Unlike Islam that wants to Islamise the world, Hindus see their religion s an integral part of India. India id hinduism, hinduism is India.

Conversion to any other religion is a threat to their society. But Christianity could mean desaster because once people discover the only way to God, conversion epidemic will follow.

The thrust of conversions is among the Cast population, the non-belongers to India. They find real freedom in Christianity - in more than one way - from the segragation and opression; something they cannot find in any other religion like Islam.

Hindus are lobbying sucessfuly for the abolishment of this anti-conversion law. Many thousands of conversions are reported daily dispite the law. It is also important to state that many forced reconversion to Hinduism (and to Islam) are common.

This is nothing new but its good to see it in secular media. I hope newspapers pick this up.

While the West complains about Christians persecuting, (because SOME ministers argue against abortion, and a few are just a little bit pissed about Islamic jihad- mind you there are many non-Christians who share these views, and many Christians who don't), Christians themselves are getting strongly persecuted all over the world. There are approximately 300 million persecuted Christians worldwide, suffering appalling abuses of human rights. Voice of the Martyrs and Open Doors are a few good organisations to look at.

I look forward to people who are passionate about human rights supporting the needs of those who are threatened, beaten, jailed without just cause, raped, robbed, prohibited from finding work, had family members killed, etc. JUST because they have chosen to be Christians in predominately non-Christian lands.

Brother Coach.. did you mean to say that most conversions are among the 'untouchable's rather than the cast? If I'm wrong please correct me.

The "untouchables".. what a ghastly term for a valuable human being created in Gods image.

Christ gives them a sense of value, and worth, they go from Zero to Hero in their own self esteem.. as it should be. (not arrogantly so though)

When untouchables have found Christ, they also find FREEEEDOM from the enslavement of the cast system. They no longer accept that they are the bottom of the bottom, and this upsets an economy which is based on class stratification of society, based on the Caste system.

Be a Brahmin and woopee.. you are ooo-k... you have 'made it' without even trying. But fall in love with an 'untouchable'... and honor killings abound.

We all have sick aspects to our society, but the official 'divine saction' for classes of human beings as "Best(Brahman), good (Kshatria) , Quite Acceptable (Vaisia) just ok (Sudra) and yuk (untouchables)" is totally contrary to the message Christ brought directly from the Father "He who exhalts himself will be humbled, the first will be last, and the last first"

"If you would be ruler of all, be the servant of all"

No wonder we speak of 'East and West'...... and lets hope in this case that this aspect of the East never meets us in the West, but by all means let the message of Salvation and freedom and liberty reach every person in India.

The article is biased and obviously written by an evangelical missionary. What is happening in the world in the name of 'religious freedom' is 'global religious hegemony'? Missionaries do not elevate anybody's spiritual understanding. You cannot view the world through one prism. What missionaries have done around the world is destroying cultures, religions and spirituality and imposing their version just because they have money and political powers behind them. Particularly in the case of India they have created a civil war like situation because missionaries spread hate against Hindus and other religions.

Why India! look around every country, people just hate missionaries. Even Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of peace said 'just get rid of foreign missionaries'.

The author foolishly classifies anybody against missionary activity 'a radical/fundamentalist Hindu'. This is a very convenient classification as it helps missionaries and political parties but people across political parties and religions oppose missionary activity. Orthodox christians, Malabar Christians, Goan Christians, Muslims, sikhs, Jains and some Catholic leaders are also against evangelical missionary activity.

CRUSADE WATCH
There is more bias in your ill-informed post than in the original article! For credibility you must back up your claims with references. Put up or shut up. Vitriol is not constitute an arguement. Follow the advice of YngNLuvnIt and visit the websites mentioned, they might open your narrow-sightedness - but then again...

Actually, if the article had not been so well-written and deficient in CAPITALISATIONS, I might have thought from the tone and content of the article that it had been written by one of this forum's most voluble commenters. I don't suppose that it's all that evident to the evangelical Christians in our ranks, but I find quite striking parallels between the reportedly discriminatory treatment of Christians by fundamentalist Hindus, and that which is being increasingly directed towards Muslims in our own society by fundamentalist Christians and those who give them tacit support.

I think that fundamentalism in all religions globally is the real culprit - rather than the religions themselves. If evangelical Christians gave up trying to convert the world to Christianity, if extremist Muslims gave up trying to blow up infidels, if fundamentalist Hindus gave up trying to criminalise Christianity... etc etc, then I've no doubt the world would be a happier place.

Only I suspect that many people would simply find new primordial sentiments to rationalise their propensity to conflict with each other.

It is morally offensive to harm a person for their spiritual or religious beliefs. Well, it should be. However, it is such a con from the Christian Institutions to complain about hardship inflicted upon them by other's. Not only for their history of torture, sexual offences, etc, but for how they think in today's world.

I went into a live chatroom a few days ago where Christian's and Muslim's were abusing each other, calling each other 'dog rapists' and worse. There were alway Jewish people laying the bait. This is all very sad.

For those who aren't monotheists, the big three(Christian/Muslim/Jew) life is to be hard harsh. There are many who wish to see us Pagans(etc) killed off or thrown into prison. As a pagan myself, I've had people who were friends suddenly refused to be near me when they found out I'm pagan, some of them verbally abusing me instead. Even declaring that we should wear symbols so people know what we are when they see, as well as having us banned from having children.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

That is all the religious institutions want to do.

