Posts
Trip:
http://conversionagenda.blogspot.com/2006/05/experiences-of-india-trotting-kashmiri.html
Read abt the issue from someone who has first hand experience of persecution in India
SR:
Hi again, Trip!
I don’t find your source credible. “Christians are required to eat meat” makes sense as an anti-Christian prejudice among Hindus, but no sense as a description of Christian practice. I’m a strict vegetarian myself. So are many Trappist monks. All Catholics are expected to abstain from meat one day a week, and for the forty days of Lent each year, although that tradition is not as strong as it was. Nothing says you must eat meat on other days.
In any case, even if what this man said were true, it would not be an example of religious persecution. It would simply be a legal contract, with obligations on both sides, rather than pure charity.
Trip:
For India to be one civilization, it does not have to be politically united. I don't understand the logic, civilization is culture, not politics.
SR:
Agreed. Then the partition was not, as you claimed, the “ripping apart of an ancient civilization.” QED.
Trip:
Similarly, British were totally responsible for mishandling the partition. besides, british unwritten policy was divide and rule. they are the ones who started dividing Indian administration under their rule on religion lines. British and scapegoats? Thats some claim. whether they wanted India divided is anyone's guess, but that they planted it and mismanaged it is a fact.
SR:
The British may have botched the partition. It was certainly done in much haste; but where were the Indian voices at the time asking the British to stay longer in order to do a more thorough job?
Divide and conquer? Interesting, then, that Canada unified before its independence, as did Malaysia, and Tanzania, and the United Arab Emirates, and Australia. To an untrained eye, it almost looks on balance as if England preferred unity to division among its former colonies.
Still, a good scapegoat shouldn’t be given up without a fight.
Trip:
When you reject India as one civilization, thats straight out of a mission book. Once the eastern states of India became majority or fully converted, they started demanding a separate nation for themselves, and now we have a full blown insurgency there. Many a times, the church has been blamed of fuelling it. Its a historical fact that the church is NOT BEYOND THE LUST FOR POWER.
SR:
You forget: “For India to be one civilization, it does not have to be politically united.”
Becoming Christian, too, is not a “rejection of Indian civilization” – you forget your claim that Hinduism is not the same as being Indian.
Trip:
India IS the world's oldest SURVIVING civilization. The reason being all the other civilizations you mentioned changed culturally (under religion or communism) but India did not. India assimilited all. Chauvinism would be saying its the most superior.
SR:
I think it is reasonable to argue that Indian culture was changed more by Muslim rule, British rule, and Aryan invasions, than China has been by Communist rule. Modern Chinese can still read 5,000-year-old Chinese manuscripts, more or less. Modern Indians would need to learn a different language.
Trip:
How easily you dismiss the witchhunts and inquisitions. Even if withcraft is 'considered' a crime in your book, the person you are calling a witch, still has some rights. You almost assume that because the book or its guardian said something is bad, then their unspeakable torture and painful deaths are ok.
SR:
I oppose capital punishment. However, given that one believes in witchcraft, an accused witch has the same rights as someone accused of any other serious crime, neither more nor less.
Trip:
It sounds lame when you say the history writers were anti church. Personally, admitting mistakes is a great virtue and first step in gaining credibility. This is not meant for you, but the Vatican.
SR:
I think you’re still missing the point that the Vatican has apologized for the Inquisition.
Trip:
Again, what abt the religious and human rights, for which you are so concerned? While going into Hinduism and Buddhism, you totally forget that Buddhism originated from Hinduism and By the time peaceful invaders came here, Buddha was considered a manifestation of Vishnu (God) in Hinduism and Buddhists had started idolatry. I think you should stick to the 'our truth superior' speech only and not comment on Indian history. Again, great centres of buddhism were destroyed by invaders and not by Hindus, a great loss. Over centuries there were some clashes between kings following hindusim and buddhism, but none of the religions mandated it.
SR:
I don’t see how it is relevant to any of the points made that Buddhism emerged from Hinduism. Nor is it relevant that Hinduism’s triumph over Buddhism was by conversion, and not by the sword (Sri Lanka currently to the contrary): how is this different from Christianity today?
