• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Christian Subversion And Missionary Activities - 3
The real face of Pauline Christianity. It is not about Love and Peace.

The main purpose of this video is to make ignorant Christians realize how it feels when they attack Islam with their ignorance and propaganda coming from Demonic Christian sources. No longer we have to put up with your trash. Atheists are already knocking your teeth out yet you thugs pick on Islam as your scapegoat only to hide your truely hideous satanic past and false mangod doctrine. Now I am here and bring you a reminder from God of Abraham Nahum 3:5

As for Wafa Sultan an ignorant westernized idolizer who does not know about Islamic contributions to the West, Besides is a Syrian secular Christian coming from Alawi cult family background, known for lying about their past, her contempt is based on her own bad experience, she makes a very poor psychiatrist. I quote John 8:44 for her. She barks like a trained K9

Notice how she defends Christianity and blames Islam for all the wrong committed by Christians, even wiping out American Indians is acceptable and a civilized thing to her.

Check the full transcripts of the actual Al Jazeera footage which MEMRI TV (Christian mouthpiece) edited only to show the outburst. Also check out real facts about her life story.




If you really want to know about Islamic Civilization go read WHAT ISLAM DID FOR US by Tim Wallace Murphy and Science & Civilization in Islam by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. check out http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/ind... Islam has contributed a great deal of good compared to pagan Christianity in every Era. (more) (less)


Christianity is a hoax. Search "Trinity" in any Bible search site. It says not found!! No Trinity means, no Christianity. Let them fool themselves and end up in hell. The Whites and other non-natives in Americas, Australia, etc., are living on stolen property. If they are serous about Christianity let them show the compassion by going back to wherever their forefathers came from. Christians are good and preaching AND PRACTICING THE EXACT OPPOSITE, which makes them all HYPOCRITES

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Publication: Zenit.org
Date: June 13, 2007
URL: http://www.zenit.org/article-19875?l=english

<b>[Note from the Hindu Vivek Kendra: The Roman Catholics in India, both the Church and the laity, use the reports of Amnesty when it comes to criticising the Indian government on all sorts of issues. It would not be interesting to know if these Roman Catholics will stop this practice!]</b>

Says Catholics Should No Longer Support Group

The president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace is encouraging Catholics to withdraw support from Amnesty International since the groups no longer defends the right to life.

Cardinal Renato Martino told the National Catholic Register that the recent decision by the human rights group to promote abortion "rights" is a betrayal of its identity.

"By pushing for the decriminalization of abortion as part of their platform, Amnesty International has disqualified itself as a defender of human rights," he said. "If AI is no longer willing to stand up for the most basic human right -- the right to life -- then the very integrity of the organization is called into question."

Amnesty International was founded in 1961 by Peter Benson as a defender and promoter of the inalienable rights of the human person.

Now it has joined other international organizations, such as the United Nations Children's Fund, in promoting a so-called right to abortion, at least in certain cases.

Culture of death

Cardinal Martino, who served as the Holy See's permanent observer at the United Nations, says that this change of position is part of the "pro-death" agenda in the culture.

"The pro-death agenda […] is cloaked in human rights language, but in reality it undermines the very human rights it portends to support," Cardinal Martino said. "Its logical conclusion is the destruction of life and all of the life-giving values that we as a human family and as a society should be grateful for. De-sensitizing the culture to the evil of abortion is part and parcel of the pro-abortion lobby."

However, the 74-year-old cardinal recognized that pro-choice organizations have not succeeded in establishing an "internationally recognized human right" to abortion.

"I was head of the Holy See delegation to the Cairo Conference on Population and Development when that issue was settled definitively," Cardinal Martino stated. "Paragraph 8.25 of the Cairo Declaration clearly states, 'In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning … and every attempt should be made to eliminate the need for abortion."

The cardinal said that Amnesty International's decision means Catholics and Catholic organizations should no longer financially support the group.

"The very promotion of abortion opens the door to the slippery slope of evil and death, where human rights are taken away from the most innocent and vulnerable children of God," he said. "I believe that, if in fact Amnesty International persists in this course of action, individuals and Catholic organizations must withdraw their support."


July 01, 2007

<b>Jimmy Carter as evangelist</b>

By Sandhya Jain

THE sudden decision of the interim parliament of Nepal to arrogate to itself the power to abolish the monarchy precisely when former US President Jimmy Carter arrived on a four-day visit should ring alarm bells in this country. <b>Prior to Mr. George Bush Jr, the American President most committed to an evangelical agenda for the world was Mr. Jimmy Carter, and his visit comes in the wake of Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to appoint a bishop in the Himalayan kingdom. </b>

As Nepal is already slated to hold elections to a new Constituent Assembly to decide the survival of the monarchy and other matters, this Maoist-inspired move to pre-empt the democratic will of the Nepalese people stinks of an attempted coup. It is well known that all the top Maoist leaders of Nepal are Christian converts.

The fact that the Maoists cannot wait for the people’s verdict is proof of their poor electoral prospects, and the plea that the monarch may interfere with the poll process is a weak excuse. It shows nervousness that the nation of 28 million cannot be trusted to fully oust the weakened King Gyanendra, who was forced to restore Parliament in April 2006 and has already been stripped of much of his power.

What needs explanation, however, is why Prime Minister G.P. Koirala, who has secured maximum powers under the interim constitution, succumbs to Prachanda and his illegitimate demands. This suggests an external influence, and since India under UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi has abdicated its role in the country, this is probably the handiwork of the United States and the UN operating to American diktat or machinations.

Mr. Jimmy Carter reportedly visited Nepal to encourage its leaders to “continue on the path of peace” as they prepare for elections, according to the Carter Center for Human Rights and Democracy, which sounds suspiciously like the Karl Popper-George Soros Open Society branches that triggered revolutions in the Central Asian states until Russia and the ruling elites woke up to the threat.