Dear George,

I think you are not fair. I won’t say that what you said is a lie, but half-truth is worse than a lie. I agree that all the examples you have given about Hindu atrocities on Christians are not wrong, but they obscure one major aspect of the story you are telling. You did not tell that how such anti-conversion legislations in States of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan were opposed by tooth and nail by secular Hindus. In Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan legislations could not become laws because of their opposition. In, Tamil Nadu the provincial government was forced to withdraw the law and the party that had brought the legislation eventually lost power.

Now about the unfortunate incident of Stains murder. The accused in the case was given a lifer. About the shameful incident gang rapes of nuns (in Jhabua in 1998) the perpetrators of the crime were arrested. The motive of the crime was loot not religious bias and the accused included convert Christians as well. They belonged to a tribe called Bhil that has a hundreds of years old history of committing crime.

When you talk about untouchablility I don’t deny that it is not there. But, again at the same time as an Indian journalist I can tell you that because of growing political awareness in dalits none of the two main national parties could form government on their own. Yes, the social scene is far from pleasant and equitable, but struggles for such a society in equally intense. India may be an old civilisation but you must not forget that it is a new country, which is trying earnestly to evolve.

Avinash.. good to see some gaps filled in there.
The Stains by the way were from my own Church tradition. We don't have any hate toward Hindu's for the murder, it 'goes with the territory' of proclaiming Christ.

C.J. (ooops.. caps :)... in the case of Christianity the problem is not 'fundamentalism' but wrongly driven fundamentalism. One can examine the fundamentals of Islam and emerge with swords swinging yelling Jihad-Jihad and be quite faithful to those fundamentals. The same cannot be said about Christ.
Hitler used the incident of Jesus cleansing the temple to justify slaughtering Jews. His interpretation was clearly wrong and misguided. More importantly, his interpretation could not be related to the text, so it was more him just imposing a view "on" the text of his own choosing.

Some criticism of groups using Christ for a label in India and other places is justified, but protestant evangelical groups primary goal is conversion/salvation through proclaiming the Gospel, and this is often supplmented by medical aid projects. The gospel is made known to patients, but it is always a choice issue. Aid is not withheld to those rejecting Christ. Aileen Coleman in Jordan has run a hospital for decades and has the blessing and support of the Queen and all the Bedoins. She shares Christ with them and they love her deeply. She crys with them, and rejoices with them, and they know for whom she stands. One of her colleages was murdered by a Muslim fanatic.
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s299612.htm

CRUSADE WATCH statements like "Missionaries dont lift anyones spiritual understanding" barely warrant a response, but my wife's people might argue with you. They were dying out until they went and asked some Aussie Missionaries to share Christ with them, now they are a vibrant progressive people in Malaysia.

*checks for un-neccessary caps* :)

Thanks brother BD - yes I did mean the untouchables who are lowest than low in the caste system in India. Judging from the many spelling mistakes in my previous post I must have been (as I often am) not very focussed. Too many projects happening at once in my life right now.

BTW – speaking of injustices, it is interesting to hear how some Bali bombers were pardoned in celebration of the end of the Islamic month of Ramadan. Obviously that “justice” is only available for certain people in Indonesia and not for others like our Aussie drug mules. Islamic law in action.

Quick definitions
(morals)
noun: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong .

(values)
noun: beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something)

(immoral)
adjective: violating principles of right and wrong
adjective: morally unprincipled (Example: "Immoral behavior")
adjective: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered right or proper or good
adjective: not adhering to ethical or moral principles

I think some are wandering a tad off-subject.

The article proposed that Jesus was then, and might still even today have cause to be, considered immoral ( by those who had 'ultimate' power over human life and death and who had the greatest say into what was officially 'right and wrong' for the general populace).

For those without the wit to tell - the author was trying to raise debate about what our current values are based upon and he did so using the established literary practice of irony. He was not trying to prove Jesus was morally unprincipled, but that he violated the principles of right and wrong imposed upon the people by both an occupying army of Rome and by the rich and unscrupulous religious leaders of the Jews.

I feel that many of Australia's leaders and community voices are corrupting what is 'right and wrong' in our society by slavishly acquiescing to those values of the leaders of other nations, such as America, and are claiming 'Christian' moral high ground when they in fact fail to follow even a single principle the True founder of Christianity has been reported to have possessed as shown by his deeds and actions - not just his words.

As Jesus showed - (I am the Way) we are bound to follow, through our own hearts, the will of Our Father over the will of hypocritical leaders interested only in power, position and wealth and to not just do what others tell us is right.

OOPS! windows blooper - posted to wrong article! My Apologies

see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5015

Let us forget any & every religion - the World needs HUMANITY as the only religion in its present day context - conversion / intolerance etc. are differences which one needs to rise above & look at the macro picture & not the micro picture.

haha that's ok, i had an interesting read of your comments nonetheless :)

so we need 2 rely on humanity... humanity, humanity. the thing about people is that we're not perfect. we rape, and steal, and hate and murder and do all these things our gods or non-gods tell us not to.

in embracing humanity do we also embrance the frailty of humanity? do we say "well, its part of the human experience" and so does it then become ok? do our morals become relative because we become our own gods and thus choose what we want right and wrong to be?

i'm not saying religion in the religious sense is perfect. but neither is making humans the source of our religion. ur just replacing one thing with another. and i think from the tone of your voice it seems ur quite dogmatic about this "we need 2 replace religion with HUMANITY". like i said, ur basically replacing one religion with another, and it turns out that YOU are the dogmatic, intolerant one.

until someone can disPROVE there is no God, i say let people legally try and convert each other as much as they want. its not ur place to tell them they can't. THAT is the height of intolerance.

