Am sorry Admin, I <i>have</i> to do this. I just don't know why no one else (Mudy excepted) is doing it. There are readers besides those writing in this thread, and Swamy G's Arguments Ad 'Secularism' for remaining quiet on the religion of the characters involved should be corrected. If no one more capable is interested in doing it, the rest of us should be allowed the attempt.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jan 18 2009, 11:15 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jan 18 2009, 11:15 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I do not hold a person's religion against her or him. Her or His activities are far more important.[right][snapback]93394[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But their ideology (we're talking of christoislamicommunism here) IS the cause of their activities. Come <i>on</i>. It can't be hard for you to grasp.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But is a person just anti-Hindu or anti-India or has an hidden agenda just because she or he is a Christian? Or a Muslim? Or a Hindu?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You're still so conditioned by psecularism, I don't know what to say to you. The very fact that you list "Hindu" in the above structure by way of symmetry ("a, b, Hindu, etcetera") proves it.
There is no similarity between christoislamicommunazism and Natural Traditions.
Christianism, islamism, communism are unnatural, upstart ideologies that are bent on taking over and destroying every pre-existing (natural) tradition. They are <b>REPLACEMENT IDEOLOGIES</b>. They will stand no opposition, tolerate no existence of other ways of life. They are the complete embodiment of the word <i>intolerance</i>.
Communists are pushed by their ideology to work for "world revolution", islamism requires of its adherents to jihad to secure a world that is dar-ul-islamised, christos are similarly commanded to spread the gospel and let none be worshipped other than their own jeebus-gawd.
Contrast that with Hindu Dharma and other Natural Traditions: where are we commanded to terrorise others into our way of life?
Natural Traditions are not NOT replacement ideologies - they are not sudden manmade ideas that sound so clever that in our eager arrogance we will take them global and force them upon others who have their own pre-existing, ancient ways. Our Natural Traditions are ways of life that have evolved over time, naturally, based on observation, experience and insight.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If they are going to worship the black stone in the form of lingam or in the form of the square box at Mecca, it is their business. That is what I would like to know.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Your example is entirely flawed, a strawman argument. You are again equating the live-and-let-live Natural Tradition (Hindu Dharma in your example) with the convert-or-kill ideologies (islam in the example).
Islam does not allow its followers to keep their religion private to themselves. Neither does christianism. Nor does communism. They are compelled by their ideology to spread their ideology. They are mindviruses (memetic virus). See this page, since I obviously am too inept to argue a worthy case: http://kwelos.tripod.com/memes.htm
The point is, the muslim will not remain at his black stone, worshipping. He reads his koran or on Fridays he goes to the mosque and learns that he should convert or kill the infidel.
The christian will not remain prostrated before his stauros featuring the non-existent jeebus. His bible tells him to go Convert All Nations. His church tells him so too, and together they all contribute money toward the same. Money that goes to Nagaland, Orissa, Kerala, my TN and all of my Bharatam - to convert-or-kill MY Hindus.
Now, when you say:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->.... because she or he is a Christian? Or a Muslim? Or a Hindu?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You are insulting all Hindus, all Dharmics, all Natural Traditionalists. Your list is deceptive in that it starts off with people adhering to murderous, genocidal ideologies and then you turn it into a false pattern by appending to that list traditionalists who are victims of these genocidal ideologies.
You are very psecular. Because you equate wrong (christoislamism) with right (Hindu Dharma/Natural Traditions), and then argue that it is intolerant to state what is the plain inarguable fact: that wrong is in fact wrong.
Christoislamism IS wrong, because it IS the Ideology Of Total Terrorism. Its adherents are all ticking timebombs (some by some fluke don't go off). I do not blame them for acting according to their ideology (I blame their ideology). But neither will I excuse them. There are many murderers and terrorists and subversionists among them, <i>because</i> they follow the Religions of Murder (christoislamicommunazism).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is Udit Raj a Christian? Does it matter? To some it does, to some it does not. But what I am trying to see is who is he connected to. He seems to be connected to organizations and people who want to plant more churches in India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You don't get it.