Mr. Carter’s visit to the Electoral Commission of Nepal is significant, given its sensitive task of delimiting constituencies afresh to reflect the ethnic population in the Terai and other regions, which are opposed to the Maoists. The former US President’s praise of Mr. Koirala as a man who “has been a hero for me with his reputation and his integrity,” and a “focal point around which the peace and future democracy of this country has been built,” rings hollow as the real purpose of his visit was to meet with Maoist leaders, possibly on behalf of the US government.

India should not be fooled by the fact that the US government still lists the Maoists as terrorists; Washington is quite happy to play ball surreptitiously with such groups in pursuit of its geo-political ends. <b>The formal abolition of the Nepal monarch will help America delink the nation’s Hindu civilization and ethos from its political culture, and evangelize more aggressively in the region. The American desire for Nepal as a client state, which can be used to keep a check on China, </b>also needs recognition in New Delhi.

Prachanda is more than willing to play ball. “I told Carter we would like to establish amicable diplomatic relations with the US,” he gushed after an hour-long meeting with the former President. It is significant that Mr. Carter is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, though no one quite knows what his contribution to world peace is or was—he was one of the most colourless American Presidents but it is a fact that the Nobel Peace Prize is given only to those who serve the Western Christian agenda of world dominion.

Mr. Carter made some polite noises against Prachanda’s Young Communist League, which has returned (if it ever left) to the path of violence and extortions against businessmen, and open conflict with Madhesis in the Terai. The Madhesis are giving it back with all they have, and a few Maoist cadre have been killed in recent days. This has agitated the Maoists and ideologue Chandra Prakash Gajurel has threatened a new agitation to counter the resistance to Maoist domination in the plains.

Predictably, Mr. Carter called upon the current US administration to hold talks with the Maoists after Prachanda and his deputy Baburam Bhattarai sought his help in removing the organisation from the US terrorist list. Mr. Carter claimed that “it is obvious that the people of Nepal have accepted the Maoists as playing a role in the shaping of the future of this country,” but did not give the grounds upon which he made this assessment. This is dangerous as his Atlanta-based Carter Center is helping the Nepalese government with Constituent Assembly elections to be held later this year. <b>If New Delhi wakes up to find the Maoists in power and an American military base on its eastern border—there are already bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia—it will only have itself to blame. </b>

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>Should we accept the tribal gods of others?</span>
By M.S.N. Menon

How can we? They reflect the values and experience of their creators. We have our tribal gods. They reflect our values and experience. One cannot change one’s history for the history of another. This is not possible.

Yahweh is the tribal God of the Jews, Jehovah of the Christians, Allah of the Arabs and Indra of the Aryans. They cannot be converted into universal gods. Their tribal associations will never be forgotten.

“What has degraded religion to a theatre of cruelty and barbarity,” says Valson Thampu, an eminent Christian leader of India (recently appointed Principal of St. Stephen’s College, Delhi) “is the ownership mentality (intrinsic to tribal religions) of the devotees vis-à-vis their respective gods. Yet the truth is that, he says, “a God owned by a segment of the human species is no God.”

What is so bizarre about this whole thing is the effort of Christianity and Islam, both tribal religions, to impose their tribal gods on the rest of mankind. The Hindus and Jews are free from this folly.

Hence it is that we have two contrary images of gods in almost all religious traditions, says Rev. Thampu. The first image is that of a tribal God, whose affinities and concerns are limited to a designated group—a tribe. The other image (now being promoted as part of modernisation and prettification in order to globalise their presence) is that of a transcendent deity, who has no favourites and whose concerns are non-partisan.

Today tribal gods are out of fashion. They appear to be very primitive. Hence the efforts to make them appear transcendent. Let us see how it is done.

Jewish holy books suggest that Yahweh was only a minor tribal God (Deuteronomy). He was chosen God of the Jews because he was a God of war. The Jews were in great need of a warrior God. Moses himself was a warrior. Hence his preference for Yahweh.

To give the Jews additional identification, Moses abolished idols and idolatry. And he introduced circumcision among Jews. Above all, he entered into a covenant with Yahweh by which Jews agreed to worship only one God—Yahweh. And Yahweh promised in turn to defend the Jews and dwell among them.

The covenant followed the model of treaties which Hittite kings drew up with their vassals. The vassals promised to follow no other law but that of the Hittite king. This became the foundation of monotheism followed by the Semitic peoples.

Almost all tribal gods are cruel and ruthless. Fear was the ruling motive. Yahweh was one. Allah was another. Listen to these words of Yahweh to Moses: “Thou shalt no other gods before me. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them, for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.”

Obviously, Yahweh believed that there were other gods, that he was only one of them. The concept of a universal God—a God of all mankind—was foreign to the Jews, Christians and Arabs, whatever they might say today. They are being universalised today to make them acceptable to the peoples of the world. Moses never said that there is only one God in the universe.

It is said that the Semitic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have a common God, that these faiths have a common source. This is yet another distortion. There is nothing common among these gods. Here is what a Jewish prophet warns the Jews: “Because you (Jews) did not seek the Lord your God with joyfulness and gladness of heart… you shall serve your enemies when the Lord will send them against you….And He will put a yoke of iron upon your neck until He has destroyed you.” Mark the cruelty! The God of the Christians could never have said this.

The God of the Christians preached non-violence. He was prone to kindness, mercy, compassion and forgiveness. How can the Jewish and Christian gods be the same in these circumstances?

“O true believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads,” says Allah. Surely, he is neither like Yahweh nor like Jehovah.

Allah was one of the Arab gods at the Kaaba. In fact, he was the tribal God of the Quraish tribe, the tribe of the Prophet. Allah (al-Ilah) is originally the name of the moon God. By the way Ilah is the daughter of Manu, the Hindu law giver, who gave birth to the human race.