(p.s. apologies for the atrocious way i have abused the english language in this post. too much on my mind with uni exams in a couple of weeks).

Thanks to Avinash Dutt for providing some erudite and informed comment about the realities of Indian law and politics as they relate to religion. I’m only an occasional visitor to that country, but my overwhelming impression is that religion there is not so much simply a set of personally held philosophical or metaphysical ideas as in the West – it has much more to do with the fundamental social identity of the believer. I found that to tell an average Indian that I was an atheist was understood to mean that in some sense I felt myself a non-person. I found I had to describe myself as a “secular humanist, you know, like what Gandhi taught” so as not to evoke a shocked sympathy from many of my Indian friends. While evangelical Christians might feel they’re well meaning in their conversion work, for many Indians (as far as I can tell) this feels like an aggressive and arrogant colonization from the West.

The basic premise of the Indian state (and one of the reasons for its survival as the world’s largest democracy) is its intense and radical commitment to secularism. The rise of pockets of Hindu nationalism and Hindu chauvinism are an anomaly and anathema to most Hindus I know: as with Islamist extremism they are the dressing up of political agendas in pseudo religious language.

There is no doubt that the continued existence of a large, underprivileged Dalit underclass in India remains a huge challenge for the country and for Hinduism itself. But self righteous “rice-christians”, many of whom see poverty as an opportunity to score “soul-points”, can often find themselves undermining the hard work of the local people in fighting the real causes of poverty.

I don’t claim to understand the complexities of Indian society. I’d certainly be very, very, cautious and respectful about going in and claiming I had the answers to its problems (or that I understood its strengths).

What's new? Where isn't it an offence, in some manner, to be a Christian these days?

In middle-eastern countries, they are treated like dirt. Not just by the people, by the government. There are laws favoring harsh treatment of non-Muslims, and in some places it's actually illegal to even be one.

In Qatar and Saudi Arabia, there are no churches, but I'm sure this is the case in many others.

Yet Saudi Arabia was allowed to participate in the world cup, what a joke. Why were the South Africans banned again? Apartheid? So, only racial apartheid is bad, not religious or gender.

Oh, that's fine, glad that's cleared up then.

Christians, instead of following Jesus, should stop turning the other cheek and fight back.

Not enough is said in the media about how non-Muslims are treated in these nations, and in India.

That makes perfect sense, they have a caste system for crying out loud.

Here Muslims harp on about the way Palestinians are treated, yet all of the mid-east used to be Christian, and they have all been run out. Nations like Lebanon and Syria used to be 100% Christian, but are now much smaller.

As for Palestinians, they don't care anyway. How many people know that they are kept in detention centres that they haven't been allowed to leave for over 50 yrs? Children are born in them, in nations like Lebanon, Jordan, and have never left.

They aren't allowed out to work, buy land, in other words, they aren't accepted as we accept refugees, free to live in the community as equals.

More needs to be said on this topic, much more.

Benjamin, are you a Christian? If so, did you really mean "Christians, instead of following Jesus, should stop turning the other cheek and fight back"? I think perhaps you could reword that, I don't like the idea of being enjoyed to NOT follow Jesus.
Persecution has accompanied Christianity since its early inception. The Bible tells us to rejoice in it. We should support one another as we undergo various forms of suffering.
I don't think that means that it is RIGHT to be persecuted. And in fact, the Bible also says to love justice and to seek mercy, so of course we should be advocating to end all this persecution. However, everybody should share this responsibility, Christian or not, to support people who are persecuted for the sake of their religious beliefs.

Sorry I meant to say "enjoined"... sigh, there go my 2 comments.

Boaz... you probably won't be surprised to hear me come out in agreement with the comments of CJ Morgan indicating that fundamentalists of all stripes are really the culprits.

Your statement: "the case of Christianity the problem is not 'fundamentalism' but wrongly driven fundamentalism... hitler... so it was more him just imposing a view "on" the text of his own choosing."
(edited to save word count, posters, view original comment in case of misinterpretation)

I'm going to agree wholeheartedly with the latter statement, but draw my own interpretation here.

You say the problem is wrongly driven fundamentalism and in the second statement you draw upon a warped interpretation of christianity in Hitler's actions. No argument here.

My issue is this - defining fundamentalism. As much as religious practitioners try to tell us that religions are based on grounded principles from the get go, the nature of human interpretation means that a religion changes its core attitudes every few centuries.
For examples in Christianity see witch burnings, attitudes toward scientific research etcetera.

Now... at the time of the crusades, were the pillaging knights incorrect in their interpretation of the religion? were they on orders from the pope? was the pope's interpretation then flawed? If his interpretation is flawed, whose is accurate?

This is the question DB. Who's interpretation of Christianity is the 'right one?' Is it merely the consensus of the majority of christians? In which case, was the past attitude toward copernicus style discoveries accurate? I'd hazard a guess and say it was the majority view...

I don't think this is a question that can be answered, but I have a simpler interpretation of fundamentalists which is less subjective - those who won't tolerate other religions and aggressively proselytise.

These are the people causing problems in the world, regardless of which brand of god they adhere to.