Trip:
Equality is Indeed a social concept. the problems (some or all) of feudalism, serfdom, slavery, peasantry, apartheid, racism, imperialism, male chauvinism and indeed casteism existed in every single country of the world irrespective of their religious inclinations.
SR:
This is partly true, but it is a question of degree. In few other places has class difference been as extreme as in India: where, for example, members of one caste would avoid even the other’s shadow, let alone eating together. And in what other religion does it seem to be so clearly sanctioned by scripture?
Trip:
Even today many of them exist in all the countries. And the all pervasive class inequality exists in all. Whatever success we have had against these are after the removal of religion from state. If equality 'happended' because the book said so, then the devout spanish would have left the natives alone after they has successfully converted or exterminated them and most of the problems mentioned above would have been extinct from most parts of Earth.
SR:
Fair enough; let's look at that. In fact, their Catholic faith produced a different relationship with native people among the Portuguese, Spanish, and French than among the more secular English or Dutch. You can see it in the Americas, or in comparing Macao with Hong Kong: the Spanish, French, and Portuguese intermarried, and became one nation with the original natives. The English and Dutch kept strictly apart. This is because the more devout Portuguese, Spanish, and French considered the native people their equals, so long as they were fellow Christians. The more secular British and Dutch regimes did not.
Trip:
In India, higher caste christians do not marry lower caste christians (I have witnessed first hand). Its a social problem as the concept of caste does not even exist in Christianity ( and neither in Hinduism according to Suresh Desai, I'm really no authority).
SR:
I'm no authority on Christian marriage customs in India; this may well be true. Even in Canada, supposedly a classless society, some care a great deal about class in deciding whom to marry. It is a universal human tendency; the question is whether the religion sanctions it. Christianity is actively against it.
Trip:
I never said Hinduisms way to God is superior to yours, but after talking to you I'm beginning to think so. Simply because it does not confine me intellectually in Dogma and gives me freedom to look inside me and look for God. It gives me freedom to look at you, a devout christian and look for Him too. Quite modern for a religion as old as the time (not literally in case you misunderstand).
SR:
The relative absence of dogma in Hinduism can be seen in two ways: either as allowing greater freedom of thought, or as a lack of guidance. Or a lack of results.
For comparison, would science be more admirable if it did not claim to have any idea what the moon was made of, so we were free to believe that it was made of green cheese, or papier mache, or the dessicated remains of dreams? If we could still believe the earth is flat?
Trip:
I'd posted another link which talked of personal experiences of the author with mission malpractices. You removed it.
SR:
No, you are confused. It remains where you posted it, in the comments section. And I’ve also reposted it above.
Trip:
Besides, you have been talking of technicalities and not morality (concerning God) when it comes to these issues. Thats quite a give away too.
SR:
Like the peace of God, Trip, here you passeth all understanding.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi SR, hope you are good. some thoughts.
SR:
Hi again, Trip!
I don’t find your source credible. “Christians are required to eat meat” makes sense as an anti-Christian prejudice among Hindus, but no sense as a description of Christian practice. I’m a strict vegetarian myself. So are many Trappist monks. All Catholics are expected to abstain from meat one day a week, and for the forty days of Lent each year, although that tradition is not as strong as it was. Nothing says you must eat meat on other days.
In any case, even if what this man said were true, it would not be an example of religious persecution. It would simply be a legal contract, with obligations on both sides, rather than pure charity.
Trip:
Indian context. Making people eat meat is a tactic used by the Portuguese in India to convert people. No prejudice. I know abt lent and meat eating practices in Christianity. I eat meat myself. BTW don’t know the religious significance, but the portuguese used to throw bread in wells too. May be you can throw some light. Contractual yes sir. We are not discussing the legality but the morality. As you yourself say, christianity does not require it, then why make a needy person go against his religion? This can’t be a case of religious freedom as its not mandated or practiced by your religion.
SR:
Agreed. Then the partition was not, as you claimed, the “ripping apart of an ancient civilization.” QED.