Mohammed raised Allah, the tribal God, as the only God of the Arabs just as Moses raised Yahweh as the only God of the Jews.

How can these tribal gods of others be relevant to us Hindus? It is time we gave thought to these matters.

<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Jul 2 2007, 09:51 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jul 2 2007, 09:51 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>Should we accept the tribal gods of others?</span>
By M.S.N. Menon

It is said that the Semitic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have a common God, that these faiths have a common source. This is yet another distortion. There is nothing common among these gods. Here is what a Jewish prophet warns the Jews: “Because you (Jews) did not seek the Lord your God with joyfulness and gladness of heart… you shall serve your enemies when the Lord will send them against you….And He will put a yoke of iron upon your neck until He has destroyed you.” Mark the cruelty! The God of the Christians could never have said this.

The God of the Christians preached non-violence. He was prone to kindness, mercy, compassion and forgiveness. How can the Jewish and Christian gods be the same in these circumstances?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]70706[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->This bit is wrong.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mark the cruelty! The God of the Christians could never have said this. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes he does, he says all this and more in the OT of the same christian babble.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The God of the Christians preached non-violence. He was prone to kindness, mercy, compassion and forgiveness.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hwa? This is completely incorrect. Jeebus says he speaks in parables so that some may never understand and may never go to heaven (but will go to hell! - very compassionate, forgiving, merciful, kind and the like).
He promises to turn brother against brother, family against family. And worst of all, he goes beyond jehovah of the OT to threaten with eternal eternal <i>eternal</i> damnation (in the NT) for all those who don't accept him. Jehovah = jeebus (because of the christian 'three-is-one' rule) and hence jehovah is the one who is dangling the fictitious shadow of eternal hell over everyone unfortunate enough to hear the 'good word'.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Jesus and his teachings: not the Prince of Peace
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he can not be my disciple.
-- Jesus (Luke 14:26 NAB)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Christian ethics - the doctrine of Hell:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
-- John 3:17-18<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You are my friends if you do what I command you.
-- Jesus (John 15:14)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, we know. 'If we're not for the imaginary leader of the cult, we're against him', right? It doesn't occur to anyone that we <i>just don't care</i>. Real or unreal, he's not attractive and his best teachings are all ripoffs from Greek Philosophy, Buddhism and other religions anyway ( http://freetruth.50webs.org/B1a.htm#PaganOrigins ). Why should we care? If it were a peaceful religion, we'd have had no probs with it. But <i>even in that</i> it has failed beyond all description and redemption: christianism has brought nothing but misery, terrorism and <i>even genocide</i> to practically every population it infected and we're supposed to defend it? By the same token, we should also be defending Stalin or other villains then. Joe Steel's victims were way smaller in number; because, unlike the potential of an ideology to last forever, Stalin was but mortal. Christianism hasn't yet died in order for us to tally up all the unfortunates ground to dust between its pitiless jaws.
Praising christianity is to praise everything its ideology directly gave rise to - an act that is unconscionable.

Hindus need to stop defending christianity and its gawd. Jeebus is scarier by far than the OT-only view of the christian deity, threatening horrid eternal punishment for not believing/accepting that someone 'died for your sins'. (Not to mention how preposterous it is to have to accept such a ridiculous premise.)

At least Jewish people have an original God. He may not be what we want, but he doesn't torment them forever and that says a lot when it comes to religion these days.
Christoism could only infamously plagiarise the Judaic deity and then went and made the character infinitely despicable with the NT's infinite hell. I most certainly agree that Yahweh is not Jehovallah. But in the rest of that paragraph, Menon is mistaken.
And what is all this complimenting christianity at the expense of Judaism? The first is a terrorist religion, the second is not. Give respect to where we get respect and don't bother about the rest; instead of fawning over the christoislamic religion that has promised and reiterated that it seeks to destroy us.

And Indra is a "tribal God of the Aryans"? Which Oryans? Only the Indians and the Old Iranians (with their 'Inder') ever had Indra. Proof yet to come forth that the other peoples of the grandiose IE fable had Indra. But I'm sure that WitSSel, after speaking to his buddy arch-racist Roger Pearson, will come up with 'lingwistik proof' for the same.
Re: Indra being tribal God of Indians

Where does Indra or Vedic-hymns about Indra, ever mention that Indra is exclusively for the Arya-s or Indians?? He is invoked as helper in war, but not as a power partial only to Arya-s. Even in purANa-s, shiva, brahmA etc repeatedly give dangerous boons to asura-s, rAkshasa-s and daitya-s and are never thought of as partial only to a tribal grouping.

And calling Arya-s as tribal is also incorrect. Within Arya-s there were many tribes/clans/gotra-s. Literal meaning of Arya never had a tribal or racial implications until the discovery of "Aryans" by the european indologists.

Menon has swallowed the half-baked MaxMooli pie. <!--emo&Sad--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Ashok Kumar+Jul 3 2007, 09:03 AM-->QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jul 3 2007, 09:03 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->until the discovery of "Aryans" by the european indologists.

a simpler term for european-indologists : eurologists, or urologists to keep it simple. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Actually Eurology and Americilogy should properly be the branches of study which should claim to show the <b>"true and external"</b> origins of every worthwhile achievement by those civilizations. With standards of scholarship, creativity and integrity comparable to Indology.

For example, some illustrious Americology studies talk about Mayan civilization being established by maya-dAnava from India. <!--emo&Wink--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Christian school in Bhopal apologises for 'insulting' Kabir </b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A Christian school has tendered a written apology to the state education department for inadvertently insulting poet Kabir in the school's annual magazine.
However, there is no end to the school's troubles in sight as an unknown Hindu organisation has announced that it would move court to initiate criminal proceedings against the school because it was not satisfied with the apology.

