http://library.berkeley.edu/BANC/banccol...ition.html Lilly Library at Indiana University : http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eliblilly/printingtext.html Medieval Sourcebook: Bernard Gui: Inquisitor's Manual : http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/be...i-inq.html Medieval Sourcebook: Bernard Gui: Inquisitorial Technique (c.1307-1323) : http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/heresy2.html Medieval Sourcebook: Angelo Clareno on an Inquisitorial Torture Session http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/clareno-inq.html <b>Current Thought on the Inquisition</b> An issue of the "Catholic Dossier" dedicated to the Inquisition : http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Do...ndex-frame.html An article entitled "New Thought on the Inquisition" : http://home.pi.net/%7Erubenalv/review_hamilton.html <b>Galileo and the Inquisition</b> Information on the Inquisition from the Galileo homepage : http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Stude...nquisition.html The "Galileo and the Inquisition" homepage : http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Stu...k/Trial96/
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Feb 26 2008, 01:44 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Feb 26 2008, 01:44 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->regarding the episcopalian event:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"a Eucharist was celebrated and the Hindus invited to receive the consecrated elements, though some Hindus who abstain from alcohol received only the host, the Los Angeles Times said." "Added to the Communion service was a veneration of an icon. While a Hindu band sang a hymn the Anglican celebrant anointed the icon with sandalwood paste, draped a garland of flowers over the icon and lit a lamp, âas a sign of Christ, the light in the darkness." "The diocese reported the Eucharist was celebrated according to the liturgy of the Church of South India and the <b>âtradition of Bede Griffithsâ</b> and incorporated an âArati, the Service of Light, and Kirtan, congregational chanting of the Holy Names."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]79003[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sorry Dhu, I had missed out on the significance of this. What Dhu has pointed out above shows how the Episcopalian 'apology' is a sham, which we should have known. Even while they delivered the mock-apology, they continue the old inculturation tactic: using Hindu practises like Aarti and Keertanas for christian purposes. Impersonating Old Bede. That's supposed to be an apology? Salt over wound: http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Glimpses_IV.htm <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Christian Missionary desperation?</b> <b>Father Bede Griffiths</b> (1905-1993) who has an "ashram" in South India, did puja instead of mass, wore the ochre vestments, used the "Aum" symbol and called himself "swami." It is a remarkable fact," write Fr. Bede, "that the Church has been present in India for over fifteen hundred years and has had for the most part everything in its favor, and yet in all this time hardly two in a hundred of the people has been converted to the Christian faith. The position is, indeed, worse even than this figure would suggest, as the vast majority of Christians are concentrated in a very few small areas and in the greater part of India the mass of people remains today untouched except in a very general way by the Christian faith. It is necessary to go even further than this and to say that for the immense majority of the Indian people Christianity still appears as a foreign religion imported from the West and <b>the soul of India remains obstinately attached to its ancient religion.</b> This may have been true in the past, but in recent times there has been a remarkable revival of Hinduism, which is more or less consciously opposed to Christianity, and the educated Hindu regards his religion as definitely superior to Christianity." Decades ago the Catholic bishops of India at their National Center in Bangalore had figures of Brahma, Vishnu, Siva and the Nataraja displayed on window grills of their church. The Hindu Astheega Sangham took them to court and had the images removed. The plaintiff's attorney, Mr. Parasaran, argued, "If you wish to honor or respect Hindu deities, place them on your altars and not on your window sills." The mission strategists are now making Christianity drop its alien attire and get clothed in Hindu cultural forms. Christianity is being presented as an indigenous faith. Christian theology is being conveyed through categories of Hindu philosophy; Christian worship is being conducted in the manner and with the materials of Hindu puja; Christian sacraments sound like Hindu samskaras; Christian Churches copy the architecture of Hindu temples; Christian hymns are being set to Hindu music; Christian themes and personalities are being presented in styles of Hindu painting; Christian missionaries dress and live like Hindu sannyasins; Christian mission stations look like Hindu ashrams. <b>(source: Catholic Ashrams Sannyasins or Swindlers - By Sita Ram Goel and Hinduism Today).</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Since Hindus have started waking up to all the other christoterrorist methods, this particular congregation of this particular christian sect (episcopalian) thought an apology and discussion on 'no more proselytising' would work. It's just a way to get their foot in the door. (Big mistake employing inculturation, though. Hint hint.) After all, they need a new tactic, especially now that more and more Hindus are learning the unpleasant truths about christianism what with television, internet and all. They merely want Hindus to remain gullible and kept in a receptive mood. I don't think christianism often came across 'heathen' victims who tried to inform each other about the terrible facts of the aggressor and kept themselves on alert; last time was in Julian's day wasn't it? Maybe christianism has gone shocked again. Maybe there is a soft underbelly after all. It is not remorse on their part, but fear and change of tactics that makes them 'apologise' while we are still unconverted. When the christoislamic mindvirus is scared it goes into self-preservation mode, even if it involves (gasp!) compromising temporarily. (After which they murdered Julian last time. A pattern to keep an eye on.) Now's not the time to celebrate that christianism has changed its colours. It obviously hasn't (as evident from their use of inculturation) and can't besides. I can't think why Hindus would participate in such events though. And