Anti Conversion law is not new in Indian Constitution and is NOT against any religion leave alone Christainity.All it says is that converting one faith from religion A to religion B is illegal if it is done by physical aggression or by lure .Off course a person can change his faith by choice .Hindu bashing seems to have become the definition of secularism among the fanatic authors like this. They hold Hindus responsible for everything that goes wrong with them. Hindus are not even spared when they are being killed by terrorists.He talks about Dalit Christians and advocates benefits to be given by Indian Govt..Why?The basis on which "Dalit Christians" were coerced by missionaries and converted was based on of "social injustice in Hindu Society" promising social equality on becoming Christian.Now that they are Christian, they enjoy social equality.And demanding benefits on basis of social injustice would naturally become void .He says "..About 1,000 Hindu temples have been built ..".Can the author provide the list of more than 100/110 Hindu temples.Hindu temples,Hindus and Hinduism are not expansionist.Should we say same thing about missionaries in India like what he says about Hindus in USA?I am really astonished that this web site is allowing this fanatic poster to post utter lies .He is typing whatever is coming to his filthy retarded neurons.Hindus do not hate Christians. I suggest readers to visit these states personally.Hindus are only against missionaries who try to convert by unlawful means.Period.
I do not want to boast and DO NOT want to debate on Hindu vs Christian contribution to world.But the author should know contribution of Hindus in mathematics and Science was even before Christianity came into existence .If not read this:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Indian_mathematics.html
One of the pet argument of fanatic Christians is to give such statements as dalit's "4,000-year-old plight " hide their nefarious designs and keep Hindus on defensive.
But before commenting on dalit's "4,000-year-old plight " why does he forget Persecution of Hindus in Goa?Read about it
any historical books or read online at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition#Persecution_of_Hindus
Lastly,Hindusium never believed in proselytizing .It is most tolerant religion in world.

Should we say same thing about missionaries in India like what he says about Hindus in USA?
should be:
Should we say same thing about Chirstians in India like what he says about Hindus in USA?

Yungnluvinit,

sorry if I mispelt your name, but no that isn't what I meant, well it is...I'll explain.

Although I attended Christian schools, I wouldn't call myself religious, but I do strongly believe in all but one of Jesus Christ's values.

I don't believe that we should turn the other cheek indefinitely, that those who are persecuted in the Islamic world, as Christians are (in their ancestral homelands too!) shouldn't put up with it.

While I see the logic in Christ's stance, he was dealing with Europeans, the Romans.

His message of forgiving those who would kill him rubbed off on them to such a degree that they took on his philosophy.

Muslims don't see it that way, their societies are all but closed to everything but Islam.

They have no thinkers, no philosophers, no one who questions things. They do, but they are quickly deemed apostates and killed, but what is worse is that leftists in the west don't support these people, they prefer to meet with the redneck Keysar Trad, who has likened us Australians to convict dregs.

So, turning the other cheek indefinitely to them will only see us wiped out, seen as weak.

It can't be tolerated.

Christians can't let their philosophy, the most advanced humans have ever come up with, to be trumped by a backward system of misoginy, racism, and inequality.

Unless you've read books on Islam by Karen Armstrong, that is.

Benjamin, you have a rather higher look of Christianity than it should have. The Christian faiths have created more harm than other faith. No religion has any right to claim to be morally and technologically superior or advanced for that would be a load of rubbish.

I suggest you go into the stores which act as supply store for Pagans and see how often Christians walk into these stores to verbally abuse the staff. One store that use to exist in Penrith(west of Sydney) was forced to close because Christians vandalised the shop front and went about on a drive to abuse the owners.

If the laws allowed them, these Christians would have dragged out the owners, employees and customers out for a good old fashioned burning.

This is for Benjamin's comment on Muslims being a backward people(etc);

Taken from a book called, "The Essentials of World History" published by Thomson Education(pages 147-148) ISBN: 0-534-62745-5

"During the centuries following the rise of the Arab Empire, it was the Islamic world that was most responsible for preserving and spreading the scientific and philosphical achievements of ancient civilisations". I will add the rest in point for you, Benjamin.

1) astronomy, they knew the world was round. 2) Linguistics. 3) Paper manufacturing(from China), etc. The Islamists gave the world, Algebra(al-jebr).

While the Islamic world preserved these and more, the Christian's were destroying everything and labelling such philospher's as heretics.

Spider,
Aryabhatt and other Indian Hindu Vedic mathematicians knew about Astronomy and mathematics way before [450 BC].Read about him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhatt
"The world was round" was known to Aryabhatt .

The work of Al-Khwarizmi and Al-Jawhari's work mathematical and astronomical work were based on that of the Indians.This was due to the fact that there was heavy trade with India by Mediteranean regions and Europe.

lochinvar2006,

My point is that they preserved such things while the western world under the grip of a murderous Christian faith went about destroying everything. I was not claiming that they were the earliest inventers. One only has to look at the Mayan's to know that.

Remember that the Islamic nation of those days were far different from the Islamic world of today. The Muslim faith just like the Christian faith is run by whack jobs just as is the Jewish faith.

Time to stop listening to these trouble makers and start thinking for ourselves and the world would be that much better off.

Spider,

You make silly sweeping statements. Let me pick on just one.

You said: "The Christian faiths have created more harm than other faith. No religion has any right to claim to be morally and technologically superior or advanced..."

Please answer:

1. Is the Christian faith creating more harm than other faith today? If so, how?

2. Will the Christian faith create more harm than other faith tomorrow and into the future? If so, why and how?

3. The fact that you mentioned some 'positives' of Islam suggests that in your mind there is a notion something is more superior or advanced than another. Therefore you are directly contradicting your statement, is this not?

Tan,

No, I did not say that Muslims are superior, just proving a comment by a previous poster as incorrect. Also, I said that the Christian faith has created more damage. That includes the Crusades and the Inquisition where more people were killed at the hands of the Christian God than has any government. Don't twist my words to suit your hatred.