Located in Bhopal's Ayodhya bypass area, St Thomas Sr Secondary School had released its magazine "Sprouting Spring" in March 2007. The humour section of the magazine carried a student's contribution-a distortion of a doha (a two-line verse) that made a derogatory reference to the poet
Spokesperson of the Catholic Church Fr Anand Muttungal said, "It was unfortunate that the ruling party was supporting a selfish parent whose child could not clear the examination."

Fr Muttungal alleged that one parent was pressurising the school to promote his child and when he did not succeed he approached the organisation for raking up an issue that was settled with the written apology and punitive action against the teacher found responsible for the mistake
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
What a good coverup by Church, blame the victim.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ashok Kumar+Jul 3 2007, 08:10 PM-->QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jul 3 2007, 08:10 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually Eurology and Americilogy should properly be the branches of study which should claim to show the "true and external" origins of every worthwhile achievement by those civilizations.  ... For example, some illustrious Americology studies talk about Mayan civilization being established by maya-dAnava from India. <!--emo&Wink--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->[right][snapback]70746[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No. No. No.
Mayan civilisation belongs to the Mayans. If <i>ever</i> anyone were to find there were (factual) significant contacts between India or SE Asia and the Mayans, further research could be done to find out how we may all have traded/shared/commonly devised ideas... otherwise, theirs is an independent civilisation. Make no claims on their accomplishments. They have made no claim on ours and they are not in any way responsible for the Muellers, Macaulays and other Missionaries foisted on us.

The dubious faux-scholarship in the west which occupies itself with finding silly little 'similarities' between the Mayan and Indian civilisation and then uses it to propound that Indians did something to give rise to Mayan civilisation should be given no credence. (Unless, I suppose, all Mayans actually believe we are related based on their own historical records or something. Else it's just another modern myth by western pseudo-scholars.) Outside of genetics, what hard proofs are there for a definite relationship dating to more recent times?

Ashok Kumar, it's fair enough to knock back at WitSSel et al's Oryan fortresses in Europe and N America, but never think of knocking the native American traditions and civilisations. What harm have they done us?

And in general, much of the good there is in America can be traced back to the benign influence of N America's native Americans (they're also the great proof for unoriginality in present America; so this will serve your purpose concerning Americilogy):
- America's idea of a set of 'United States' comes from the long-extant union/confederacy of several of North America's native American Nations.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So it is that some of the characteristic elements of U.S. democracy have no equivalent in any other European democratic system, the caucus to name but one example, which is not - as one is inclined to think - Latin, but an Iroquois (precisely Algonquin) word. [WI137]

And so it is that the eagle on the United States shield is the Iroquois Eagle, and the bundle of arrows in its grasp originally numbered not thirteen but five. [NG399]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Read the rest of the page. It also talks about how the settlers weren't ready (and are still not ready) for other aspects of the highly advanced native American society: giving women their deserved and respected place in society, for instance.

What the idea of America owes to the original Americans is profound, amazing. So many a good thing derives from that wholesome source of native American traditional society and civilisation.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>Should we accept the tribal gods of others?</span>
By M.S.N. Menon
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]70706[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I want to harp on some more about this.
Ashok Kumar 5 posts above wrote some points on "Re: Indra being tribal God of Indians". Wanted to say more myself, but he beat me to it (thank goodness). Nevertheless, wish to add a few things, however superfluous.

This verse about Indra is from the Rg Vedam I think:
"Good Lord of wealth is he to whom all Aryas, Dasas here belong."

Even <i>were</i> we forced to count the first ('Arya') as some ideologically-identified tribe, that makes Indra the God to whom all Aryas and Dasas belong, even though the same Rg Vedam when taken literally makes it out that the Iranians (Dasas) and Vedic Indians were fighting. Regardless of their enmity, Indra was father to both. How untribal Mahendran was, even <i>if</i> the peoples in question might (?) have been very tribal.
Yes, yes, I know, Vedic Indians were all the time praying to Indra to give them strength in their fight against the Dasas, Dasyus and other enemies. Quelle surprise that people would call on their Gods in or before battle (example: Zoroastrian battle cry of Hurrah - short for 'Ahura!' apparently). Of course, that does not mean that Indra might not have watched over both affectionately so long as both were behaving.

I don't need to repeat what every Hindu knows: the compassionate Mahendra is the friend of all outsiders, rejects, loners and lone wolves. Maybe that makes all these introverts into a tribe of their own... a global 'tribe' of Remis, I guess. (Remi 'Alone in the World' is a character from a French book: it's about a lonely kid separated from his family by circumstance.)

Oooh look, here's another 'tribal' Hindu God, Shiva:
Jambhukeshwara. Tamil people will know who he is, others might have heard of him from the song Jambupathe - his temple is famous for many events concerning this Lingam which is one of the Panchabhutams. One of the famous events is that of the Spider and the Elephant (often depicted next to the moorthy in paintings of the temple). In brief:
A Spider, living near the Lingam noticed an Elephant coming toward the Lingam. Afraid that this big dawdling thing would harm its Lord the sacred Lingam, the Spider created a strong web to cover it. The Elephant, which had come to do Puja to its beloved Ishtadevam saw the web and was mortified that a puny, unenlightened spider dared to obstruct the sacred Lingam with its threads, so the Elephant slashed through the web with its trunk. The Spider, more certain than ever that the elephant was there to cause damage seeing as how it had waved its trunk destructively about and broken the protective web, quickly made another web to shield the Lingam. Yet again, the Elephant - enraged at the insolent spider's audacity - slashed through the web. This went on and on, both certain that they were acting in Shiva's best interest and for the preservation of the beauteous Lingam, until finally the wonderful Mahadeva himself manifested before them. He praised and blessed them both for their great devotion to him, and told them that neither was wrong in trying to protect him, but also that neither was in fact ever intent on harming or disrespecting the Lingam as the other had imagined.

