Missionaries are great people. They are doing God's work. More power to them. If India had been ruled by spain or portugal instead of british, it would be a developed christian country like mexico (mexico and other latin american countries' per capita income is much higher than that of india). The caste problem, religious riots etc would be nonexistent.

If India had been ruled by spain or portugal instead of british, it would be a developed christian country like mexico...

Why stop at Mexico? The third-highest GDP per capita in the world is earned by the world's least religious country. By your 'logic,' Christian = poor.

The Catholic Church's anti-birth control doctrine increases the population and weakens Mexico's economy. Just what India needs.

If India had not been ruled, it would be a developed, secular country like the U.S. of A.

Recovering liberal,
Yea, what colonialists should've done was strip India of its religion, culture, and language. Why stop there, why not go to the logical extreme of what's implied in your comment and get rid of the Indians in India, too. I'll admit the Brits brought railroads and and certain western advantages to a handful of Indian upper crust, but the idea that more colonialism was what was needed is absolutely ridiculous. Plundering a peoples is not the way to enhance their economy.

"doing God's work," right. So the mass killings of native Americans by the conquistadors was "God's work." I'm thoroughly convinced. The British were truly horrible for not going far enough in their exploitation.

“Missionaries are great people They are doing God's work. More power to them”

That is a blanket statement; I doubt all missionaries are good. The whole concept of having someone converts his or her beliefs never settled well with me. Every now and again, I read stories about these “missionaries” forcing people to convert. I did a quick google search and found this:

Parents of nine Dalit and OBC school-going children aged between seven and 10 have registered a case with the police in Rajgarh against a priest, Father Abraham, on the charge of repeatedly assaulting their wards and denying them meals following their refusal to convert to the Christian faith.

One of the children, nine-year-old Banne Singh told The Times of India News Service that he and his friends lived in a convent run by a local church at Rajgarh but studied in a neighbouring government school. Displaying mostly dry wounds around his knuckles and waist, he alleged, ``Father ne humko ravivar ko bet ki chadi se maara (Father beat us with a cane on Sunday)'' upon which he complained to ``Papa and Mummy''.

While I can never be certain if this was a true story or not, I am sure it has happen somewhere at least once.
Really, what kind of missionaries are these!!? They are beating children! I mean if you have to force people to convert to your religion, what kind of religion is it? Sounds more like a pyramid scheme to me. If Christianity were really the best religion then logic would dictate that everyone would convert on their own accord.

“If India had been ruled by spain or portugal instead of british, it would be a developed christian country like mexico (mexico and other latin american countries' per capita income is much higher than that of india)”

Are you saying the reason India’s per capita income is lower than mexico and latin america is because the country has a large Hindu population? That doesn’t even make sense. How do you even logically link the two?! Per capita income = income / population. I am no math or census expert but doesn’t india have a lot of people? Wouldn’t that drive the ratio down?

“The caste problem, religious riots etc would be nonexistent.”

I don’t know to much about the caste problem, but I doubt 1000’s of years of history can be replaced/ solved by people converting to Christianity. But then again any problem would be solved if everyone believed in the same thing.

Religious riots? Doubt that as well. What about this religious riot that involved Christians: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/140/23.0.html

Manish, trust you and SM to come up with another hard hitting story.

Missionaries trying to convert people is in itself a wrong thing according to me. What is their point in conversion ?

The people who they are trying to convert are not religiously oppressed. They might be economically worse off than should be. But then if the missionaries are truly doing their bidding to God, then why not just give these hapless people the means and source to food, clothing and shelter et al, and not ask for anything in return.

The reason is multi-fold and I would put a large part of the blame on the rich donors who donate money so that the message of "their" god can be imposed on the masses and they find a way to heaven.

Fuckin hogwash all this is.

I find the whole idea of embracing of God and Christianity in US politics stifling.

One day, I was talking to a Brit friend of mine, Dave. We talked about Bristish bringing railways, western thought, education, etc to India.