do they really think inculturation is a compliment? It is offensive and is actually an attack. (Imitation may be considered 'flattery', but appropriation is not a 'compliment', by the way. The two are entirely distinct.) Some interesting things in Harshvardan's post: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The rare joint service included chants from the Temple Bhajan Band of the <b>International Society for Krishna Consciousness</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is strange: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The newspaper (LA Times), which gave considerable space to the story, however erroneously, reported that Hindus had received the Holy Eucharist. "They ran a correction," Mother Karen said. But by then many Christians were upset. "The fact remains that there were many Indian Christians who received the Eucharist," she said. The newspaper mistook them for the Hindus, she said chuckling. In its correction, the LA Times wrote, 'Hindu-Episcopal service: An article in Sunday's California section about a joint religious service involving Hindus and Episcopalians said that all those attending the service at St John's Cathedral in Los Angeles were invited to Holy Communion. Although attendees walked toward the Communion table, only Christians were encouraged to partake of Communion. Out of respect for Hindu beliefs, the Hindus were invited to take a flower. Also, the article described Hindus consuming bread during Communion, but some of those worshippers were Christians wearing traditional Indian dress'.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's a lot of talk on 'interfaith dialogue' too in that rediff article posted by Harshvardan. Hindus have always been able to live and let live without having the need for 'interfaith dialogue'. That's a christian invention to prepare heathen minds for the conquest, where plain old mowing them over with christoterrorism doesn't work or can't be applied. Hindus have always accepted other ways of life - where they are not terrorist viruses in disguise, that is - certainly need no lessons from christianism on accepting different people into society. We do not need to 'congregate' with christians in order to prove our pluralism. In fact, I no longer see how not speaking the truth about christoislamiterrorism supports pluralism, when the ideology has destroyed millions of lives in all the continents. It is silence that will continue to pave the way for christoterrorism. Have Parsees or Jews requested us to have 'interfaith dialogues' with them by attending Fire Temple or Synagogue? No, because they have their religious traditions and respect our way of life, just as we do theirs. It's not a feature of natural religions to expect or want (or sometimes even accept) others' presence in the religious aspects of their life. It's only christoislamics that try to dialogue their way under your skin. If Hindus are going to participate in others' traditions, why don't Indians in America try to contribute their well-wishes to the worthy native American traditions by participating in those instead? (I would <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->, but only if it won't offend them). Rather than taking part in the practises of christoislamic religion - the ideology that has only brought great misfortune to our own ancestors and those of others, and to our own people today as well as to others who are still unconverted.
02-29-2008, 09:14 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Enlarge the scope of Kandhamal Commission to include"inflow of funds from foreign countries and its utilization for conversions". (http://www.organiser.org)
Date: February 21st 2008 Source: - http://www.organiser.org/ Date: -21.2.08 The Fact Finding Committee, constituted by the Justice On Trial (JoT), an Ahmedabad based NGO, has suggested to enlarge the scope of the Commission of Inquiry constituted by the Orissa Government to inquire into the Kandhamal incident in Orissa, to include the incidents, background of the incident and the role of the administration/police forces as well as the role of the persons who may be enlisted as responsible for the incident including the Maoists. "Matter should also be inquired into from the angle of inflow of funds from foreign countries and its utilisation for conversions," the report said further suggesting to increase the compensation to the victims. The Committee included Additional Advocate General of Rajasthan Sardar G.S. Gill (chairman), former Director General of Punjab Police Shri P.C. Dogra (member), former member of National Commission for Women Smt. Nafisa Hussein (member), Social activist of Ahmedabad Captain M.K. Andhare (member) and social engineer from Gandhinagar Shri Ram Kishor Pasari (member). The Committee visited Phulbani, Baliguda, Barakhama, Budaguda, Ghumikia, Gadapur, Daringbari, Dasingbari, Brahmnigaon, Kinnarigaon etc. on January 18, 19 and 20 and assessed the loss and the quantum of relief. The Committee said the deployment of para-military forces should continue for some time and in the meantime the efforts should be made at the social level to restore the amicable relations between the various sects of the society. The Committee further said the matter should also be inquired into from the angle of encroachments/possession on the land of Vanvasi people by non-Vanvasi people and a Commission should also be appointed to inquire into the matter: (a) whether "Kui" is a language or a caste / sub-caste, (b) whether "Kui" should be deleted from entry no. 31 of the List of Scheduled Tribes, © whether Panas of Kandhamal should be considered as a Vanvasi. The Committee also suggested effective measures of development, including education, employment and infrastructure, of Kandhamal district. -- <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> http://bharatam1.googlepages.com/kandhamal.pdf
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Tamil Nadu dalit Christians to return to Hindu fold</b>
29/2/2008 .. Organised by the Hindu Makkal Katchi (HMK), the reconversion ceremony will be held in the presence of about 25 pontiffs from both saivite and vaishnavite mutts. Says HMK state president Arjun Sampath, âThis is the first time such a reconversion ceremony is taking place on a mass scale in Tamil Nadu. We want to make it clear to the converted Dalits that it is possible to reconvert to Hinduism. This ceremony will serve as a springboard for many discriminated dalits of other faiths, whose forefathers were Hindus, to embrace their original faith again.â ... .Ambedkar says, âOf the 300 families, 250 are Roman Catholics coming under the Catholic Diocese of Palayamkottai and the rest belong to CSI and Pentecostal churches.â These Dalit Christians claim that several forms of discrimination in their dioceses had forced them to opt for Hinduism. .. There are four priests among those who are getting reconverted, claims Mr.Sampath. Meanwhile, the HMK has made preparations for the reconversion ceremony, which it prefers to call âReturn-to-parent- religion festival.â ...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