Needless to add, one can safely assume that at the end of their lives both the Arachnid and the Elephant got Moksham and went to Kailasa. The above - not an allegory (but can't stop anyone from reading it that way if they can't swallow it by other means) - makes it so obvious that Shiva is the tribal God of the Spider Tribe. Oh, and the Elephant Tribe. And the Bhoota Tribe too. And as Pashupati - the Lord of all creatures - he is the God of the Creature Tribe, including the critter penning this post at present.

Now, I must not forget the Divine Mother. She's known to look after lost babies and all babies really. So, I guess that makes her the God of the 'Baby Tribe'. And being Jagadamba, Mother of The All (the Universe), her tribe is.... Ooooh, I worked myself into a corner there, didn't I? Never mind. Moving on.

Coming to yet another 'tribal' God of the Hindoos. Here he is, saying something so obviously tribal that I must and shall repeat it:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna assures the adherents of all religions that "those who pray with devotion to another god, it is to Me that they pray."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> http://www.aumnamoshivaya.com/Hinduism.htm (Link name - Did someone confuse Om Namo Narayana(ya) with Om Namah Shivaya maybe; or is Om Namo Shivaya also a done thing?)

But how 'tribal' of Krishna in the Gita to declare such a thing! He says that if you were a truly peaceful Muslim praying to some mistaken idea of a benign allah (it's not in keeping with islamic scriptures I know, but it's true that there's such muslims around in India) that such offerings of love and sincerity were accepted by Krishna, Brahman. How petty of Krishna that he can't rise to biblical heights and declare himself to be a JEALOUS gawd and threaten you with Eternal DAMNATION if you were to ever think of having 'other Gods before you'. After all, that's the sign of a universal gawd apparently...
That annoying bluish butter-snatching Krishna needs a whole new definition of 'tribal' to do his statement justice. I suggest we call it 'universalist tribalism'. Because anything you do with affection and sincerity ends up with him.

That reminds me, this is very likely where C.S. Lewis got the idea from for the best line in his 7th book of the Chronicles of Narnia (The Last Battle). C.S. Lewis intended to write some christian books for kids, but he added lots of Greco-Roman Gods and motifs into his stories, to the extent that even Aslan, who was <i>meant</i> to be a jesus-for-Narnia, ended up becoming very pagan by the end.
In this final book of the series, the character Emeth - who had worshipped Tash (the evil demonic 'deity' from Narnia's neighbouring country) all his life - comes face to face with Aslan. See here the line in question:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(EmethSmile Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Lewis never got this from the bible, that much is certain.
Oh, I will allow that Lewis could have used common sense. Any universal God would and should say such a thing on the topic, were he/she to mention it at all (else it can safely be assumed - for instance, about The Grand Spirit of the native North Americans who also created all the universe and like a mother gave it life).

But christoislamism never was universal and the idea expressed above is alien to christoislamism. In fact, one can read the preposterous invention of narrow-minded man (jehovallah) declaring the direct opposite: 'Me me me and no one else - Or HELL!'
So C.S. Lewis' readers are in for a nasty shock when they turn to the babble after Chronicles of Narnia to find out whether jesus is anything like the pleasant fiction Aslan...
As for whether Lewis could have been influenced in the writing of his statement by the Gita or other Hindu ideas, consider that he was not unaware of Hinduism. He made several comments about it, including:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"For my own part, I have sometimes told my audience that the only two things really worth considering are Christianity and Hinduism (Islam is only the greatest of the Christian heresies, Buddhism only the greatest of the Hindu heresies. Real Paganism is dead. All that was best in Judaism and Platonism survives in Christianity)."
- C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, "Christian Apologetics"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Of course, this is wrong. The "only things worth considering" are everything except christoislamicommunazism. Christoislamism tried to kill all of 'paganism'. But no matter, the natural religions survive in spite of everything. And no, christianism did not imbibe anything properly, so that whatever has been plagiarised has also been perverted.
And of course, it goes without saying, Buddhism is not a heresy. Only christians could see things that way.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jul 5 2007, 10:03 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jul 5 2007, 10:03 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The dubious faux-scholarship in the west which occupies itself with finding silly little 'similarities' between the Mayan and Indian civilisation and then uses it to propound that Indians did something to give rise to Mayan civilisation should be given no credence. - America's idea of a set of 'United States' comes from the long-extant union/confederacy of several of North America's native American Nations....

...What the idea of America owes to the original Americans is profound, amazing. So many a good thing derives from that wholesome source of native American traditional society and civilisation.

It seems that many western 'scholars' are most reluctant to credit the Indian or other ancient non-western civilization for any good in the western civilization, even when there is ample evidence to suggest that these older civlizations might have been responsible for many of the discoveries and inventions originally credited to the western civilization. Yet, they are ever so ready, and most generous, to credit the Indian civlization, or any other ancient non-western civlization, for any of the accomplishments or even the mere existience of the other ancient non-western civilization (well admittedly, they have come a long way from crediting everything good in non-western civilization to the western civilization - so at least there has been some improvement, albeit slight, in the western academia). Much of the western ''scientific'' quest remains driven by Eurocentrism.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The Tragedy of Theology: How Religion Caused and Extended the Dark Ages
A Critique of Rodney Stark’s The Victory of Reason</b>

Andrew Bernstein

The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, by Rodney Stark. New York: Random House, 2005. 304 pp. $25.95 (cloth), $15.95 (paperback).

