<!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+Feb 3 2009, 03:43 PM-->QUOTE(Savithri @ Feb 3 2009, 03:43 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->A Hindu does not serve the Muslims by attending his niece's nikkah. But a Hindu who serves and promotes the Islamic and Christian terrorists does.
[...]
I wish people understand the difference.
[right][snapback]94193[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There is no difference. Such a Hindu doubly serves (christo)islamism's purpose:
Instead of discouraging such an act by refusing one's blessing by not participating in such an event, the Hindu is encouraging it: his/her presence at a wedding of a Hindu relative to a christoislamic both condones the act and <i>is seen by others in the community</i> as condoning the act. This sends the wrong message to the entire Hindu community: that what is COMPLETELY WRONG is actually acceptable. It is psecularisation of more than oneself: it is an attempt to psecularise the community by example. Both are adharma.
It also tells chistoislamism that Yes, christoislamania can keep pursuing this method to further reduce Hindus in India with success and that the foolish Hindu population will keep accepting it, and will not resist in the slightest. In fact, it tells christoislamania that Hindus can't even tell anymore that it was always forbidden for them to marry into christoislamism.
So, No. There is no difference between a Hindu attending the wedding of their Hindu relative to a christoislamic (or communist or nazi), and a Hindu who promotes islamic and christian terrorism in some other way. They are all doing it according to their own capacity, in their own way and as per available opportunity. (Whether they are all equally aware of it is in the end of no meaning to the rest of the Hindu body: a fatal gunshot fired kills, regardless of whether it was intended or went off by accident. Besides, they *ought* to all be aware of it, but psecularisation has made them amnesiac about what is actually disallowed.)
You are confusing people.
[...]
I wish people understand the difference.
[right][snapback]94193[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There is no difference. Such a Hindu doubly serves (christo)islamism's purpose:
Instead of discouraging such an act by refusing one's blessing by not participating in such an event, the Hindu is encouraging it: his/her presence at a wedding of a Hindu relative to a christoislamic both condones the act and <i>is seen by others in the community</i> as condoning the act. This sends the wrong message to the entire Hindu community: that what is COMPLETELY WRONG is actually acceptable. It is psecularisation of more than oneself: it is an attempt to psecularise the community by example. Both are adharma.
It also tells chistoislamism that Yes, christoislamania can keep pursuing this method to further reduce Hindus in India with success and that the foolish Hindu population will keep accepting it, and will not resist in the slightest. In fact, it tells christoislamania that Hindus can't even tell anymore that it was always forbidden for them to marry into christoislamism.
So, No. There is no difference between a Hindu attending the wedding of their Hindu relative to a christoislamic (or communist or nazi), and a Hindu who promotes islamic and christian terrorism in some other way. They are all doing it according to their own capacity, in their own way and as per available opportunity. (Whether they are all equally aware of it is in the end of no meaning to the rest of the Hindu body: a fatal gunshot fired kills, regardless of whether it was intended or went off by accident. Besides, they *ought* to all be aware of it, but psecularisation has made them amnesiac about what is actually disallowed.)
You are confusing people.