03-02-2008, 11:36 PM
Mar 2, 2008
God not a woman: Ratzinger From: kalyan97@...com Date: Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 8:21 AM Subject: God not a woman: Ratzinger The oracle has spoken. ================================= Jesuit Francis Xavier Clooney of Harvard University involved with Dominus Jesus initiative of Ratzinger and Hindu promoters of such Jesuits â for e.g. by offering institutional platforms to promote the bogus theologies -- to note. -- Kalyan ================================= London, March 1 (Deccan Chronicl): The Vatican has ruled out all forms of feminist theology of the liturgy in Catholicism, saying that God must always be recognised as "Our Father". To counter the spread of gender-neutral phrases, the Holy See said that anyone baptised using alternative terms, such as "Creator", "Redeemer" and "Sanctifier" would have to be re-baptised using the traditional ceremony, the Daily Telegraph reports. Feminist theology is a movement, generally in Christianity and Judaism, to reconsider the traditions, practices, scriptures, and theologies of their religion from a feminist perspective. Reinterpretation of male-dominated imagery and language about God is one of the important aspects of feminist theology. The use of alternative phrases during baptism originated in North America and started to become popular only in the past few years. "These variations arise from so-called feminist theology and are an attempt to avoid using the words 'Father' and 'Son', which are held to be chauvinistic," the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith said. The traditional form of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" had to be respected, it added. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is the modern name for what used to be the Holy Office of the Inquisition, oversees Catholic doctrine. Pope Benedict XVI, who wrote the latest ruling, has been a strong opponent of feminism in the Catholic Church. God not a woman: Pope http://www.deccan.com/chennaichronicle/Wor...ldNews.asp?#God * * * The Pope rules out feminist theology By Malcolm Moore in Rome Last Updated: 2:17am GMT 01/03/2008 --Telegraph, UK The Vatican has cracked down on feminist interpretations of the liturgy, ruling that God must always be recognised as Our Father. In a move designed to counter the spread of gender-neutral phrases, the Holy See said that anyone baptised using alternative terms, such as "Creator", "Redeemer" and "Sanctifier" would have to be re-baptised using the traditional ceremony. The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith said yesterday: "These variations arise from so-called feminist theology and are an attempt to avoid using the words Father and Son, which are held to be chauvinistic." Instead, it said that the traditional form of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" had to be respected. The alternative phrases originated in North America and started to become popular only in the past few years. The new phrases are particularly popular in the Church of England. It was recently reported that guidelines to bishops and priests advised them to avoid "uncritical use of masculine imagery". The Catholic Church and the Church of England are split over feminist issues. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and the Pope, met in Rome last year, but admitted that the ordination of women priests was a "serious obstacle" to closer ties. The Pope, who wrote the latest ruling, has been a strong opponent of feminism in the Catholic Church. In his book, The Ratzinger Report, he wrote: "I am, in fact, convinced that what feminism promotes in its radical form is no longer the Christianity that we know; it is another religion." Rosemary Radford Ruether, a professor of feminist theology at the Graduate Theological Union in California, said that among "liberal" Catholics, the Pope "is not our Pope". The Vatican said anyone baptised under the feminist terms could invalidate their marriage. Cardinal Urbano Navarrete, who wrote a formal commentary on yesterday's ruling, gave warning that anyone who attempted to baptise someone with a gender-neutral form would be penalised. "It is seriously illegitimate and unjust," he said. Monsignor Antonio Miralles, a professor at the Pontifical Holy Cross University, said the new baptism "subverts faith in the Trinity" because it does not make the relationship between the three persons clear. "God is eternally Father in relation to His only begotten Son, who is not eternally Son except in relation to the Father." Meanwhile, the Pope also spoke out against gay marriage and abortion before his first trip to the United States before Easter. He praised Americans who respected the "institution of marriage, acknowledged as a stable union between a man and a woman". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...01/wpope101.xml
03-03-2008, 07:54 PM
In trying to counter Christo terror, many Hindus have the crazy idea that they should team up with pagans of Europe, who have something in common with Hindus. I've got news for you, bad news of course. Most of these pagans are in denial, they vehemently deny that Christianity ever wronged them. In fact, most of these foolish pagans believe they have more freedom under Christianity, than they did under pagan rule, which they consider to be a dark chapter in western history! <!--emo&
 --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> They consider all western accomplishments as 'christian' accomplishments, including science, math, literature etc., carefully whitewashing the dark ages which was the direct result of christianity. They are worse than our leftist historians, when it comes to self-hating and self-laceration. In short, as far as christos are concerned, they are useful idiots/allies. The reason why I am posting this here is to break the myth that pagan unity lead by Hindus will be crucial in combating chrito terror. Not quite. These idiot pagans are happy to be slaves of christians, so much so they're even denying their own past, their total destruction under christian rule. I've never seen such a worthless bunch. It seems we can only depend on ourselves to fight this battle. Let's not kid ourselves from now on, or even allow ourselves to be referred to as pagans.