Maybe you need to open your eyes and see just how dangerous politicians like Bush and Howard are using religion to make us hate each other as they continue their craving for an all out religious war.

As for the future, only time will tell but I'm seeing a lot hate from Jews, Muslims and Christians, all craving for the blood of other faiths. One only has to look at how Christian's are harrassing Muslims and Pagans in Australia with words and violence, supported by Cardinal George Pell.

Spider

I would like to see the "Uncovered Meat" quote in the historical stories of Allah!

Spider,

Who is twisting words? You are, not me. For I did not say you made claim that Muslims are superior.

My point was simply that even yourself has a notion that a religion is more superior or advanced than another. Otherwise you would not have mentioned 'positives' of Islam. You are not true to your own logic. (If you cannot properly explain away this one I'd call you a hypocrite.)

Also, you completely failed to answer questions on how and why the Christian faith is creating more harm than other faith today, and into the future.

Bush and Howard do not equate to Christianity. But even if all your sweeping accusations are true, all that you are saying is "some Christians are bad".

Still, this is just your own opinion. It does not substantiate claim that "Christian faith creating more harm than other faith today", neither does it prove the converse: "All other faiths are creating less harm than Christianity today".

Can anyone respect your opinion when you are not even true to your own logic?

So, please try again:

1. Is the Christian faith creating more harm than other faith today? If so, how?

Tan Tan Tan, unless you have a poor grasp of the English language, you would see that I was 1) replying to a person who said that Muslims are a backward people who destroy everything. I was showing that that person's comments were incorrect. 2) I am demonstrating that the history of the "Christian Church" is violent. They may not be crashing planes and using suicide bombers today but they does not remove what I said.

By using the Islamist's of old, using historical facts, does not mean that any religion is superior. I do not join myself with any religion whatsoever for I am spiritual, not religious.

My attack on world leaders is about how they are using religion to pit people against each other and from what I am seeing in many forums and chatrooms, it is working.

Spider,

Silly sweeping statements are just that, in any context.

All religions belong in the same 'domain'. It's not wrong to compare apples. Afterall, doesn't every religion regard itself 'superior', your spirituality included?

It is how a fair comparison is arrived at, that matters.

So typical of someone attacking Christianity to always mention the cliche of Crusades.

You need to understand the teachings of a faith and its ethos, not just pointing to the past. What is more important is TODAY, and the FUTURE.

Knowing Christianity, I can say it is okay today and in the future. (You only remember past bad)

As much, I'll say Hinduism, Buddhism are okay today, into the future.

But knowing the character of Islam, I will indeed say not only it must be bad in the past, it's not okay today and the future of humanity looks bleak because of it.

You're naive to say that world leaders are leading us into religious hatred and wars. The converse is somewhat true. I'm sure many people like me, correctly believe that something, some countries must be dealt with, and it's inevitable!

Even when they fail to do the right things from time to time, Bush, Blair and Howard are acting in response to the state of affair today, in the over-arching interest of freedom and democracy.

Given the constant bucketing from countless vocal politically-correct people, how come world leaders are effective (in your words) using religion to pit people against each other? Unless this is proof people like yourself are ineffective and/or have misread the world situation?

I certainly have not been influenced by any world leader. I'm simply glad some leaders are on 'my side'.

There are over 50 Islamic states. The harm was already done in the PAST, it is irreversible TODAY and looks set to get worst in the FUTURE.

Even so, here is someone who thinks that Christian faith is 'creating more harm than other faiths', thinking Cardinal George Pell is a source of evil.

I wear clear glasses that improve my vision. I don't know what type you're wearing!

Spider,

I quickly glanced over a few of your latest posts and noticed a consistency on what you wrote.

I realise you have experienced/seen sufferings under a religious regime and I can empathize with your emotions and expressions.

I normally keep emotion a great distance away from logical analysis.

I guess past experience means a lot more to some people.

Tan,

Why do you put aside emotion? Do you have no heart? There is no empathy with your comment. Amazingly, I don't sit here full of anger of the church but I do hold contempt for their wording of words such as; morality, values and more when in reality, they know nothing of it.

People turned their backs on Theocracy for the torture the churches inflicted upon the people. Amazingly, there are those who either think they won't do it again or would support them doing it again.

People have the right to practice their own faith. They should not compel others to follow theirs.

Spider,

U wrote: "Amazingly, I don't sit here full of anger of the church...".

Yes, I congratulate your forbearance.

As for me, I am not religious, neither am I spiritual. I am a 'logical' person foremost. I consider nearly everything (God, morality... you name it) through mindful reasoning. (What about love? Hmm... I'd have to think about this one.)

When I mention divinity, it does not mean I have a spiritual relationship with God. Strange perhaps, but then I am not emotionally affected, unlike most people.

But it does not mean I am emotionless. When I saw on TV a child forcibly separated from his mother by a Nazi soldier, tears instantly streamed down my face. Once I listened to a music (A theme from the silk road by Kitaro?), I was completely overwhelmed with emotion, my throat was choking and I couldn't even speak.

Emotion has got to catch me by surprise, when I am not thinking.

That's how it works for me.