You know what he said, "It was not out of altruism, it was for more effective exploitation - railways for raw materials to be shipped to UK, education to help colonize India and other parts of the world through cheaper Indian personnel. "

Any person with a sense of history will tell you. Exploiting economic disadvantege for religuous conversion is a sin in itself.

I agree with arzan. The whole concept of having people convert seems unsettling. I kind of thinking about it like food. If your full, then you don't want people shoving food down your throat. If your hungry, then you will actively try to find it. From what I have read, missionaries have ALOT of blood on thier hands.

It is a wonder that Pagan India has survived at all with American- and European-funded missionaries roaming the countryside.

If one objects to these practices, which aim at the deracination of India, one is labelled a fascist nationalist by the (overwhelmingly Hindu-Indian) South Asianist crowd.

"Look how much 'good work' the missionaries are doing," they say, "will Hindus do the same?" (Read: Hindus are indifferent casteists.) They ignore the fact that there are over 100,000 indigenous NGOS in India, overwhelmingly run by Hindus.

When the VHP "reconverts" Christians, the mission organizations call it "calculated" and "unfair".

Double standards!

Damn, only if we could have been a Christian country all of our problems would be solved, thats so brilliant why didn't anyone think of that before? If we could get a great leader, someone like Pat Robertson, that would be even better. And everyone would like us too!

i'm not a fan of christian missionaries, but think of it from their perspective: people who don't believe in jesus christ are going to hell. if you presuppose that premise, what they are doing isn't that exploitative at all. i don't agree with their premise, but, since that's what they believe, i think one should be cautious in accusing them of preying on people, since what they are concerned about (as much or more) is the everlasting life.

we really wouldn't be having this discussion of course if inequality, gross injustice and poverty were not present. i do think it is valid to point out the shysterish shenanigans that some missionaries are up to (telling peasants in nepal that the government is christian and that they will be in the gov. good graces if they convert is a common type of tactic). that being said, a certain segment who criticize missionaries seem to be the sort who do little to ameliorate the injustice that missionaries are leveraging to win souls.

I agree with arzan. The whole concept of having people convert seems unsettling.

well, it is fundamental to the faith of 1/2 of the world's population, so let's not pretend like this is an exotic idea.

When the VHP "reconverts" Christians, the mission organizations call it "calculated" and "unfair".

Double standards!

sure, agreed. but two wrongs don't make a right, and all that.

Don't you think if they were only out to salvage soouls from hell, they wouldn't resort to promising food/benefits only on conversion?
Just being a Christian in name alone will not save your soul anyway-from the Christian point of view as I understand it.

"well, it is fundamental to the faith of 1/2 of the world's population, so let's not pretend like this is an exotic idea."

Half the world's population is female.... get the idea?

India is hardly one of the world’s poorest countries. It’s fourth in the world in GDP, after the U.S., China and Japan and ahead of Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Russia, Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Singapore.

Yeah, and Iceland ranks 137th in the world in GDP. Surely it must be one of the world's poorest countries.

(Oddly enough, your concession of "It is, however, one of the countries with the highest number of poor." is similarly irrelevant.)

Don't you think if they were only out to salvage soouls from hell, they wouldn't resort to promising food/benefits only on conversion?
Just being a Christian in name alone will not save your soul anyway-from the Christian point of view as I understand it.

there is a whole field of missiology devoted to this, but suffice it to say that profession of belief is the first step to genuine internalization. blaise pascal's "wager" was in large part designed to allow the rational skeptic to take a step in that direction (pascal never meant his wager to really convince anyone, there are obvious logical fallacies). to give a specific example, i know a man who converted to islam to marry a muslim woman. for the first 15 years he was obviously muslim in name only, he wouldn't even say "salaam" in response to people and never went to mosque on eid. but, i hear a few years ago he had a "true conversion" and now he dresses like a mullah. the point is that this is the sort of thing that missionaries also look at insofar as they "seed" for the future. if the man had remained a hindu he might now be deeply pious, as a hindu, but that wasn't a viable option for his 'religious awkening' because he was a nominal muslim during that stage in his life.