Christian organisations are not independent entities of themselves: they are composed of people. <i>Christian</i> people to be exact, connected and motivated by their <i>christianism</i>. The christians who are members are the ones that want to plant more churches in India. There are declared members, and peripheral members who keep their identity incognito so that their nasty doings do not boomerang back to implicate their beloved christian organisation (and by extension their christianism). Case in point: the deflection of the christian murder of Swami Lakshmanananda by christians (including christian maoists) onto the "they're just maoists".
Also, these christian organisations - why do you think they are into planting more churches in India? Because they are guided by <i>christianism</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is Udit Raj a Christian? Does it matter? To some it does, to some it does not. But what I am trying to see is who is he connected to. He seems to be connected to organizations and people who want to plant more churches in India.
<b>That</b> is a red flag in my mind.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So by the same logic, the "maoists" who murdered the Orissan Swami is the only thing that raises the red flag in your mind. Their christianism being the cause for the murder won't register. Because them being christian does not matter to you...
As I said, by the same logic.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mariam, wife of N.Ram, being a Chrisitian does not offer us any more valuable information.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You are not serious. The man married a christian twice. For N.Ram, a communist - who are braggarts that profess to 'atheism' at every chance they get - to marry christians (Sandhya Jain confirmed both the wives' religions), don't you think the choice to be 'most curious' at the very least? Add to that his presence at a cliquey catholic bishop's conference. It must all be an amazing set of coincidences. The sort of uncomfortable coincidence you don't want your readership to happen upon - a direction of action quite opposite to that which Sandhya Jain intended. She warns us, while you seek to prevent her warnings from reaching others via your list. Were you being literal when you said "Will always be an evil yindoo"? Because if it was intended as a brag on heroics instead, it was no more than a most hollow one.
There is more than sufficient inferential (and non-disregardable) data to the effect of what N.Ram is, or leans/has sympathies toward, but you choose to be blind. Because the idea inconveniences you. And you choose to keep others blind.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As you can see I do not say Sitaram is a communist, I say he belongs a party.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Your statement has no bearing on what I said. I asked whether you would mention communist affiliations if <i>all</i> those listed were communists. (And if you'd mention nazism if all those listed adhered to nazism.) Or whether you would seek to hide their ideology in such a case, just as you are considerate enough to cover for various entities' christian persuasion. <- In effect concealing the very ideological affiliation that is the key for readers to unravel the real situation and its extent for themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jan 18 2009, 11:15 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jan 18 2009, 11:15 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->You have valid points, and have convinced me to some extent.[right][snapback]93394[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Please do not admit to something that is obviously not true: I have convinced you of absolutely nothing.
Proof in point: you have lumped christians, muslims and Hindus - that is, the aggressors and the victims - into one "equal-equal" list structure as only pseculars do -
You said: "just because she or he is a Christian? Or a Muslim? Or a Hindu?"
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I think we derive more value when we connect an individual to other individuals and organizations with a particular kind of activity - say like spreading Christianity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Those individuals' christianism (or propensity toward it) is what causes them to spread christianism. Can you see a Hindu or a Hellene or a Taoist spread christianism?
The meme spreads itself through its infected carriers: christians and the christo-conditioned (pseculars). No others would spread it.
The only thing I want to know is why any self-professed Hindu - or yindoo or whatever - would continue on in this way when they know what christianism is. You <i>know</i> what christianism is, do you not? It is the murder of Hellenismos (Greece and Rome), and of so much more besides since that early time.
You're scary. Because in many ways you are representative of most of the 'aware' Angelsk-speaking Hindus.
There is a decisive war going on that you refuse to see. Being blind to it - as you insist on being - is the first and surest step to a defeat so complete there may be no resurrection. You're going to lose. And not only that, you would make others lose as well. And this, <i>when you know better</i>. It is unforgiveable.