Some thoughts:
Who is God?
God has no shape,no gender,is infinite and is not bounded by any faith.The concept of God starts where scope of science ends.That controller is said to be eternal, genderless, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and ultimately indescribable in human language.
This definition[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman#Conceptualization] is very close to my thoughts irrespective of my religious affinity.
He cannot be Human in shape because then it would be bias for other creatures!!He cannot be male because then it would be bias for those innocent creatures.!!It is pure being. It is the "world soul" which also can take many forms or manifestations of the thousands of gods.
The Brahman concept is very complex and hence for common man various forms/ faiths can be realized to conceptualize that complex concept[Brahman].
What is that faith?
Faith is a realization of that Brahman/God by all creatures.
Is Faith religion?
No. Religion is NOT faith.Faith is pure and above religion.It can be something very personal which would realize that God.
Then what is Religion?
Religion is man made.It is a social grouping by society for betterment of society .The concept of Hell to followers of other religion in NOT true .No religion should claim that it is the ONLY way to realize God because it is Faith and not religion which makes you realize God.God cannot be discriminatory on basis of religion.Those who claim that their religion is made by God are liars. More thoughts ..later :-)

Then what is relationship between religion and FAITH ?
Religion is meant for common people who cannot realize God through their Faith.A sage/hermit is not bounded by a religion because he can realize that Brahman/God by his power of Faith-and that is why he does not need any religion.The duty of religion is to to bring peace of mind from worldly pressures and help you to realize Faith.[Note this ].So if a religion claims that it is the [only] way to realize God is WRONG and LIE. Because the jurisdiction of religion ENDS where jurisdiction of YOUR FAITH starts!!

An example of Christian hatred;

"BY THE light of the full moon, witches in Glastonbury will tonight be casting a “circle of protection” around Britain’s centre of mysticism after a group of militant Christians cast salt at them in an attempt to “cleanse” the town of paganism...police were called after militants told locals that they wanted to cleanse the town of paganism, cast salt around to exorcise “evil” spirits and called one woman a “whore witch”."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2436968,00.html

Hindu or brahmanical racism is the worst in the world, has a long shameful history, it dehumanizes about 650 million indians and reduces about 200 million dalits as untouchables and yet not has been talked about it in the western media until recently. Inspite of its racist dogma and histroy shameless hindu bigots have the nerve to gloat about their racist and violent cult, as to how old and tolerant their religion is. Tolerance, community and ahimsa are alien to hindu ethos, they are all buddhist concepts. Hindu gods, who are often seen carrying crude weapons are presented as killing dalits and tribals in their religious texts. No wonder, Gita their holy book is the only religious text composed against the backdrop of a war, and what does it espouse? It unabashedly espouses caste racism presented via krishna, the hindu playboy god who seemed to have a liking for multiple consorts.

The Dalits (untouchables in the caste system) and tribals make up the perfect cheap work force as they do not have any rights (though they are granted all rights by the constitution). Christian missionaries run schools in tribal areas for the tribal and dalit population and over time, some dalits have begun to speak up against the oppression. Many of the tribal and dalit children no longer work in fields (child labour) but go to school. The missionaries also provided health care and other services for the tribals and dalits. This is a thorn in the side of the caste hindus, as now the educated tribals and dalits make their voices heard and could no longer be oppressed so easily. Hence the push for the anti-conversion laws.

Inspite of it, just this year alone nearly 3 million dalits converted to buddhism and a less number to christianity. Hinduism is collapsing from within.

"Aryabhatt and other Indian Hindu Vedic mathematicians knew about Astronomy and mathematics way before [450 BC].Read about him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhatt
"The world was round" was known to Aryabhatt .

The work of Al-Khwarizmi and Al-Jawhari's work mathematical and astronomical work were based on that of the Indians.This was due to the fact that there was heavy trade with India by Mediteranean regions and Europe."

These statements are not new, normally hindu bigots resort to these outrageous claims, 'we knew it first, its all in the vedas'. They even claim to have a cure for AIDS in the vedas, vedic mathematics is a pseudo-science, just like astrology and palm reading or psychic reading all of which are regarded as vedic sciences by the brahmins. Whatever india is today owes to the enlightenment ideas that came from the west and the british system of education and governance. A culture which reduces a quarter of its population as untoucables and many more as the wretched cannot make claims to greatness.

Imposter Arvind [may be retarded neuron George himself :-) ]
"These statements are not new, normally hindu bigots resort to these outrageous claims, 'we knew it first, its all in the vedas'..."
1)The links are not from Hindu website but from wikipedia.If you dispute that,you have to post that with proof in wikipedia.
2)Not only in wikipedia, the history research is published in
renowned School of Mathematics and Statistics,University of St Andrews, Scotland :Have a look at it and increase IQ of your retarded neurons:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Aryabhata_I.html

3)These are not "claims".They have been proven.There are saved manuscripts vedic texts available to prove these.

"They even claim to have a cure for AIDS in the vedas, vedic mathematics is a pseudo-science, just like astrology and palm reading or psychic reading all of which are regarded as vedic sciences by the brahmins..."
I do not know about AIDS cure mentioned in vedas.But certainly Ayurveda [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda] was one of the earliest known medicinal sciences to humans.Written manuscripts copies prove that.

"Whatever india is today owes to the enlightenment ideas that came from the west and the british system of education and governance..."

Whatever you are typing [with direction from retarded neurons] you could not have done if numerals were not invented by Vedic people .For enlightment of your neurons, computer uses 1.s ans 0's .

"A culture which reduces a quarter of its population as untoucables and many more as the wretched cannot make claims to greatness..."
Again pet issue to put Hindus on defensive![Nice tactic but old :-)]
Hindu society accepts that theere are issues.If you see history of Hindu society,there have been reforms and reforms.Unlike other cultures which claim to be superior and fault proof, Hindu society do not claim that and always strive to improve and correct.