also, i'm not being very clear here when i used the "two wrongs" phrase, i just meant that all the concern about conversions on the part of christians, hindus and muslims might better be devoted to ameliorating the condition of dalits. sincere and fervent hindus, christians and muslims of course will still focus on souls or whatever, but, i often get the impression that many hindus who are concerned about conversions are pretty secular, so it seems material foci should be paramount.

it is fundamental to the faith of 1/2 of the world's population

Hasn't the Vatican accepted that there are other religions??? Plus this 1/2 of the worlds population that you have quoted has come to better grips (overall) with mordern realities, especially when it comes to co-existence.

also, let me add that focusing on the structural factors is important. japan has been open to missionaries for 150 years, and is only 1% christian. in south korea the population is 25% christian because christian koreans were identified with korean nationalism, and the united states (a christian nation) was viewed as a protector against the north. it isn't as if the missionaries who went to south korea were better, or their message better, or south koreans are naturally more religious than the japanese.

passing laws is a short term solution. you can't dictate someone's heart, even if they got their via the stomach or wallet. one problem i see is that hindus always aim for the draw (keep hindus in the flock), muslims and christians aim for a victory (expand the flock). in an iterated game over time the former strategy is obviously going to be a loser if victories and draws are randomly alloted to each side.

Unless I'm mistaken, Razib is also referring to Islam when referring to "1/2 the world's population", so he's talking about Christianity + Islam combined. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Razib.

Warning: This maybe an irrelevant point.

Just wondering why the missionaries have such Hindu names. Even their kids have the same.
I know a few Keralites who have Hindu first names but they are followed by John, David, Joseph etc.
Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought faithful Christians, like Muslims, are supposed to be named with their religion in mind.

Hasn't the Vatican accepted that there are other religions??? Plus this 1/2 of the worlds population that you have quoted has come to better grips (overall) with mordern realities, especially when it comes to co-existence.

the catholic position is nuanced. but being within the church is a definite +, though i think they don't presume to say who outside the church has found the path to salvation or not after vatican ii (ie; people can be catholics without knowing it, even if they believe themselves to be of other religions). as for the quote about modernity, that's a joke, get serious. until the past century even in the christian world conversion was a no-no. muslims still have a messed up attitude toward it (they convert, but don't allow others leave). modernity is generally correlated with the idea that people are who they choose to be, not who they are born. that's the big picture i'm trying to get at. of course indian can ban conversions by fiat, but again, i think that's a long term losing proposition.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, Razib.

right.

Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought faithful Christians, like Muslims, are supposed to be named with their religion in mind.

it is a custom, but not necessary, and many christians understand that it is counterproductive. many "christian" names are not hebrew, they are latinate or northern european.

Most missionaries SUCK! If they were truely good people, they would just give rice to the poor. They are all about quid pro quo. They are so self-righteous that they think their way is the only way and everyone should believe in Christ. (And they depict Christ as this white guy with blonde hair and blue eyes and Nordic feautures.) And so these self-righteous missionaries run around India and breed "Rice Christians." So ridiculous.

On another note, although I was born into a Syrian Catholic family, I believe that many Indian Christians confuse Christianity and Western culture resulting in the disintegration of their desi culture to varying degrees. Many Malayalee Christians name their kids Western names now that are not even Christian names, which are names that come from the Bible. Why? There are so many desi names that are so beautiful..

Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought faithful Christians, like Muslims, are supposed to be named with their religion in mind

Daksha, there are two aspects to this - when you see theses overzealous missionaries with very Hindu-sounding names, you can be sure that they were recent converts (1st/2nd gen) from Hinduism. They are overwhlmingly Dalit - just the group the "missionaries" are targetting. Most of these missionaries seem to be in it for the money (also.)They tend to be more-patriotic-than-the king house-Ns.

The Keralite names that you mention tend to belong to people from traditionally Christian families. They freely adopt Indian (which does not mean Hindu - it's just Sanskrit.)names . This trend started in the recent generations. And since Mallus dont generally follow the surname system, (we usually append the father's first name with the child's - eg: Anna John.), a lot of young people have such names - for eg: Arun George). I know, coz I have one like that.