You are not engaged in inaction, but <i>wrong</i> action which is worse. (Because it is detrimental, rather than being merely unhelpful.)
Make your list. Make it right. <b>Both</b> are imperative.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jan 18 2009, 11:15 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jan 18 2009, 11:15 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I do not hold a person's religion against her or him. Her or His activities are far more important.[right][snapback]93394[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But their ideology (we're talking of christoislamicommunism here) IS the cause of their activities. Come <i>on</i>. It can't be hard for you to grasp.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But is a person just anti-Hindu or anti-India or has an hidden agenda just because she or he is a Christian? Or a Muslim? Or a Hindu?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You're still so conditioned by psecularism, I don't know what to say to you. The very fact that you list "Hindu" in the above structure by way of symmetry ("a, b, Hindu, etcetera") proves it.
There is no similarity between christoislamicommunazism and Natural Traditions.
Christianism, islamism, communism are unnatural, upstart ideologies that are bent on taking over and destroying every pre-existing (natural) tradition. They are <b>REPLACEMENT IDEOLOGIES</b>. They will stand no opposition, tolerate no existence of other ways of life. They are the complete embodiment of the word <i>intolerance</i>.
Communists are pushed by their ideology to work for "world revolution", islamism requires of its adherents to jihad to secure a world that is dar-ul-islamised, christos are similarly commanded to spread the gospel and let none be worshipped other than their own jeebus-gawd.
Contrast that with Hindu Dharma and other Natural Traditions: where are we commanded to terrorise others into our way of life?
Natural Traditions are not NOT replacement ideologies - they are not sudden manmade ideas that sound so clever that in our eager arrogance we will take them global and force them upon others who have their own pre-existing, ancient ways. Our Natural Traditions are ways of life that have evolved over time, naturally, based on observation, experience and insight.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If they are going to worship the black stone in the form of lingam or in the form of the square box at Mecca, it is their business. That is what I would like to know.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Your example is entirely flawed, a strawman argument. You are again equating the live-and-let-live Natural Tradition (Hindu Dharma in your example) with the convert-or-kill ideologies (islam in the example).
Islam does not allow its followers to keep their religion private to themselves. Neither does christianism. Nor does communism. They are compelled by their ideology to spread their ideology. They are mindviruses (memetic virus). See this page, since I obviously am too inept to argue a worthy case: http://kwelos.tripod.com/memes.htm
The point is, the muslim will not remain at his black stone, worshipping. He reads his koran or on Fridays he goes to the mosque and learns that he should convert or kill the infidel.
The christian will not remain prostrated before his stauros featuring the non-existent jeebus. His bible tells him to go Convert All Nations. His church tells him so too, and together they all contribute money toward the same. Money that goes to Nagaland, Orissa, Kerala, my TN and all of my Bharatam - to convert-or-kill MY Hindus.
Now, when you say:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->.... because she or he is a Christian? Or a Muslim? Or a Hindu?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You are insulting all Hindus, all Dharmics, all Natural Traditionalists. Your list is deceptive in that it starts off with people adhering to murderous, genocidal ideologies and then you turn it into a false pattern by appending to that list traditionalists who are victims of these genocidal ideologies.
You are very psecular. Because you equate wrong (christoislamism) with right (Hindu Dharma/Natural Traditions), and then argue that it is intolerant to state what is the plain inarguable fact: that wrong is in fact wrong.
Christoislamism IS wrong, because it IS the Ideology Of Total Terrorism. Its adherents are all ticking timebombs (some by some fluke don't go off). I do not blame them for acting according to their ideology (I blame their ideology). But neither will I excuse them. There are many murderers and terrorists and subversionists among them, <i>because</i> they follow the Religions of Murder (christoislamicommunazism).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is Udit Raj a Christian? Does it matter? To some it does, to some it does not. But what I am trying to see is who is he connected to. He seems to be connected to organizations and people who want to plant more churches in India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You don't get it.