Imposter Arvind[Sure he is retarded neuron George ]

"..The Dalits (untouchables in the caste system) and tribals make up the perfect cheap work force as they do not have any rights (though they are granted all rights by the constitution). Christian missionaries run schools in tribal areas for the tribal and dalit population and over time, some dalits have begun to speak up against the oppression..."

Just look at real work of "great" Christian missionaries in Goa and then blabber :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition

The hindu epic Ramayana has an episode in which the mythical hero Rama kills Shambuka because he is from the lower caste who attempts to do penance.

Dravidians were described by rama and his followers as “Vanaras” - monkeys and bears just because they were dark skinned. This is the worst form of casteism and racism described in ancient hindu literature.There can be no greater insult. Leaving his wife because a lower caste man cast aspersions on her proves how free Rama was from bias. Infact in the stroy of shambuka he comes across as the violent enforcer of the racist caste system.

Even Mahabaratha has an instance of Ekalavya being shunned by Dronacharya because he came from a lower caste (the official explanation is he was not a Kshatriya). Later Arjuna even pleads with Drona to put an end to Ekalavya’s mastery as he had to be the greatest archer in the world.

From Tamil history, from stanzas of poems I’ve actually read: Pouring molten lead into the ears of Bhuddists and Jains - around 3rd century. Throwing Hindus into vats of lime (chunam) to shrivel to death - 11th century. Razing Bhuddist viharas to the ground to build Hindu Temples and forcibly infusing Hindu culture into South East Asia - 11th century Cholas. I do think that is inquisition style. Forget about all that Saivites and Vaishnavites considered each other opposing religions (their words, not mine) and imprisoned and killed each other.

Buddhists were persecuted and driven out of india during 300-900 AD, this is a well documented fact. India was dominated by Hinduism most of the time with no significant minorities. Even in these circumstances people within Hinduism such as lower castes were and are being oppressed since centuries. So much for the tolerance of Hinduism. As for persecution of minorities today u dont have to go farther than Narendra Modi and his rightwing hindu government who butchered muslims.

Regards the myth of hindu science and other hindu illusions espoused by the hindu righ wing check out this article and google for more. http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=46

Arvind:Your retarded neurons have blabbered on multiple issues.Lets analyze them:
1)About Vedic era Science and Mathematics:
As usual your retarded neuronic instinct has cited propaganda web site .The fact of Vedic era contribution in Mathematics and Astronomy is
accepted by scientific communities and proven with manuscripts available.So keep your low neuronic instinct to rest in this regard.
2)Diatribe against Hindu Religious texts:
First of all,I have no intention of turning the debate on Hindu religion vs others etc and claiming superiority by citing religious texts.
Believe me, it is damn easy to point out satanic verses from Bible/Koran .I have no intention of doing that.But I would surely reply to flaws in your argument about religions texts you mentioned in separate post.
3)Diatribe against Hindus for "Persecution of Buddhists"[?]
Your retarded neuronic comment that Buddhists were Persecuted by Hindus is absurd and a lie.As usual you might have read those from propaganda web site and not from authentic source.Your history neuronic IQ is weak and poor.Buddhism was originated and nurtured in India by Hindu King Siddhartha[Later Buddha] who is regarded by Hindus as an avatar of Vishnu.Nowhere in history of India and never in minds of Hindus would Buddhists be presecuted.India has even given shelter to Dalai Lama and reserved a separate city for persecuted Buddhists of China.
Buddhism flourished in India and abroad under Ashoka and subsequent kingdoms until about 500 AD .Until 500 AD India had a great civilization with special emphasis on science and mathematics.The period 500-1949 was of Islamic and later Christian invasions and conversions.Most of Buddhists Kingdoms due to the policy of Ahimsa did not believe in war and whole kingdom were forcefully converted by Islamic invaders. Even great Buddhist Dr. Ambedkar said, "there can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism was due to the invasions of the Muslims.".The authentic source on web is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Buddhists#Persecution_in_India .So increase IQ of your retarded neurons instead of blabbering.
More for your retarded neurons :
http://www.buddhapia.com/eng/tedesco/pic1/list.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/religion.html

First and foremost your retarded neurons need to understand that Hinduism does not subscribe to be controlled by any centralized authority like Pope/Imam , bind to any specific religions texts, nor does has a founder proving that it is highly democratic in nature in one sense. Hindu society is open to criticism and corrective measures for human society that is why you see/saw reform activities from time to time in its history.

While Ramayana[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayana] and Mahabharata[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata] are though great story epics but again they are not religiously binding "guidelines" like Bible/koran.They just depict idealistic and realistic philosophy respectively.Similarily,BhagvatGita [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gita]though is more close to Hinduism core philosophy but even that is not recognized as centralized text.Again Hindus also have much older texts-Vedas which are compiled over thousands of years covering wide range from philosophies, realities and truths about life[Rig-Veda],even Economics as in Artharva Veda [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veda#The_Artharva-Veda] and later Ayurveda[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda], Yoga[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga] and even Kamasutra[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kama_Sutra] proving that Hindu society was much more open before Islamic invasions!!
Even after having such rich treasures ob philosophies, Hindu texts are not considered binding in nature t followers nor they are closed to new concepts.The texts never despise anywhere non believers to be going to Hell and follow the "Brahman" concept.They are open to be adapted to news ways whatever proves beneficial to society prevailing at that time.
Somewhere u said :"...because a lower caste man cast aspersions.."
-->Ravan was not from lower caste..He was Brahmin.
In Mahabharata,the incident of Eklavya is regarded as unfortunate and Drona inspires great debates about morality and dharma in the Mahabharata epic.

