^ More relevant
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Jan 13 2009, 05:43 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jan 13 2009, 05:43 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Please read what LK Advani writes at his Blog : Understanding Genuine Secularism
Then to bring yourself back to the Real World, do read: K Elst: "Equal respect for all religions" - The only explicitly Indian contribution in the cited BJS/BJP self-declarations. [right][snapback]93072[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I read that Elst page some time ago, it says it straight.
But this bit is wrong, though:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->History shows that Hinduism practises equal tolerance towards all sects of Hindu provenance, and towards Zoroastrianism, Judaism and pre-colonial Syrian-Christianity which, at least in India, have always abided by the rules of Hindu pluralism: live and let live.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Syrian christianism was little different from other christianism: it's been proven they invited over the Portuguese christian terrorists to convert the inconvertible Hindus. In this the Hindu experience was not different from the Japanese and Roman one:
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/hhce/Ch2.htm
From Sita Ram Goel's excellent book "<b>HISTORY OF HINDU-CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTERS, AD 304 TO 1996</b>"
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The significant point to be noted about the Syrian Christians, however, is their sudden change of colour as soon as the Portuguese arrived on the scene. They immediately rallied round the Portuguese and against their Hindu neighbours, and when the Portuguese started pressurizing the Hindu Rajas for extraterritorial rights so that their co-religionists could be protected , the Syrian Christians evinced great enthusiasm everywhere. They became loyal subjects of the king of Portugal and pious adherents of the Roman Catholic Church. Was it the demonstration of Portuguese power which demoralised the Syrian Christians and made them do what they did? Or was it the Christian doctrine which, though it lay dormant for a long time, surfaced at the first favourable opportunity? The matter has to be examined. Looking at the behaviour of Syrian Christians ever since, the second proposition seems to be nearer the truth.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> http://hamsa.org/09.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vasco da Gama's mistake was corrected when he returned to Malabar in 1502 and was met by a deputation of Syrian Christians. They identified themselves, surrendered their ancient honours and documents, and invited him to make war on their Hindu king.
K.M. Panikkar, in Malabar and the Portuguese, writes, "More than this, they suggested to [Vasco da Gama] that with their help he should conquer the Hindu kingdoms and invited him to build a fortress for this purpose in Cranganore. This was the recompense which the Hindu rajas received for treating with liberality and kindness the Christians in their midst."
The Syrians had of course acted on the exigencies of their Christian religion, which harbours in its heart a demon that divides mankind into friend and foe on ideological grounds. King Shapur of Persia had not been mistaken about the allegiances of his Christian subjects in the fourth century.
The Syrian Christians would soon come to grief for their treachery. The Portuguese regarded them as heretics and schismatics who were no better in True Religion than their Hindu neighbours.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sanjay Subramaniam's book on Vasco da Gama apparently also refers to Portuguese documents on how the Syrian christians invited them over to make war on Hindus and take over Hindu soil for christoterrorism. See
Great Treachery - India and the Syrian Christians of Kerala:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Going back historians have talked about them, one time refugees to Kerala from Syria. After religious persecution, like the Parsees. But recent studies have come up with shocking data. Like Sanjay Subrahmaniam in Lisbon taking Portugese Documents ( 'Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama') have said that it was the Syrian Christians called St. Thomaa Christians of the East by the Europeans, who brought Vasco da Gama, beginning the colonisation of India, to Kerala shores. That they had offered to the Portugese, French and British support to evict the local kings, Zamorins, who gave them refuge. Obviously the early Syrians were here for centuries, came as refugees, later more coming in. The same fact is also there in the Dutch History of Trvancore, also in the French sources. That the Syrian Christian Refugees of Kerala wanted the Europeans help them to have 'Thy Kingdom Come'.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Syrian christians were exactly like the Sufis (posts 268 and 269 of islamism thread). We can thank the syrian christian ingrates for bringing over the Goan inquisition and christoPortuguese terrorism+colonialism+imperialism.
Their peaceful tolerance was all a sham. That's because their christianism is the same as the rest of christianism, just like Sufis' islamism is ultimately the same as the rest of islamism.
<b>ADDED:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Elst: History shows that Hinduism practises equal tolerance towards all sects of Hindu provenance, and towards Zoroastrianism, Judaism and pre-colonial Syrian-Christianity which, at least in India, have always abided by the rules of Hindu pluralism: live and let live.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In another sense too, this statement is wrong: even before the syrian christoterroristas invited their ideological brethren over (i.e. <i>in the pre-colonial time</i> mentioned in Elst's quoteblock), the Syrian christians had not been into the "live and let live" thing either:
http://hamsa.org/15.htm - Ch 15 of Ishwar Sharan's book <b>The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Portuguese, and Syrian Christians before them, had given the "honour" of temple--breaking to St. Thomas at Palayur, north of Cranganore, where an early seventeenth century Portuguese church built by the Jesuit Fr. James Fenicio rises amidst temple ruins today (see note 31). Fr. A. Mathias Mundadan, in History of Christianity in India, Vol. I, writes, "The remains of old temples found at Palayur and near the other traditional churches[50] are proof of this." Proof of what? Proof, it would seem, that St. Thomas destroyed temples at all the places where he is said to have built churches.