Trip: so you are implying that India and Pakistan are otherwise the same? Its just political that tens of millions have to pack up their lives and legacies and make a long dangerous journey into a totally unknown future? India is still politically divided. However, its culturally different than pakistan today. You can chose to ignore it.
SR:
The British may have botched the partition. It was certainly done in much haste; but where were the Indian voices at the time asking the British to stay longer in order to do a more thorough job?
Divide and conquer? Interesting, then, that Canada unified before its independence, as did Malaysia, and Tanzania, and the United Arab Emirates, and Australia. To an untrained eye, it almost looks on balance as if England preferred unity to division among its former colonies.
Still, a good scapegoat shouldn’t be given up without a fight.
Trip – may be you should read abt the partition of Bengal. Your defence of imperialism is also understandable. btw its called divide and rule, not conquer.
SR:
You forget: “For India to be one civilization, it does not have to be politically united.”
Becoming Christian, too, is not a “rejection of Indian civilization” – you forget your claim that Hinduism is not the same as being Indian.
Trip:
You are accusing me of what I am accusing the Church of doing here. Trying to create divides, politically and culturally. This is why those tribals who convert paint their houses black. For some reason you also assume I am ok with India’s disintegration if your ilk promise to keep the civilization intact.
SR:
I think it is reasonable to argue that Indian culture was changed more by Muslim rule, British rule, and Aryan invasions, than China has been by Communist rule. Modern Chinese can still read 5,000-year-old Chinese manuscripts, more or less. Modern Indians would need to learn a different language.
Trip:
Indian culture is not abt reading a language. Btw I can read sanskrit. Indian culture is abt inclusivism and the same is lost when competitive religions try to be ‘kind’ to us. Pakistan and bangladesh lost it, kashmir lost it and now eastern states have lost it. Indian culture is indeed infuelnced, that’s the beauty of it that it was able to accommodate all. The abovementioned places have lost that quality. Even a humanitarian should regret the loss, not just a Hindu.
SR:
I oppose capital punishment. However, given that one believes in witchcraft, an accused witch has the same rights as someone accused of any other serious crime, neither more nor less.
Trip:
Accused is not the same as convicted. You are against capital punishment, but seems you believe in witchcraft.
SR:
I think you’re still missing the point that the Vatican has apologized for the Inquisition.
Trip:
not in Goa.
SR:
I don’t see how it is relevant to any of the points made that Buddhism emerged from Hinduism. Nor is it relevant that Hinduism’s triumph over Buddhism was by conversion, and not by the sword (Sri Lanka currently to the contrary): how is this different from Christianity today?
Trip:
its different from christianity today because we don’t think you are heathens (Benny hinn exception). We don’t think you will forever burn in hell if you don’t become a Hindu. We think your path to God is as good as mine (however you have successfully converted one person away from that belief)
I have no idea what you mean by Srilanka. Are you saying the tamilians are trying to convert the buddhists?
SR:
This is partly true, but it is a question of degree. In few other places has class difference been as extreme as in India: where, for example, members of one caste would avoid even the other’s shadow, let alone eating together. And in what other religion does it seem to be so clearly sanctioned by scripture?
Trip:
Only an extremely cynical mind will look for degree in casteism and putting people in shackles and selling them, denying them rights because of their skin color and keeping them bonded all life long. And only a well taught mind will conclude that the latter is better in degree somehow. You have been alert on Sundays.
Abt scriptures, it’s a social dictat. That’s my point. And its bad indeed. However, its not the same anymore (except for politicians and you guys). I’m low caste myself. I was not discriminated against even once. I mean it.
SR:
Fair enough; let's look at that. In fact, their Catholic faith produced a different relationship with native people among the Portuguese, Spanish, and French than among the more secular English or Dutch. You can see it in the Americas, or in comparing Macao with Hong Kong: the Spanish, French, and Portuguese intermarried, and became one nation with the original natives. The English and Dutch kept strictly apart. This is because the more devout Portuguese, Spanish, and French considered the native people their equals, so long as they were fellow Christians. The more secular British and Dutch regimes did not.