03-05-2008, 11:18 PM
Since we began keeping track of the growing threat posed by Naxalite terrorist movements to the Indian State some years ago, we've witnessed several ominous new developments.
One of these is the emergence of narcoterrorism along the lines of the Latin American model. From a link posted by Rye on the Internal Security Watch thread, Posing a New Threat it appears that Naxalite groups are taking up the organized cultivation of opium poppies in the territories they control. This development is distinctly different from Pakistani terrorism funded by ISI involvement in the illegal drug trade, because in that case, the actual production of drugs took place outside of India (largely in Afghanistan). On one hand, this meant that the opium producers themselves were beyond our reach or capacity to punish on a large scale. On the other hand, it meant that we were spared some of the ill-effects of having the opium grown, refined and manufactured right on our own soil. Firstly, we did not have to worry about the havoc wreaked by the great stresses that the widespread incidence of drug cultivation brings to bear on the rural agricultural economy at the local level. The influence that drug cartels (and their sponsors) are able to gain by virtue of their vast resources, as well as their presence and activity on the ground in rural areas, was not a problem we ever had to deal with. This is not a threat to be underestimated. If a drug economy is allowed to establish itself in impoverished rural India, it will thrive and completely displace the incompetent organs of the state at every level. From dispensing justice to financing micro-loans, it is with the drug cartels that villagers in remote areas will prefer to sign their social contract, rather than a corrupt, indifferent and largely absent state. Just as the "bhai-log", the Pakistan and UAE-based underworld gangs, have become arbiters of justice and financiers of enterprises at the urban level, we can expect to see a counterpart emerge in rural India, which has thus far remained unscathed by the effects of organized crime on an international scale. Once the narco-machinery digs in and integrates itself with the rural economy and political structure, it will prove practically impossible to weed out, as numerous examples in Latin America have shown us over the decades. Secondly, India was not directly in the path of Afghan opium's distribution channels. Certainly ISI-distributed Afghan heroin found its way to Mumbai and other Indian cities en route to wealthier international markets... but even more wound up on the streets of Karachi and other Pakistani cities. However, the amount of Afghan heroin actually sold on Indian streets is the merest tip of an iceberg, compared to the situation we would see if the length and breadth of rural, small-town and metropolitan India were crisscrossed by distribution routes for heroin produced by Naxal terrorists in the Indian heartland. Thirdly, it was necessarily more difficult for foreign interests to sponsor terrorism in India via funds generated by production of heroin in Afghanistan, than it would be if the production, distribution and terrorist utilization of funds were all taking place within India itself. The ISI, for example, would then have no need for intricate BCCI-type financial networks to get drug money into anti-Indian terrorist groups' hands... networks that have become increasingly unreliable, from our enemies' point of view, following the monitoring that they have been subject to post 9/11. Foreign interests aimed at destablizing India would find things much more profitable with the whole operation contained on Indian soil... sort of like a Japanese automaker opening low-cost auto plants in rural China to manufacture low-cost cars for consumption in urban China. The problem needs to be examined in the light of recent developments (albeit set against long standing historical backdrops) in Latin America. The following ingredients that we see emerging in Naxal terrorism were all part and parcel of internal security problems faced by many nations there: 1) An emergence of anti-government terrorist groups espousing a far left-wing ideology, active in "isolated hinterlands"... remote, mostly rural regions of these developing countries, largely devoid of meaningful infrastructure, where government machinery was largely absent or indifferent. For example, FARC in Colombia, and Shining Path in Peru. 2) The nexus between these groups and drug "cartels". Such cartels include the rural producers of drug crops, the manufacturers of drugs from raw materials in back-country refineries, and the distributors in urban areas and along international routes. The drug crop is mostly coca in Latin America, but opium poppies are commonly cultivated in Southeast Asia. India is the world's *only* producer of legal opiates for medicinal purposes (morphine, codeine etc.) and there is a large amount of governmentally regulated opium poppy cultivation. 3) The growth in economic, financial, military and political power of these groups, fueled by the drug trade, into quasi-state entities that exercise almost as much authority as national governments across vast swathes of territory. 4) The involvement of such groups in proxy war situations. This is what we are seeing right now in Colombia and Ecuador. Yesterday, March 3rd, Colombian troops crossed into Ecuadorian territory where FARC had a major base (allegedly facilitated and supported by the Ecuadorian government in much the same manner as Bangladesh supports ULFA). The Colombians killed 17 FARC terrorists inluding a high-level leader named Raul Reyes. Now the Ecuadorians are massing troops on the Colombian border, and the Venezuelans are doing so on their border with Colombia as well. The background to all this is a wider Latin American conflict that has been brewing for some time. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, using his nation's oil wealth and allegedly assisting left-wing drug-related groups, has been trying to play godfather to leftist governments throughout Latin America... much as Castro was wont to do in his heyday. Chavez is the chief sponsor of Ecuador's left wing Rafael Correa government, which has been accused by Colombia of harboring FARC. Meanwhile, Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe is on the other side of the political spectrum... pro-America and pro-neocon, he was one of the few Latin American leaders to support the US invasion of Iraq. Given the animosity that existed between Uribe and the Chavez camp, this latest development involving FARC has led northern South America to the brink of a major security crisis. Finally, 5) The involvement of Christian organizations, especially certain clerical orders as the Jesuits who have a stated "social justice" agenda, cannot be overlooked as another ingredient in the nexus of ultra-left terrorists and drug cartels in Latin America. We have seen hints of this in India as well, evinced by the involvement of individuals having close ideological links to Jesuitry and evangelical Christianity with Naxal terrorism. Once again I refer you to Liberation Theology , which this TOI article cites as the ideological motivation for such individuals as Arun Ferreira, himself a Jesuit-in-training and nephew of a prominent Mumbai Jesuit, to involve himself in the leadership echelons of the Naxalite terrorist movement. I would also draw your attention, in this context, to the widespread co-existence of Maoism and evangelical Christianity as the founts of ideological motivation for any number of separatist terrorist groups in India's northeast. Likewise, I would remind readers of the coordinated assault against the Hindu tribals of Orissa (and the state of Orissa itself) in December last year, with a view to examining the nexus of forces involved. First, encouraged by evangelist missionaries, Christian converts in Orissa's Kandhamal district deliberately defiled Hindu temples and religiously significant sites, seeking to provoke tensions with Hindu tribals to the point where communal violence was imminent. When Hindu spiritual leader Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati visited the region to investigate, he too was physically assaulted by Christian converts. The subsequent retaliation by outraged Hindu tribals against their missionary-inspired tormentors, on December 25th 2007, was predictably the only aspect of the story covered by the Indian English-language media. The incident was portrayed as unprovoked violence by bigoted, extremist Hindus against a hapless Christian minority. However, <i>this was not the end of the story. </i> The nexus between evangelical missionaries and maoist groups came to full light in the carefully staged counterattack following the Hindu tribals' retaliation. On the military front, Maoist groups went on premeditated rampages targeting Hindu tribals as well as symbols of state authority. For example, on December 27th 2007, Three Thousand "Miscreants" Armed with Automatic Weapons" mounted an assault on the police station of Brahmanigaon, where over 800 homes were also set on fire. On the propaganda front, Evangelical groups took up the effort with a vengeance. In a December 31st, 2007 press release by the "Episcopal Conference of India", they attempted to blame the Naxal groups' armed violence on "Hindu extremists". Playing every available cheap-publicity card, they stooped to the recruitment of Australian Missionary Graham Staines' widow Gladys to act as their mouthpiece. Predictably, India's English-language media lapped up this angle with relish, substituting it for an accurate investigation of the facts. The Orissa story continued with the Naxalites mounting an assault on the state's economic lifelines on Republic Day. More recently, there was the February 16th attack on Nayagarh police station by 600 naxalites who looted a large quantity of sophisticated weaponry and ammunition. The correlation between the districts of Orissa where Naxal terrorist groups are at their strongest, and those where Christian missionary activity has produced a large number of converts among the tribal population, is a trend to be watched carefully. Kandhamal District, the site of the 27th December 2007 assault by 3000 armed Maoists, has seen an increase in its converted Christian population from 6% in 1970 to almost 27% in 2001. . The evangelist website IndiaNetZone , which keeps track of Indian tribes and targets them for systematic proselytization, refers to the Sitha Khanda tribe of Orissa as ardent converts to Christianity. It describes their population as being highly concentrated in Phulbani (Kandhamal) and Koraput districts, as well as the Udaygiri area of Ganjam district (which is actually on the border of Gajapati district). This map of Orissa shows the location of Kandhamal, Koraput and Gajapati districts mentioned as having a high concentration of converted Sitha Khanda tribals. Please compare with this map of Naxalite activity in India which shows Koraput as a "severely affected district", and Kandhamal and Gajapati as "targeted districts". Absent the kind of data that our politically correct government makes almost impossible to find, it is difficult to track the correlation further with the information readily available. However, given what we know, the apparent trend is immensely worrying. <b>To summarize, the most alarming developments relevant to the rise of the Red Menace in the recent past have been: 1) The Naxalites' developing nexus with the illegal drug trade, to the point where terrorist groups are involved in the cultivation of drug crops, prompting speculation that they intend to finance their activities and establish their influence in rural areas along the lines of Latin American ultra-left militias; and, 2) An emerging geographical and temporal correlation of Maoist activity with Christian missionary activity, suggesting that Christian tribals have been targeted for recruitment by Naxal groups with some success, and raising questions about the ideological, organizational and financial connections between Maoist terror groups and international Christian organizations. Both angles must be explored thoroughly in order to determine the identity, nature and designs of the Maoist and Naxalite terror groups' international backers.