<b>In recent decades, medieval scholars have persistently advanced the thesis that the Dark and Middle Ages were not actually dark—that the 1,000-year period stretching from the fall of Rome (roughly 500 AD) to the Renaissance (roughly 1500) was an era of significant intellectual and cultural advance. This trend has culminated in the claims of Rodney Stark’s The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (and similar claims presented in Thomas Woods’s How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization). </b>That such a theory would be welcomed by the religious right is not surprising. However, what might surprise some—and what is certainly ominous—is that such major organs of the liberal press as The New York Times and The Chronicle of Higher Education (the leading publication for university professors and administrators) have treated Stark’s book with significant respect. This essay will demonstrate that such respect is entirely undeserved.

<b>The thesis of Stark’s book is that the Catholic Church promoted a cultural commitment to reason that enabled the West to rise. Medieval Christianity was fundamentally, perhaps exclusively, responsible for the great progress wrought by Western Civilization in philosophy, the arts, science, technology, and freedom. As Stark states his claim: </b>

But if one digs deeper, it becomes clear that the truly fundamental basis
for . . . the rise of the West was an extraordinary faith in reason.
The Victory of Reason explores a series of developments in which reason won the day, giving unique shape to Western culture and institutions. The most important of these victories occurred within Christianity. . . . While the other world religions emphasized mystery and intuition, Christianity alone embraced reason and logic as the primary guide to religious truth. . . . Encouraged by the Scholastics and embodied in the great medieval universities founded by the church, faith in the power of reason infused Western culture, stimulating the pursuit of science and the evolution of democratic theory and practice.
The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.1
<b>This book, and others like it—along with their admiring treatment by the mainstream liberal press—are signs of the resurgence of Christianity in America. This is all the more frightening because the arguments are being delivered and embraced at an intellectual, not merely a grassroots, level. If such arguments were sound, their growing acceptance among contemporary intellectuals would present no problem; but, as will be shown, this pro-religion thesis, although convincing to some, is egregiously and provably mistaken.</b>

<b>Stark</b>, a professor of social sciences at Baylor University, <b>is absolutely correct in his rare identification that a commitment to reason was the fundamental cause of the spectacular progress achieved in the West and nowhere else. But he is profoundly mistaken in ascribing the basis of that commitment to Christianity. Indeed, the West has risen much more slowly and incompletely than it otherwise might have, precisely because of its deep ambivalence to reason. Throughout the ages, and continuing to this day, there has existed in the West a chronic backsliding into irrationality that has often tragically exceeded its commitment to rationality.</b> There is a profound dualism in Western thought: Its dedication to reason, though certainly outstripping that of other cultures, exists in desperate conflict with several versions of unreason, including faith. Expressed in terms of major figures, Jesus and his followers—not merely Aristotle and his—have been enormously influential in Western thinking. <b>Christianity, emphatically including the medieval Church, more than any other single factor, is responsible for the irrationality of Western society. The commitment to rationality is fundamentally a legacy of ancient Greece—preeminently of Aristotle—and of subsequent periods when the Greek element was dominant, for example, the 18th-century Enlightenment. </b>

Stark’s errors are rampant and across-the-board. They span the fields of history and, above all, philosophy. Indeed, as will be shown, Stark’s claims are historically false and philosophically impossible. . . .

Full article accessible only to subscribers.
<b>CNN at it again</b>

CNN continues its christian propaganda to the world. Yet another video reporting by one apparently rabid christian (born again? or just recently died?) reporter Arwa Damon (at first I thought it might be the Omen child Damien), this time the report is about Indians living below the poverty line.

Of course, in true CNN style, that one family (a woman and her kids) about whom the CNN centered its report just happened to be christian. A big cross hangs outside the family's slum dwelling, and the child's name is 'Monica.' The reporter stresses on the name ''Monica' over and over again, lamenting about her plight (all very touching, of course), after the camera pans over the large cross near the entrance of the shanty.

The majority of the slum dwellers have probably been converted, as this one family on display; now all the CNN needs to do is invite contributions from world over to help these converted souls who have all been given a second chance.

For the christian viewers (and potential contributors) in the west, the message has been delivered ever so discreetly - these poor Indians are all converted christians and thus OK for them to give money generously. But the innocent non-christian viewer might have just missed all the signs - the cross and the apparently 'baptised' name of the child - too visibly moved to compassion at the sight of a bubbly little girl and her family living so shabbily. They might just treat their donations as another act of charity to the poor and ask nothing in return for their contributions (least of all the soul of the receiver).

As the beautiful child states innocently and simply that she would like to become a doctor and help other people, little does the innocent soul realize the christian evangelists have different agenda for her: She will be groomed to become a key spokeperson for christianity, and trained in the art of anti-hindu warfare, and go on to become the future author of ''How I was a hindu and became a christian."

I can't find this posted earlier though it feels familiar (or merely predictable?)
It's too funny, too memorable to forgo posting even if it's been seen before:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Paul feels danger to life from Sonia</b>
Posted June 10, 2007

June 8, 2007
The Tribune
Source Link

Hyderabad, June 8
In a sensational allegation, well-known evangelist Dr K.A Paul today said he <b>apprehended danger to his life from Congress president Sonia Gandhi.</b>

The President of Global Peace Initiative, based in the USA, claimed that <b>Sonia Gandhi was out to take “revenge against me under the instructions of (American President) Bush and (Secretary of State) Rice”.</b>

Paul, who hails from Andhra Pradesh, alleged that Sonia Gandhi and Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Rajasekhar Reddy had been “nursing a grudge” against him and “destroying” his ministry by imposing curbs on the activities of his organisation in the country.

Addressing a press conference here, the self-made preacher, who became internationally known for rubbing shoulders with several presidents and prime ministers, <b>charged that Bush, with whom he apparently fell out after the Iraq war, instructed Sonia to cut off all help to his activities in the country.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Read rest at either link ( http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070609/nation.htm#6 has all characters properly displayed)

<i>'What would jeebus do?'</i> KA Paul should do the christothing: yell that he's persecuted in America by born-again Bush and catholic tyrant Sonia. The global christian human rights orgs will rush to poor Indian christo Paul's aid - *Or not*.