Trip:
The more devout gave freedom to their colonies. That’s new history. On the contrary, the more secular british were less brutal than the devout portuguese. It’s a fact. I think the devout also converted everyone or the majority before being so kind to them. In case of some, they were exterminated.
SR:
I'm no authority on Christian marriage customs in India; this may well be true. Even in Canada, supposedly a classless society, some care a great deal about class in deciding whom to marry. It is a universal human tendency; the question is whether the religion sanctions it. Christianity is actively against it.
Trip:
Not class, high CASTE christians don’t marry in low CASTE christians. Just trying to tell you that it’s a social problem. Even muslims in India follow castes and indeed race. Those who think they have arab ancestry look down upon indian muslims. Being low caste myself I’m almost fanatically against the system, but since I know convesrion is no answer to it, I’d like to oppose the views of people who just want to use it for conversion and then forget them. Its called being used and its not very elevating. Read
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1577114.cms
SR:
The relative absence of dogma in Hinduism can be seen in two ways: either as allowing greater freedom of thought, or as a lack of guidance. Or a lack of results.
For comparison, would science be more admirable if it did not claim to have any idea what the moon was made of, so we were free to believe that it was made of green cheese, or papier mache, or the dessicated remains of dreams? If we could still believe the earth is flat?
Trip:
Hinduism has plenty of guidance literature and practices, infact too much of it. So there is no lack of guidance. Yes there is lack of judgement on other religions, even after almost getting overthrown by another.. or many other. Now the interpretation is indeed upto me, that’s called intellectual - spriritual freedom. Lack of results… hmmm exactly what results are we tallking abt I have no idea. Hinduism produced the greatest tradition of spiritualism. It allowed other religions to co exist and thrive. Three other world religions were born under hinduism… and sir there were no crusades. A better result than any competitive organized religion can claim.
Trip:
Indian context. Making people eat meat is a tactic used by the Portuguese in India to convert people.
SR:
Sounds instead like a way to prevent people from converting. So I doubt any missionary would do it. It is the very opposite of the way Catholic missionaries (or missionaries generally) operate: they try to relate everything they can to the existing faith.
I believe it is far more likely to be an anti-Christian prejudice, than some strange local Christian practice.
Trip:
BTW don’t know the religious significance, but the portuguese used to throw bread in wells too. May be you can throw some light.
SR:
I can’t imagine what the point of that would be. But again, it sounds suspiciously like a traditional prejudice against Jews in Europe. That they were always trying to poison the wells. Nobody stopped to consider that there would be nothing in it for them. So too for the Portuguese.
Trip:
Contractual yes sir. We are not discussing the legality but the morality. As you yourself say, christianity does not require it, then why make a needy person go against his religion? This can’t be a case of religious freedom as its not mandated or practiced by your religion.
SR:
Indeed. Hence it is very unlikely ever to have happened.
SR (old):
Agreed. Then the partition was not, as you claimed, the “ripping apart of an ancient civilization.” QED.
Trip:
So you are implying that India and Pakistan are otherwise the same?
SR:
Yes. But this is not my claim; it is yours. You are trying to have it both ways: either political division makes a big difference, or it does not. Which is it?
SR: (old)
…Divide and conquer? Interesting, then, that Canada unified before its independence, as did Malaysia, and Tanzania, and the United Arab Emirates, and Australia. To an untrained eye, it almost looks on balance as if England preferred unity to division among its former colonies….
Trip –
May be you should read abt the partition of Bengal. Your defence of imperialism is also understandable. btw its called divide and rule, not conquer.
SR:
An interesting example of the difference between Indian and Canadian style there—as an Indian, you insist on my using the stock phrase word-for-word, while the principle of good writing in Canada is, as Orwell put it, to “never use a phrase you are used to seeing in print.”
You might show a bit more awareness and tolerance here for differing cultural values.
And what are you assuming about my background? As an Irish-Canadian, I don’t see why I should have any special fondness for imperialism in general or British imperialism in particular.
But I do not let that could my sense of truth, or of right and wrong.