And since we are discussing this, let me say that traditional Christians (or rather Catholics) tend to oppose these aggressive evangelism. There's always this "we've been here for 2000 years, so we're better than you johnny-come-latelys" kind of thing. Also, there is the fact that most of these "new" Xtians tend to be Dalits/fishermen etc, while traditional Kerala Catholics are more prosperous, and claim to have descended from Namboodiris (Keral Brahmins) converted in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Hell, we even tend to look more fair, which counts for a lot in India. If anybody tells you there isnt an amount of subtle casteism in traditonal Indian churches, theyre lying.

the lowest cast members in one of the poorest countries on earth

I thought the lowest cast members were called extras in Bollywood films.

These are the people spreading education in India. Forsooth.

While I don't fully agree that net GDP of a country is a good way to determine the welfare of its citizens, and I do believe that India can use developmental aid, I have trouble with the notion of evangelical proselytization. I mean, let's not forget that these are the same people that want to teach Intelligent Design in school. Do we want more kids reading such blather?

not ask for anything in return.

That's really the root of the matter. I have many perspectives on this. For one thing I am not blanket against conversion--I think that's racist. There's no reason you should be forced to stick to a religion because you were born in it; that seems to violate the theological principles of free will and freely relating to divinity. As I am fond of pointing out, Hinduism does historically take in converts--see Heliodorus.. Even Jews have a mechanism for conversion. But in both these cases it's difficult--the convert has to do a lot of work. As long as this work doesn't turn into a burden, it seems like a good mechanism to make sure no one is being forced or bought.

My other perspective is from having a friend who is, in fact, a parttime missionary, sometime in India; though we haven't talked much about his missionary work, we have talked about religion a bit. So I feel that some, perhaps many of these missionaries are sincere, as Razib points out, just trying to right by their fellow human being in the world as they see it. So we have to divide our analysis into two groups. The sincere, and the insincere.

Because there are plenty of insincere. They even exist here. We see them all the time. This is a big money operation. Pat Robertson makes money off of diamonds in Zimbabwe. Not all of these missionaries live broke and teach orphans, like my friend. Plenty of them fly home first class to McMansions and SUVs. This is a problem in this country, this is a problem abroad. See a great New Yorker article on Christian groups fighting money-crazed evangelicals. A couple good Christian blogs to counterbalance the Pat Robertson style: jesuspolitics.typepad.com and
kevingpowell.blogspot.com.

But even if people are sincere, are there no issues to discuss? I think there are. I think couching your conversion speeches in terms of condemnation of the native culture and religions is offensive and harmful, and too often converters resort to that, everywhere. Someone tried to convert my mother when she was waiting for me on a park bench in Seattle; they probably didn't realize what they had gotten themselves into but they were amazingly offensive in their ease at dissing Hinduism. That kind of fundamental disrespect is unhealthy in a society as diverse as India--and I will note that old-school, non-VHP Hinduism is deeply respectful of Christianity. Recently I think the actively propagated perception that it's the missionaries who do all the development work, and none of the Hindus/Jains/Sikhs who do it is deceptive and damaging. I think tying development work to missionary work with anything more than the pressure of one's good example and kindness and caring is simply unadmirable. And there should be no question of forcing people whatsoever. Give people help and aid, and show them by your example that your faith is strong; if they are thus provoked to find out more by it, good on you. Some people follow this model; unsurprisingly it's pretty successful if you're going for quality and not quantity.

All these phenomena are multimodal; let us not conflate issues too deeply.

Dana Carvey, wow. What a guy.

Franklin, you seem to have missed the bit that Manish put in about per capita, 3rd quartile. By your Icelandic logic, the fact that there are more poor people in India than anywhere else is similarl irrelevant--there are more middle class people too.

C'mon people there are only 7 years left for the "Rapture". Do you want to get "Left behind" ?? Thank the people who are making sure that people dont get left behind. (Including some Jews, who were converted after digging them from their graves .. I am not kidding)

Here's my view, we need to make a clear distinction beteween missionaries and christian charities. We must admit some Christian Charities are going some good work in India. What I'm against is this is the TV evangalist breed of fellows who's only aim is filled with regional and racial prejudices all disguised under the name of god.