Hey, here's an idea. Could we lock up Sonia and KA Paul together in some remote fighting cage where they can have at it? With any luck, we can then forget all about them...
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, Andhra Christians demand quota
6 Jul 2007, 0357 hrs IST,TNN

HYDERABAD: Christians in Andhra Pradesh have demanded a quota of their own after the state cabinet approved an ordinance on Wednesday to grant 4% reservation to economically backward Muslims in jobs and educational institutions.

The community members are demanding that Andhra Pradesh follow the Tamil Nadu example wherein Christians are included in the 5% reservation for Muslims. A memorandum will be submitted to the chief minister next week, said Christian Front, which is lobbying for the quota.

The Front also demanded a fresh census of Christians in the state by an independent body, saying the government statistics of 6% is "incorrect".

"Christians account for 10-15% of the state’s population. An independent body should survey this and it can also be verified from church memberships," said Bhaskar Benny, president of the Front.

While a new category called Backward Class Group C was introduced for scheduled caste Christians during the time of T Anjaiah, community members say its benefits are minimal. "We are a minority community and the benefits for minorities are different from those in backward classes.

<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Jul 7 2007, 05:57 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Jul 7 2007, 05:57 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->...."Christians account for 10-15% of the state’s population. An independent body should survey this and it can also be verified from church memberships," [/size]said Bhaskar Benny, president of the Front...


christians account for 10-15% of the population in AP!!!!

When did that happen! (Yes, I know. When the rest of us hindus were too preoccupied taking lengthy naps, since the time of independence).

Another proof that this ''christians make up only 2-3% of India's population and their percent has remained constant over 2-3 decades" drivel given by the Indian government, psuedo-secularist and some spokespersons for the christian community in India is complete hogwash. In almost every state, especially in the southern states, the christian population has seen tremendous increase - nearly all of the increase in the christian population comes from conversion of hindus and persons of other faiths.

These figures are most troubling.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>THOSE THAT SHALL DELIVER</b>... <i>(The agressive trageting of India by Christian Evangelists)</i>

The Al Qaeda has "benefitted from a network structure that allows passionate and committed individuals and groups to contribute to a wider purpose (whether for good or ill) with a minimum of co-ordination and administration. Widely seen as an effective antidote to bureaucracy (the corporate equivalent of arthritis), the network has arrived as the organisational structure for a globalising, post-modern world… The persistence of the Al Qaeda network in the face of unrelenting pressure is a case in point."

- Richard Tiplady, a church-planting strategist, in a paper presented at a conference organised by All Nations Christian College (September 2003) on 'Survive or Thrive? Is there a future for the mission agency?'

The irony is inescapable. <b>Taking a leaf out of what Tiplady calls "Al Qaeda's operational mobility", American missionary organisations are, methodically and very scientifically, planting the Church and recruiting disciples, pincer-style. With George W Bush, a "born again" Christian as the President of United States, the missionary enterprise is in full gear, trying to "save (Indian) souls" and "reach the unreached". </b>

The modus operandi for evangelical activities is simple, even if scary: Channel exorbitant funds through the eager Bush administration; circumvent the Indian law banning registration of new missionaries by <b>sending "men of God" on tourist visas;</b> <b>use Indians already converted to convert fresh faithfuls</b>. And yes, the underlying message: work relentlessly and patiently.

Indian missionaries now do 90 percent of the work in founding churches. All these missionaries are from the new age churches, most of whom owe allegiance to the Protestant sect. The fast springing new age churches are not only making inroads into memberships of other religions, but are also threatening the very existence of the mainline congregations, e.g. the Roman Catholic church.

<b>Operation Worldwide</b>

Local Indian missionaries are effective conversion weapons because they understand the language, the customs and the culture. Besides, the recently converted are often more zealous about adding to the ranks. A voluminous book title Operation World-published by the Christian missionaries' UK-based publishing house, Operation Mission-reveals the rapid strides made by the US-funded evangelical missions in India. The references to India can be found from page 273 onwards.

<b>Of the many shocking revelations in the book is the claim that Arunachal Pradesh is on its way to becoming the third Christian majority state in India, after Nagaland and Mizoram. In </b>1971 the Christian population totalled 0.8 percent of its population, and within a decade, it increased to 10 percent. In fact, the author of this book, well-known evangelical strategist Patrick Johnstone, says, "thirty percent of India's Dalits are considering a change of religion, and a growing number are finding Jesus."

So how do the converts find Jesus? In India, one of the most successful church planting networks is Operation Agape ('unconditional love' in Greek), which began in 1995 in central India as an "experiment" devised by Germany-based church strategist Wolfgang Simson and his Indian collaborator, Dr Alexander Abraham, professor of neurology and head of community heath department, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana. Its predecessor was the project of Prince of Peace, launched on January 1, 1989.

<b>By the mid-1990s, when "spying missions" were despatched to India by US-based transnational missionary organisations (TMOs), </b>it was part of the larger conversion mission, AD2000 and Joshua Project. Abraham's commentary in a film produced by Agape reveals that "by the mid-1990s, a growing realisation for the need for a systematic church planting effort covering the entire state was gaining momentum.

We held a systematic grassroots level harvest force research in 1998 and the results were an eye-opener for us. There were 262 pin code areas in Punjab without any churches in 1998. In the next three years, however, all the 491 postal code areas in the state gained entry into the church map." This was possible due to the research and survey conducted by Brother Issac Dutta, research coordinator, Punjab, Operation Agape. "God gave me the burden of Punjab in 1997. I started my research in 1997. My team and I visited 1,100 Christian workers in the whole of Punjab, collecting data from them on who was working in different villages, blocks and districts," Dutta explained.