SR (old):
You forget: “For India to be one civilization, it does not have to be politically united.”
Becoming Christian, too, is not a “rejection of Indian civilization” – you forget your claim that Hinduism is not the same as being Indian.
Trip:
You are accusing me of what I am accusing the Church of doing here. Trying to create divides, politically and culturally. This is why those tribals who convert paint their houses black.
SR:
Again, I cannot see why the Christian church would have any interest in dividing India culturally or politically, or in painting houses black. There is no Christian country in which houses are painted black. Sounds like one more anti-Christian prejudice.
I am indeed accusing you of what you are accusing the Church of doing.
Trip:
For some reason you also assume I am ok with India’s disintegration if your ilk promise to keep the civilization intact.
SR:
Again, you cannot have it both ways. Either India disintegrates, or it stays intact. It can’t do both at once.
SR (old):
I think it is reasonable to argue that Indian culture was changed more by Muslim rule, British rule, and Aryan invasions, than China has been by Communist rule. Modern Chinese can still read 5,000-year-old Chinese manuscripts, more or less. Modern Indians would need to learn a different language.
Trip:
Indian culture is not abt reading a language. Btw I can read sanskrit. Indian culture is abt inclusivism and the same is lost when competitive religions try to be ‘kind’ to us.
SR:
Again, you seem to me to be trying to have it both ways. You cannot claim to be “inclusive” and then exclude other religions supposedly in order to be so. That is being exclusive.
SR (old):
I oppose capital punishment. However, given that one believes in witchcraft, an accused witch has the same rights as someone accused of any other serious crime, neither more nor less.
Trip:
Accused is not the same as convicted. You are against capital punishment, but seems you believe in witchcraft.
SR:
Whether I believe in witchcraft or not (I do) is irrelevant. If both perpetrator and victim believe in it, it has real effects. If a society believes in it, they are being perfectly sensible in making it a crime.
SR (old):
I think you’re still missing the point that the Vatican has apologized for the Inquisition.
Trip:
not in Goa.
SR:
Yes, in Goa, as everywhere else.
You are not asking for a special separate apology for Goa, are you? If so, you are insisting that what happens in India is more important than what happens anywhere else. That is chauvinism.
SR (old):
I don’t see how it is relevant to any of the points made that Buddhism emerged from Hinduism. Nor is it relevant that Hinduism’s triumph over Buddhism was by conversion, and not by the sword (Sri Lanka currently to the contrary): how is this different from Christianity today?
Trip:
its different from christianity today because we don’t think you are heathens (Benny hinn exception). We don’t think you will forever burn in hell if you don’t become a Hindu.
SR:
You are misinformed again about Christianity if you think this is what mainstream Christianity teaches—that all non-Christians will burn in hell.
Trip:
We think your path to God is as good as mine
SR:
If so, how can you have any objection to Indians being or becoming Christian? Again, you seem to want it both ways.
Trip:
(however you have successfully converted one person away from that belief)
I have no idea what you mean by Srilanka. Are you saying the tamilians are trying to convert the buddhists?
SR:
No; they are trying to take power over land and people away from Buddhists and give it to Hindus. But that’s what the Crusades were about, and you consider them immoral. No double standards here.
SR: (old)
This is partly true, but it is a question of degree. In few other places has class difference been as extreme as in India: where, for example, members of one caste would avoid even the other’s shadow, let alone eating together. And in what other religion does it seem to be so clearly sanctioned by scripture?
Trip:
Only an extremely cynical mind will look for degree in casteism and putting people in shackles and selling them, denying them rights because of their skin color and keeping them bonded all life long. And only a well taught mind will conclude that the latter is better in degree somehow.
SR:
I take it you are referring to slavery? Christianity stands out among world religions in resisting slavery, as it stands out for insisting on human equality. Christian nations were the first in which slavery was outlawed. QED.