Ok, it has come for me to voice my opinion on this. As a Pentecostal Christian Keralite out of India now currently residing in the United States. Those of you on this blog have made some serious unfair statements about Christians and Christian missionaries. As I am related to several missionaries. (Two uncles are pastors, another one goes on missions to Africa) It certainly hurts when I hear people making suggestions that they could be exploiting people. I know, that in the same sense that I couldn't make a blanket statement about all missionaries that they are all bad. I couldn't do the same that they are all good. But I have met several missionaries who sincerely care about these people. They care about the poor people in India, and those that suffer. And as Razib said, as Christians we believe the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. Thus, there are missionaries working among the rich and poor of India spreading the gospel, because we have a burden for the lost. I understand that sounds demeaning to a lot of people. But I am sincere when I say that it is not meant to be. I can not speak for all Christians, I can speak for the ones I've met and talked to. We care deeply about our Indian brothers and sisters. I hope to see all of them in Heaven once I die. Thus I tell them about the love of Jesus Christ. I don't want their money or anything else. I don't know what else to say, I'm just trying to defend the missionaries, I guess. Please, take a look at the other side before attacking Christians in India and other countries around the globe.

Oh and to the first commenter. What the Spanish did was not at all the right way. If you spread the gospel according to the Bible, you will not be exploiting people or enslaving them. Have a good day folks, and may God richly bless you.

Central India Christian Mission, CICM, is an oasis for the “untouchables”, the lowest cast members in one of the poorest countries on earth.

To create a new class of "Dalit Christians" (Look it up. Its real) ..who's social status doesnt change an iota with the conversion

Daycruz,
Would you plz keep your Love of God in your Christian Blog. I believe you misunderstood this blog as a place to preach.

I have a small advice for you. Before you take others burden on yourself, just worry about your burden. That may lead you to hell or heaven or whatever you believe in. Dont forget that you live in a capitalistic society. First worry about your ass, then you can worry about other's ass.

I will never ever believe someone who says he is carrying someone else burden on himself for the sake of going to heaven. Its Just plain bullshit.

By the way, is hell really that bad? ...not my HFO

Saheli,

I agree with you 100% regarding everything, including free will. I got educated in a Catholic school in India - most of the middle/ upper class Hindus/ Muslims are. Some of these schools are secular and comparable to the best in the world anywhere. I have met very honest, sincere missionaries in India and US.

However, I will paraphrase Jumo Kenyatta saying:

"When they came we had the land, and they the bible. When we opened our eyes, we had the bible and they had the land."

I am very against Pat Robertson style modus operandi.

daycruz i think most of us are just concerned about the bad ones in the lot, riding on the good faith gathered by the good people you mentioned. Like Saheli mentioned above, if honest noble intentions win through, then good for them.
At the same time, it isn't healthy imo, to preach by putting down the native culture.That doesn't help to eradicate the problem at all.

The Dalit Christian class is definitely true as the quotas in India will tell you. I think some missionaries miss the point- conversion alone doesn't 'solve' the problem. You need to be able to affect the mentality that allows the hierarchal system and persists after conversion as well.
Or maybe there is no solution to it, for humans like to feel they are superior don't they?

>>On another note, although I was born into a Syrian Catholic family, I believe that many Indian Christians confuse Christianity and Western culture resulting in the disintegration of their desi culture to varying degrees.

The Syrian Christians, as far as I know, did not advocate conversion until recently. They were thoroughly integrated into the Malabar caste system: the oil obtained from the Nair shop had to be "purified" by the Nusrani (Christian) before being handed off to the Namboodiri Brahmana. (He would dip is pinky or something into the little container.) Very many I've met respect
Hindu philosophy, particluarly advaita, though they seem to decry animistic practices.

Hi yeah, I think daycruz was perfectly within propriety with his comment, and was very informative and respectful. There's no reason to ask him to take it somewhere else. Please be civil!!!