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-sureshmoorthy+Mar 3 2008, 07:54 PM-->QUOTE(sureshmoorthy @ Mar 3 2008, 07:54 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, most of these foolish pagans believe they have more freedom under Christianity, than they did under pagan rule, which they consider to be a dark chapter in western history! <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> [right][snapback]79219[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Says the person with no iota of backing evidence. <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They consider all western accomplishments as 'christian' accomplishments, including science, math, literature etc., carefully whitewashing the dark ages which was the direct result of christianity. They are worse than our leftist historians, when it comes to self-hating and self-laceration. In short, as far as christos are concerned, they are useful idiots/allies.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->"They consider all western accomplishments as 'christian' accomplishments, including science, math, literature etc." No they don't. For example: http://www.ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=english&f=faq#36 <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Is it true that the ancient Hellenes performed human sacrifices?</i> This is just another disgusting, Christian lie. With the exception of mythological narratives, Ethnic Hellenic religious ceremonies NEVER included human sacrifice. Our Religion is innately and instinctively related to philosophy, science and all the other cultural achievements of our ancestors, whilst encompassing the most illustrious, historical approach to the Divine. It was this specific religion and world-view that discovered and expressed the meaning of Humanism. Therefore, even the mere suggestion of human sacrifice is absurd, from every perspective.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The real Olympic Games, as the pre-eminent symbol-institution of our inherited Cosmotheasis, were abolished by the Byzantine invaders 16 centuries ago.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Suresh again: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->These idiot pagans are happy to be slaves of christians, so much so they're even denying their own past, their total destruction under christian rule. I've never seen such a worthless bunch.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wrong again. See for instance http://www.ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=en...ovestories <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Suresh The reason why I am posting this here is to break the myth that pagan unity lead by Hindus will be crucial in combating chrito terror. Not quite....<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The only myth you've broken is that you might know what you're talking about.I don't know about any 'pagan unity' or whatever you're going on about. But as for the word 'pagan', in its original use it was a term christians had for unconverted Greco-Romans and others of the empire. Heathen is a term christians had for unconverted Germanic peoples, because the unconverted ('unreached') lived in the 'heide' - meadow, outside towns - hence they were 'heidenen' (heathens). So in their true, original sense, we're not pagans or heathens. But we're not christian, and that is why christians (especially Indian christians) use that term for us today. If/when I use it for us or other peoples, I just mean to refer to non-christians - this is the way atheists tend to use the word heathen for themselves these days. (I've also used pagan and heathen sarcastically from the opposite POV, the way I've used 'Hindoos'.) Followers of Hellenismos and Roman Religion consider being called pagan an insult and they should know. For instance see here. <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It seems we can only depend on ourselves to fight this battle. Let's not kid ourselves from now on, or even allow ourselves to be referred to as pagans.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Well, one certainly can't depend on you for valid information. And that's the first thing I'd expect/require from someone I'd trust in any 'battle'. Anyways, we're not aiming to be in this with others, unless others share a similar worldview/code of conduct (like Dharma) with us and are willing to liaise equitably. If you can't get along with other people, well ... - that comes as no surprise really - but the rest can make such decisions on a case-by-case basis for themselves and won't require your baseless 'revelations' (allegations) about other people ('pagans' or whatnot).
03-06-2008, 09:26 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(2) It's truly sweet of them to apologise. Christians like apologising. Just like the day the US has finally finished wiping off the native Americans of NA they will apologise for that as well. Just like the Oz minister J Howard recently got the sudden notion to finally apologise to the Australian Aboriginals with some hand-waving about past wrongs and 'never agains'. It's all really sweet.