SR (old):
Fair enough; let's look at that. In fact, their Catholic faith produced a different relationship with native people among the Portuguese, Spanish, and French than among the more secular English or Dutch. You can see it in the Americas, or in comparing Macao with Hong Kong: the Spanish, French, and Portuguese intermarried, and became one nation with the original natives. The English and Dutch kept strictly apart. This is because the more devout Portuguese, Spanish, and French considered the native people their equals, so long as they were fellow Christians. The more secular British and Dutch regimes did not.
Trip:
The more devout gave freedom to their colonies. That’s new history.
SR:
No, not to their _colonies_. They gave freedom to their _people_. The British and Dutch were more ready to let go of their colonies precisely because they did not see them as the same people, but as foreigners.
Trip:
On the contrary, the more secular british were less brutal than the devout portuguese. It’s a fact.
SR:
The British have taught you well.
Trip:
I think the devout also converted everyone or the majority before being so kind to them. In case of some, they were exterminated.
SR:
Yes, indeed, conversion was required in order to be considered Portuguese. But nothing would ever get you accepted as English.
SR:
I'm no authority on Christian marriage customs in India; this may well be true. Even in Canada, supposedly a classless society, some care a great deal about class in deciding whom to marry. It is a universal human tendency; the question is whether the religion sanctions it. Christianity is actively against it.
Trip:
Not class, high CASTE christians don’t marry in low CASTE christians.
SR:
Again you seem to be trying to have it both ways: before you were insisting that there was no real difference between caste and class. I’m happy with your insistence now that the Indian institution is unique. It—caste--comes from Hinduism, though it may have unfortunately influenced other religions in the Indian context. I note that your own preferred source, given below, refers to caste as “a system exclusive to Hinduism.”
Trip:
Just trying to tell you that it’s a social problem. Even muslims in India follow castes and indeed race. Those who think they have arab ancestry look down upon indian muslims. Being low caste myself I’m almost fanatically against the system, but since I know convesrion is no answer to it, I’d like to oppose the views of people who just want to use it for conversion and then forget them. Its called being used and its not very elevating. Read
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1577114.cms
SR:
Thanks; the piece is illuminating, although I cannot see how it supports your views. Surely it is gross religious discrimination to deny benefits to Christians and Muslims that are extended to Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs, on the basis of their religion. And the reason it is being done is explicitly to prevent religious conversions!
“The third pressure group constitutes Hindutva activists who are against the move of extending reservations to Dalits outside the existing fold of Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism. They argue such a move will encourage conversions.”
This does not make India sound “inclusive.”
SR (old):
The relative absence of dogma in Hinduism can be seen in two ways: either as allowing greater freedom of thought, or as a lack of guidance. Or a lack of results.
For comparison, would science be more admirable if it did not claim to have any idea what the moon was made of, so we were free to believe that it was made of green cheese, or papier mache, or the dessicated remains of dreams? If we could still believe the earth is flat?
Trip:
Hinduism has plenty of guidance literature and practices, infact too much of it. So there is no lack of guidance.
SR:
Again, you want to have it both ways. Either Hinduism has lots of dogmas, or it does not.
But I think you were right the first time: it does not.
Trip:
Yes there is lack of judgement on other religions, even after almost getting overthrown by another.. or many other. Now the interpretation is indeed upto me, that’s called intellectual - spriritual freedom. Lack of results… hmmm exactly what results are we tallking abt I have no idea. Hinduism produced the greatest tradition of spiritualism. It allowed other religions to co exist and thrive. Three other world religions were born under hinduism…
SR:
I count two: Buddhism and Jainism. Sikhism you would have to share with Judaism, which has also produced at least two other world religions, Christianity and Islam. Some would add Bah’ai.
On the whole, I would think the Jewish accomplishment is more impressive, for a variety of reasons. A much smaller base, and a larger influence. Christianity is the world’s largest religion, and Islam is number two.
But does that convince either of us to convert to Judaism?
Trip:
and sir there were no crusades. A better result than any competitive organized religion can claim.
SR:
Again, leaving aside the present conflict in Sri Lanka, for example. But to the extent that this is true, this may imply no more than that Hindus are less unified by their beliefs than are Christians, Muslims, or Buddhists. Or that they have been less militarily powerful.
Post a Comment