The North India Harvest Network, also started by Abraham, used the 'Pin Code survey' conducted by the Indian Missions Association, Chennai, to generate ethno-graphic data in the North Indian states. The data has armed the US intelligence agencies for they now have unparalleled access to the remotest corners of India and are-again, pincer like-bringing areas into "the fold" by secretly unleashing pastors in different blocks and districts.

Operation Agape has, for example, been instrumental in producing over 3,000 'house-churches' in Madhya Pradesh in the last six years. Their conversion figure stands at a record number of "60,000 to 70,000" converts. "Our methods have become a model for churches all across India," says Abraham. "The house-church movement does not strive for buildings. We do not believe in buildings. Traditional churches are dying. The Anglican church in England is dying. The house-church movement is the spirit of God. Ludhiana is a city where the church has done really well. Now we are dreaming of a church in every colony. Fifty percent colonies in Ludhiana and 60 percent villages in Punjab have churches now," he told Tehelka.

<b>Planting churches in India</b>

Operation Agape is supported by Christian Aid, a US-based conversion-funding agency, run by Rev Bob Finley, a loyal supporter of President Bush. The mission headquarters of this operation is Agape Bhawan, located within the Christian Medical College in Ludhiana. Abraham was extremely evasive about answering questions on Operation Agape, but a video CD produced by AGAPE foundation, which is in Tehelka's possession, is explicit about the movement.

<b>The film on Operation Agape interviews Rev C George, who claims to have begun the church planting movement in Punjab: "I had great concern for Punjab…Then the Lord very definitely, specifically asked me to go to the state of Punjab and do whatever possible so that the people will come to know that Operation Blue Star or Operation Black Thunder did not help, but operation of God's love will be the solution to the problem of Punjab."</b>

Simply put, the strategy is to plant a church in every village and urban colony and notch up a figure of 100,000 churches in the state by 2010. "We cannot say we have any challenge here because Punjab is open. All religions are respected and we can go freely to everybody. The most difficult states to evangalise are Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh because extremist Hindus are there," says Simon P George, manager, Punjab Bible College, Hiran (near Ludhiana)...


The story of the various evangelical church's strategy to convert India is continued in http://www.tehelka.com/story_main.asp?file...013004qaeda.asp
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Christians in NE states may lose minority status

Our Correspondent

New Delhi, July 07 : The very concept of minority status may soon change diametrically with the proposed 103rd amendment to the Constitution making minorities like Christians lose their exclusive status in states of Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland where they are numerically in majority.

Interestingly, Hindus in these states would be treated as minority and enjoy the status, the proposed amendment that is bound to create a storm said.

The amendment approved in the Union Cabinet recently is likely to be brought in the coming monsoon session of the Parliament next month, as per the report of the National Commision for Minority Education.

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment seeks to have state-wise minority status rather than national status, as is the norm now. Minorities in states will be decided through a presidential notification in consultation with the state government.

Incidentally, the National Commission for Minority Education says the amendment will make Christian students from Meghalaya , Mizoram, Nagaland ineligible for admission in Christian colleges like St Stephens, as they will not have domicile minority status.

Likewise, Sikhs from Punjab and Muslims from J&K will not have minority status. Christian-run institutions in Kerala and other states may also lose their minority tag.

Commission Chairperson, MMA Siddique has written to HRD Minister ArjunSingh and Minority Affairs Minister AR Antulay saying the constitutional amendment that the Cabinet approved in May first week is against the spirit of Article 30 of the Constitution. Articles 25 to 30 guarantee protection of religious, cultural and educational rights to both majority and minority communities.

Meanwhile, the All India Catholic Union, the All India Christian Council and the United Christian Action have reacted strongly to the decision of the Center and decided to go ahead with a national consultation on the issue in collaboration with major organisations of other religious minorities. This decision of Cabinet had serious ramifications for all denominations of Christians in every part of the country as it had for Muslims, and indeed even for Sikhs.

"The cabinet decision if made law would take away minority status from theChristian community in Goa, Kerala, Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram, seriously compromising activities in Education," Dr John Dayal, leader of the Christian Unions said. He appreciated the views of the Commisison and wanted wider consultations all over the country over this very important issue.

Another provision gives Parliament the final say in the matter of defining 'minorities'. Parliament will be empowered to enact laws to include or exclude any section of citizens from the list of minorities, Dr Dayal said in a sttment.

Look how the bastards are panicking as soon as they heard that they will be treated on par with Hindus and these idiots have the guts to demand secularism.

That John Dayal SOB has been involved in all sorts of anti Hindu actitivies
<b>Pope Angers Jews, Liberals With Rite</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->VATICAN CITY (July 7) - Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday removed restrictions on celebrating the old Latin Mass, reviving a rite that was all but swept away by the liberalizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

The decision, a victory for traditional, conservative Roman Catholics, came over the objections of liberal-minded Catholics and angered Jews because the Tridentine Mass contains a prayer for their conversion.
In reviving the rite, Benedict was reaching out to the followers of an excommunicated ultratraditionalist, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who split with the Vatican over Vatican II, particularly the introduction of the New Mass celebrated in the vernacular.

The Vatican excommunicated Lefebvre in 1988 after he consecrated four bishops without Rome's consent. The bishops were excommunicated as well.

Benedict has been eager to reconcile with Lefebvre's group, the Society of St. Pius X, which has demanded freer use of the old Mass as a precondition for normalizing relations. The other precondition is the removal of the excommunication decrees. The Vatican did not address the excommunication issue Saturday and there was no indication if or when it would.

In addition to Jewish concerns, bishops in France and liberal-minded clergy and faithful elsewhere expressed concerns that allowing freer use of the Tridentine liturgy would imply a negation of Vatican II and create divisions in parishes since two different liturgies would be celebrated.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)