But nah. Sorry doesn't mean a thing when people have died, and entire civilisations have been destroyed (Greek, Roman, indigenous Australian, various African, native American of N, S, C America) by christianism. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> All this diatribe reflects the schoolboy mentality of most Indians, who keep complaining to their mommies that 'they don't like us, they killed us, they're deceitful' etc. etc.. Complaining will not do. The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did. The aborigines and the native Americans to this day haven't joined the mainstream, they still refuse to be part of the 21st century. They're stuck in the pre-historic age, and their lifestyles, behavior, ideas are very indicative of that. No wonder, they were annihilated by the Christian marauders. Mind you, this isn't a justification of Christian atrocities, but an objective glance at history to understand why these events took place at all. All life has to be viewed in the context of Social Darwinism, the constant struggle between superior and inferior forces. This has been beautifully and symbolically explained in Hinduism as well, in the form of Deva-Asura wars, which go on forever. Sri Aurobindo also supported this contention with his succinct but pregnant "All life is Yoga." What does all this mean? It means there's no such thing as equality, and that nature doesn't follow any moral laws in this evolution. Survival of the fittest is the name of the game, and evidently, a non-evolving race will NOT survive. As Hindus, we must learn from history. We must learn that morality alone will not save us, only sheer strength and superiority will. The fact that certain people were able to become conquerors and rule the world is proof of superiority. And the sad fact that certain races, like the aborigines and the native Americans, perished without a fight is further evidence of an inferior, non-evolving race. So as Hindus, we shouldn't concern ourselves with pitying certain groups, and antagonizing others who succeeded. Au contraire, our only concern must revolve around how to evolve, how to adapt, and eventually, how to prevail. Unfortunately, instead of learning from these events on how non-reforming people were outdone by the rest, we're more interested in breast-beating and sympathizing with people who're totally irrelevant in the scheme of things.
03-07-2008, 01:56 AM
From another forum
Church planting is nothing new. All these people who are coming to India from US to build churches are working to a strategy with a fixed goal to be achieved in near future. It is time Indians woke up to danger and drastically curtailed coming up of churches in areas where there are no christians. An Osama Bin Laden doesn't become harmless if he starts speaking good English and shaves off his beard. These Americans coming to India are just a suit-and-tie version of Imams and Mullahs with the same sinister aims. Indians think Americans fundamentalists can't do any harm because they wear expenisve cologne and dine in five star hotels. This is a big mistake. There is absolutely no difference between them and a Mullah in a cave in Afghanistan. These Americans have to be intercepted at our airports with a big burly cop asking them at immigration: "What exactly is the purpose of your visit? Please be informed that indulging in any kind of religious or political activity is a violation of your tourist visa which makes you liable for a prison term or deportation. Do your sightseeing and go home." <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>A Ph.D. thesis titled 'DEVELOPING A CHURCH PLANTING MOVEMENT IN INDIA' by DANE WINSTEAD FOW</b> This dissertation acknowledges the need for Church PlantingMovements among the unreached peoples of India. Of particular concern to this study is the application of Church Planting Movement strategy to forward caste Hindus of India<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> click here
See Acharya's post above - more relevant to thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Husky Sorry doesn't mean a thing when people have died, and entire civilisations have been destroyed (Greek, Roman, indigenous Australian, various African, native American of N, S, C America) by christianism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(sureshmoorthy All this diatribe reflects the schoolboy mentality of most Indians, who keep complaining to their mommies that 'they don't like us, they killed us, they're deceitful' etc. etc.. Complaining will not do. The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->"The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did." Wrong. Christianity was a *devolution* from Greco-Roman, native American, etc. civilisations. For instance, christianism could only destroy Greek art, libraries, science and philosophy and the schools, temples, libraries in the Roman empire, and it destroyed the superior social structure of NA native Americans. Christianity introduced stupidity as something to aspire to. Its social darwinistic invention that "brute force (to push insipid ideology) is a substitute for civilisation, culture and evolution" is rather the same as islam's own number one principle. Islam also made many wins because it values nothing, just like christianism values nothing - they are the same death cult, their "treasure" is in the sky/afterlife. Here's how/why islam won a lot - social darwinism in action: Islamâs Other Victims: India by Serge Trifkovic <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In his book The Story of Civilization, famous historian Will Durant lamented the results of what he termed "probably the bloodiest story in history." He called it "a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But what does Durant know. Sureshmoorthy will argue that it was a matter of superior evolution on islam's part (sureshmoorthy: "The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did") that made the islamoterrorist invaders win over Hindu Bharat. That's on account of sureshmoorthy's viewing "All life" "in the context of Social Darwinism". Just like he will apply to the social darwinist model in arguing that the 500 Years of Indigenous Resistance was an attitude of that of losers: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(sureshmoorthy The aborigines and the native Americans to this day haven't joined the mainstream, they still refuse to be part of the 21st century. They're stuck in the pre-historic age, and their lifestyles, behavior, ideas are very indicative of that. No wonder, they were annihilated by the Christian marauders. Mind you, this isn't a justification of Christian atrocities, but an objective glance at history to understand why these events took place at all.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><i>Of course</i> his opinion on history is "objective" <!