Christian organisations are not independent entities of themselves: they are composed of people. <i>Christian</i> people to be exact, connected and motivated by their <i>christianism</i>. The christians who are members are the ones that want to plant more churches in India. There are declared members, and peripheral members who keep their identity incognito so that their nasty doings do not boomerang back to implicate their beloved christian organisation (and by extension their christianism). Case in point: the deflection of the christian murder of Swami Lakshmanananda by christians (including christian maoists) onto the "they're just maoists".
Also, these christian organisations - why do you think they are into planting more churches in India? Because they are guided by <i>christianism</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is Udit Raj a Christian? Does it matter? To some it does, to some it does not. But what I am trying to see is who is he connected to. He seems to be connected to organizations and people who want to plant more churches in India.
<b>That</b> is a red flag in my mind.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So by the same logic, the "maoists" who murdered the Orissan Swami is the only thing that raises the red flag in your mind. Their christianism being the cause for the murder won't register. Because them being christian does not matter to you...
As I said, by the same logic.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mariam, wife of N.Ram, being a Chrisitian does not offer us any more valuable information.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You are not serious. The man married a christian twice. For N.Ram, a communist - who are braggarts that profess to 'atheism' at every chance they get - to marry christians (Sandhya Jain confirmed both the wives' religions), don't you think the choice to be 'most curious' at the very least? Add to that his presence at a cliquey catholic bishop's conference. It must all be an amazing set of coincidences. The sort of uncomfortable coincidence you don't want your readership to happen upon - a direction of action quite opposite to that which Sandhya Jain intended. She warns us, while you seek to prevent her warnings from reaching others via your list. Were you being literal when you said "Will always be an evil yindoo"? Because if it was intended as a brag on heroics instead, it was no more than a most hollow one.
There is more than sufficient inferential (and non-disregardable) data to the effect of what N.Ram is, or leans/has sympathies toward, but you choose to be blind. Because the idea inconveniences you. And you choose to keep others blind.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As you can see I do not say Sitaram is a communist, I say he belongs a party.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Your statement has no bearing on what I said. I asked whether you would mention communist affiliations if <i>all</i> those listed were communists. (And if you'd mention nazism if all those listed adhered to nazism.) Or whether you would seek to hide their ideology in such a case, just as you are considerate enough to cover for various entities' christian persuasion. <- In effect concealing the very ideological affiliation that is the key for readers to unravel the real situation and its extent for themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jan 18 2009, 11:15 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jan 18 2009, 11:15 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->You have valid points, and have convinced me to some extent.[right][snapback]93394[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Please do not admit to something that is obviously not true: I have convinced you of absolutely nothing.
Proof in point: you have lumped christians, muslims and Hindus - that is, the aggressors and the victims - into one "equal-equal" list structure as only pseculars do -
You said: "just because she or he is a Christian? Or a Muslim? Or a Hindu?"
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I think we derive more value when we connect an individual to other individuals and organizations with a particular kind of activity - say like spreading Christianity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Those individuals' christianism (or propensity toward it) is what causes them to spread christianism. Can you see a Hindu or a Hellene or a Taoist spread christianism?
The meme spreads itself through its infected carriers: christians and the christo-conditioned (pseculars). No others would spread it.
The only thing I want to know is why any self-professed Hindu - or yindoo or whatever - would continue on in this way when they know what christianism is. You <i>know</i> what christianism is, do you not? It is the murder of Hellenismos (Greece and Rome), and of so much more besides since that early time.
You're scary. Because in many ways you are representative of most of the 'aware' Angelsk-speaking Hindus.
There is a decisive war going on that you refuse to see. Being blind to it - as you insist on being - is the first and surest step to a defeat so complete there may be no resurrection. You're going to lose. And not only that, you would make others lose as well. And this, <i>when you know better</i>. It is unforgiveable.
You are not engaged in inaction, but <i>wrong</i> action which is worse. (Because it is detrimental, rather than being merely unhelpful.)
Make your list. Make it right. <b>Both</b> are imperative.