St. Thomas can be accused of many things, including crimes against women (as recorded in the Acts of Thomas), but he cannot be accused of <b>destroying temples in India. This was done by his followers from about the ninth century onwards,</b> and later by the Portuguese, and Christian historians who take the position that he did the deeds himself, citing them as "positive' proof that he came to India, cannot be taken seriously.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Jan 13 2009, 05:43 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jan 13 2009, 05:43 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Please read what LK Advani writes at his Blog : Understanding Genuine Secularism
Then to bring yourself back to the Real World, do read: K Elst: "Equal respect for all religions" - The only explicitly Indian contribution in the cited BJS/BJP self-declarations. [right][snapback]93072[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I read that Elst page some time ago, it says it straight.
But this bit is wrong, though:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->History shows that Hinduism practises equal tolerance towards all sects of Hindu provenance, and towards Zoroastrianism, Judaism and pre-colonial Syrian-Christianity which, at least in India, have always abided by the rules of Hindu pluralism: live and let live.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Syrian christianism was little different from other christianism: it's been proven they invited over the Portuguese christian terrorists to convert the inconvertible Hindus. In this the Hindu experience was not different from the Japanese and Roman one:
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/hhce/Ch2.htm
From Sita Ram Goel's excellent book "<b>HISTORY OF HINDU-CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTERS, AD 304 TO 1996</b>"
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The significant point to be noted about the Syrian Christians, however, is their sudden change of colour as soon as the Portuguese arrived on the scene. They immediately rallied round the Portuguese and against their Hindu neighbours, and when the Portuguese started pressurizing the Hindu Rajas for extraterritorial rights so that their co-religionists could be protected , the Syrian Christians evinced great enthusiasm everywhere. They became loyal subjects of the king of Portugal and pious adherents of the Roman Catholic Church. Was it the demonstration of Portuguese power which demoralised the Syrian Christians and made them do what they did? Or was it the Christian doctrine which, though it lay dormant for a long time, surfaced at the first favourable opportunity? The matter has to be examined. Looking at the behaviour of Syrian Christians ever since, the second proposition seems to be nearer the truth.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> http://hamsa.org/09.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vasco da Gama's mistake was corrected when he returned to Malabar in 1502 and was met by a deputation of Syrian Christians. They identified themselves, surrendered their ancient honours and documents, and invited him to make war on their Hindu king.
K.M. Panikkar, in Malabar and the Portuguese, writes, "More than this, they suggested to [Vasco da Gama] that with their help he should conquer the Hindu kingdoms and invited him to build a fortress for this purpose in Cranganore. This was the recompense which the Hindu rajas received for treating with liberality and kindness the Christians in their midst."
The Syrians had of course acted on the exigencies of their Christian religion, which harbours in its heart a demon that divides mankind into friend and foe on ideological grounds. King Shapur of Persia had not been mistaken about the allegiances of his Christian subjects in the fourth century.
The Syrian Christians would soon come to grief for their treachery. The Portuguese regarded them as heretics and schismatics who were no better in True Religion than their Hindu neighbours.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sanjay Subramaniam's book on Vasco da Gama apparently also refers to Portuguese documents on how the Syrian christians invited them over to make war on Hindus and take over Hindu soil for christoterrorism. See
Great Treachery - India and the Syrian Christians of Kerala:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Going back historians have talked about them, one time refugees to Kerala from Syria. After religious persecution, like the Parsees. But recent studies have come up with shocking data. Like Sanjay Subrahmaniam in Lisbon taking Portugese Documents ( 'Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama') have said that it was the Syrian Christians called St. Thomaa Christians of the East by the Europeans, who brought Vasco da Gama, beginning the colonisation of India, to Kerala shores. That they had offered to the Portugese, French and British support to evict the local kings, Zamorins, who gave them refuge. Obviously the early Syrians were here for centuries, came as refugees, later more coming in. The same fact is also there in the Dutch History of Trvancore, also in the French sources. That the Syrian Christian Refugees of Kerala wanted the Europeans help them to have 'Thy Kingdom Come'.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Syrian christians were exactly like the Sufis (posts 268 and 269 of islamism thread). We can thank the syrian christian ingrates for bringing over the Goan inquisition and christoPortuguese terrorism+colonialism+imperialism.
Their peaceful tolerance was all a sham. That's because their christianism is the same as the rest of christianism, just like Sufis' islamism is ultimately the same as the rest of islamism.
<b>ADDED:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Elst: History shows that Hinduism practises equal tolerance towards all sects of Hindu provenance, and towards Zoroastrianism, Judaism and pre-colonial Syrian-Christianity which, at least in India, have always abided by the rules of Hindu pluralism: live and let live.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In another sense too, this statement is wrong: even before the syrian christoterroristas invited their ideological brethren over (i.e. <i>in the pre-colonial time</i> mentioned in Elst's quoteblock), the Syrian christians had not been into the "live and let live" thing either:
http://hamsa.org/15.htm - Ch 15 of Ishwar Sharan's book <b>The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Portuguese, and Syrian Christians before them, had given the "honour" of temple--breaking to St. Thomas at Palayur, north of Cranganore, where an early seventeenth century Portuguese church built by the Jesuit Fr. James Fenicio rises amidst temple ruins today (see note 31). Fr. A. Mathias Mundadan, in History of Christianity in India, Vol. I, writes, "The remains of old temples found at Palayur and near the other traditional churches[50] are proof of this." Proof of what? Proof, it would seem, that St. Thomas destroyed temples at all the places where he is said to have built churches.
St. Thomas can be accused of many things, including crimes against women (as recorded in the Acts of Thomas), but he cannot be accused of <b>destroying temples in India. This was done by his followers from about the ninth century onwards,</b> and later by the Portuguese, and Christian historians who take the position that he did the deeds himself, citing them as "positive' proof that he came to India, cannot be taken seriously.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->