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /><!--endemo--> - when one factors out that it's seen through the eyes of someone infatuated with social darwinism, and someone who probably knows very little about Australian Aboriginals and native Americans but will use them as an "example" in his proof for why "The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did". (Meaning: people who refused to assimilate into christoislamism. Note how joining christoislamism means 'evolving' to this social darwinist - quite predictable.)Social darwinism is a christocolonial invention. Only christoislamic-conditioned minds advocate social darwinism, because they see the christoislamic record and think it's a 'success story'. This is christoislamic mentality, of course - christoislamics are famous for arguing by numbers: that the vast numbers of christoislamics in the world (as opposed to the numbers in the past) "proves" that christoislamism is superior; and similar arguments. Social darwinists are christoislamic-conditioned peoples, similar to the kinds of people that advocate communism or its christoislamic offspring objectivism (Ayn Rand :yawn: - her reactive view's <i>so</i> obviously a product of the communism effect and the antagonism it produced: another dichotomy to add to the christoislamic family of ideologies). <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(sureshmoorthy The aborigines and the native Americans to this day haven't joined the mainstream, they still refuse to be part of the 21st century. They're stuck in the pre-historic age, and their lifestyles, behavior, ideas are very indicative of that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Many peoples in the world may choose to follow their traditional ways of life. But sureshmoorthy will probably side with those who insist on building schools amongst the Amazon rainforest tribes even though they already have their own system of imparting the education necessary for *their* lifes in *their* environment - an environment and way of life where most of modern education is irrelevant. To some brainwashed folks, progress apparently means that others not joining in (but instead, evolving towards their own future and at their own pace) deserve to disappear at the hand of encroaching westernisation/globalisation - such confused folks won't say 'deserve' but hide behind social darwinism and "objective" history. It's just christoislamic intolerance for allowing other ways of life. They're peeved: how dare such communities exist in the 21st century - they belong in a museum, not in the present! Adapt and assimilate or disappear, you ... you people "stuck in the pre-historic age" with "lifestyles, behavior, ideas are very indicative of that"! Take that, Amazon rainforest communities!Sureshmoorthy better hurry and export his grand opinions to Japan where the "dangerous" ideas of Fujiwara Masahiko on where Japan's real future lies should be stopped by all means. Sureshmoorthy can't allow Japan to prove by example that the western idea of progress as being inexorable (uncompromising) is not necessarily a way forward (but rather a sidetrack when such progress is at the expense and has been exclusive of much of Japan's native evolution of thought and life). And here, sureshmoorthy talks about "us Hindus" while teaching us stoopid Hindoos about the "right" way to interpret Aurobindo and the "symbolic Deva-Asura wars": <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This has been beautifully and symbolically explained in Hinduism as well, in the form of Deva-Asura wars, which go on forever. Sri Aurobindo also supported this contention with his succinct but pregnant "All life is Yoga." What does all this mean? It means there's no such thing as equality, and that nature doesn't follow any moral laws in this evolution. Survival of the fittest is the name of the game, and evidently, a non-evolving race will NOT survive. As Hindus, we must learn from history. ... So as Hindus, we <b>shouldn't concern ourselves with pitying certain groups, and antagonizing others who succeeded.</b> Au contraire, our only concern must revolve around how to evolve, how to adapt, and eventually, how to prevail. Unfortunately, instead of learning from these events on how non-reforming people were outdone by the rest, we're more interested in breast-beating and sympathizing with people who're totally irrelevant in the scheme of things.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Question is, why doesn't sureshmoorthy stop "antagonizing others who succeeded" (=christoislamicommunistics) altogether and just convert to the "superior" (in social darwinistic POV) ideology of christoislamicommuninazism? And when sureshmoorthy says "us Hindus", who/what does he mean? Well, he makes it clear here - where he differentiates between Hinduism and Hindutva, and likes to (ideally) get rid of the 'religion' in Hinduism and make it a "non-religious, political, nationalism" (because Hindus are actually in the way of his vision, you see): http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...indpost&p=78130 <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Do people here think <b>it's time we distinguished between Hinduism and Hindutva?</b> Let me explain what I am trying to say. Savarkar was a non-religious, if not irreligious, person. He was extremely practical, and his was <b>a political Hinduism rather than a religious one. I think this is the right attitude, because the Hindu religion consists of so many different schools it'll be impossible to establish what Hinduism is.</b> As of today, Hinduism is synonymous with Gandhian ahimsa, tolerance, and the rest. Who knows, what it's gonna be tomorrow. Almost everybody claims to be Hindu, including anti-Hindus like Lalloo, Mulayam etc. <b>So wouldn't it be better to identify ourselves as Hindutvadis rather than as Hindus?</b> Because Hindutva stands for nationalism etc., rather than pacifism, respect for all religions, and all the things present-day Hinduism represents, thanks to Gandhi and co. Bottom line, the very word 'Hinduism' has not only become synonymous with pacifism, cowardice etc., but even anti-Hindus are religious, practicing Hindus in their personal lives. <b>That being the case, is it not better for the nationalists to separate themselves from this group, so that it'll be clear as to what Hindutva represents? Right now, thanks to sangh, Hindutva has become a religious movement rather than a political one, as Savarkar envisioned, and this antagonizes unorthodox Hindus, who otherwise may be interested in Hindutva.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Subverting meaning of Hinduism and Hindutva. If he didn't appear so trivial and armed with self-defeating arguments, I'd have said mole alert... |
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)