IMHO,Mahabharata[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata] is an interesting epic to read as novel.The Mahabharata's scope and grandeur is best summarized by one quotation from the beginning of its first parva (section): "What is found here, may be found elsewhere. What is not found here, will not be found elsewhere." This quotation rightly sums up Mahabharata, within which one finds myriads of relationships, stories and events which still have relevance.
I sincerely believe if Hollywood makes a movie on Mahabharat on the lines of Lord of the Rings ,it would be a DEFINITE BLOCKBUSTER.

the hindus have no right to make
christians suffer
just becuz they believe in somethin
they dont
and where do they get the guts
to do things like that and actually
wanna shout out loud that they did it
its like nobody cares about christians anymore
nobody aint diong nothin to stop
the heartache the hindus are causing
and they are actually some hindus who
want to convert so why let christian suffer
for somethin the hindus wanna do
thats just not right
and the hindus cant prove that god dont
exist so they shouldnt get mad
becuz christians believe that god exist
the whole thin is pointless
if hindus wanna convert fine let them convert
but dont take it out on the
christians
take it out on ur own party
the hindus

First of all i want to inform all the readers reading the article that if the conversion goes on we the people of india will loose our culture.We were vegetarians but it was they who made us non veg and the biggest fault in hinduism is that we are not teaching what is there in gita or in guru granth sahib to our children .hindus them self dont know what hinduism means .it accepts every thing and every god .we are not idol worshipers in the begining we need idols but later it will help u to find the god in the idol .If we post a letter in a post boxt it will go to the destination where it has to go .We believe in christ as we believe in krishna and mother kali .Does the christians worship krishna they convert the mind of poor people by giving them food and job .If it goes on the the heritage and treasure of our country will get lost . The various gods and goddess in hinduism is the just reflection our very self the god in ourself .All the christian are dying for the christ iunderstanding the essence of the bible .Swami vivekanada sais " if u want to become a good christians they should become a hindu first ".Study the life of ramakrishna who saw jesus ,mahavir and other god in mother kali .Can the christians see christ like that in each and every being .They even dont feel pity for cows and poor chickenn .They say it is ment to b eaten .Think if animals speak in human tongue they will say one word "please can u allow us to live".
The real essence of upanishad and vedas are to see the real god in each and every being and self .To see christ or buddha or kali in each and every being .
The people of india Raise DONT THINK THIS A SIMPLE ISSUE U HAVE TO MAKE A BETTER WORLD OF SPIRITUALITY FOR OUR CHILDREN.
om namashivaya( i bow the devine in each and every one)

If the authors comments are true then the situation he describes represent a sad state of affairs.

We have people within our own society advocating a similar approach, at least one (possibly more who post on this site {and thread}).

On a thread regarding David Hicks we recently had the following comments which were more about his choice of faith than his actions in combat

"As far as I am concerned, Hicks is no longer an Australian citizen. He has abdicated that right when he became a Muslim and joined the enemies of Australia... by choice."

"They find no harm in David’s actions like memorizing the Qur’an and subjecting himself to the evil teachings of Islam..."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5527#71385

A suggestion that choosing a particular faith should disqualify someone from Australian Citizenship.

Of course the freedom loving christains resoundingly corrected that poster down for his stance (OK I'm still waiting for that but I'm sure it will soooooooooooon).

Didn't someone once say something about "He who is without sin"?
Have not some of our resident christains complained because muslims are not real obvious for publicly speaking out against other muslims who promote extreme views?

R0bert

RObert yes I totally agree (does that make me a freedom loving Christian? :)) Its like the move for compulsory dissolution of the Communist party in Australia last century. Although in principle a lot of people were opposed to Communist principles, most decided (via referendum) that to give Parliament this power to dissolve political parties would be dangerous for future freedoms in Australia.

(In a robust democracy we have the right to debate the various tenants of Islam. But someone who says "this person converted to a different religion therefore they aren’t Australian" is very ignorant. I'm more interested in the implications of his interpretation of the Koran (i.e. his actions against the state) than his privately held belief.)

Hinduism: Guru, I'm sorry that people who believe in Jesus have given up their health, wealth and time to go to India and share the love of Christ in as practical way as possible- through trade, aid and Gospel. I'm sorry that some poor who felt they weren't getting enough assistance from their local Hindu leaders sought solace in the provision and faith of Christians. But freedom to choose one's religion is a basic human right. You are not Hindu because you are Indian. You should be able to choose to be Hindu or Christian or Atheist or whatever because you are human. If you’re concerned with the growing secularisation/Christianisation of India then you should move to ethically counteract that (public "education" forums, more practical aid, etc.) As a good Hindu you must support the right of people to choose or reject your religion. In mostly Christian countries such as Australia, people are free to choose their religion (and definitely should be). I believe it should be the same way in mostly Hindu countries. I'm sorry you feel your culture is being lost but denying the rights of other people to act according to their conscience is not the answer.

Now your exploration of Christianity is certainly an interesting point of view but I respectfully disagree. Many important tenants of Christianity are simply incompatible with Hinduism.

YngNLuvnIt, from what I've seen of your posts you do seem to support personal choice and freedom - not what I'd expect from someone who attends an AOG church but I guess that reinforces the point about diversity within faith communities :).

I absolutely agree with your remarks that the issue for others is not what faith a person holds to but what they do with it. Regardless of the framework we use (various religions or lack thereof) people seem to be able to turn the same core into good or bad depending on their preferences.

The bit about "by their fruit" comes to mind.

R0bert