Daycruz, Would you plz keep your Love of God in your Christian Blog. I believe you misunderstood this blog as a place to preach.

I have a small advice for you. Before you take others burden on yourself, just worry about your burden. That may lead you to hell or heaven or whatever you believe in. Dont forget that you live in a capitalistic society. First worry about your ass, then you can worry about other's ass.

I will never ever believe someone who says he is carrying someone else burden on himself for the sake of going to heaven. Its Just plain bullshit.

By the way, is hell really that bad? ...not my HFO

Yeah, must be terrible having to listen to another opinion. Anyways, about your question of carrying burdens, I'll use an analogy that I'm sure you have heard before. If you saw someone drowning in a pool, you would do anything in your power to save that individual. That's exactly how Christians see it. What does my living in a capitalistic society have to do with anything? And Kush, I agree, my Christian friends and I were just discussing the terrible consequences of those so called Christians who do some terrible things in the name of God. (Every religion has their idiots) But once again, you can't make that blanket statement. And while Pat Robertson may be an idiot, there are many low lying people in his organization who do good things around the world. I wish they would find a way to get rid of him though.

Hmmmm missionaries. Where do I begin? (Disclaimer: this is based on MY own personal experiences with American (mostly Bible belt--Southern Baptists, AGs, Mennonites etc)missionaries in Nairobi)

So between 10-12 grade I went to a school in Nairobi that had been set up for the children of American missionaries who didn't want their kids to have to move from one school system to another while the family travelled around.

When I first got to the school I was one of maybe 3 non-christians (the others being a Catholic (yes, apparently Catholics are not Cristian. Could have fooled me, but then again, what do I know) and a very passive Muslim boy.

For a while everyone at the school made a concerted effort to make sure I got to know the Lord, and accept him into my heart. They were all very shocked when I could quote the bible (I went to an amazingly wonderful Catholic school, and LOVED it).

Every day during the mandatory devotions period, I was prayed for (Dear Lord let today be the day that XXX sees the light and accepts you in her heart). When they realized I was not really going to convert they called me things like devil's spawn and cow worshipper, and the usual gambit of names...

Parent's would sometimes use the track in the morning when dropping their kids off, and my mom would too, until one day two of the moms came up to her and told her that the only reason that her heathen children were allowed into the school was because the school needed the money (non-missionaries paid 3X the fees). And that she should really make sure that their bad influences would not be brought to their school because they were watching us and we would not get a second chance if we were ever caught doing anything wrong.

These people harrassed me, discriminated against me, called me names (and I'm not just talking about the kids, I'm talking the kids parents, the school authorities, the pastor). I didn't much care because I didn't really think too highly of them as people anyway. But then it affected my grades too. I got points taken off for not including "God would not want you to smoke" as part of my (health class) answer to a question about what you'd tell a friend if you wanted them to stop smoking. In AP biology the teacher didn't finish the syllabus because he spent 2.5 months "disproving" evolution for my benefit. They weren't going to let me join the National Honour Society until I threatened to report their favoritism.

A lot of the families were living in huge houses, in compounds with pools (paid for by the mission), had fancy cars (SUVs), had clothes (and other ammenities including things like American food that the families might miss) sent to them by their sponsoring churches, maids, drivers, gardeners etc etc. Most families had 3-4 kids, it was not uncommon for families to have 7-8, since they didn't believe in birth control. This is not the kind of lifesyle they enjoyed at "home" and I often heard kids complain when they "had to" take sabbaticals and go "home." Despite this, at the weekly chapel I heard things like, "thank you lord for bringing us to this dark continent so that we may bring these natives to you, so that you may save them from their sins," and "thank you Jesus for giving us the choice...to be saved or to be stupid," (this one was aimed at me after a particularly bad week of failed evangelism)

I don't agree with conversion in general, but conversion for food, or under any other type of pressure is abhorrent.

My argument to these people was simple. You believe in an omniscient God who knows the begining and end to everything from before time existed. Therefore when he created me he knew that I was never going to convert. Why would he create a soul for the specific purpose of populating hell? Doesn't that go against the whole 'God as a kind, caring, benevolent being' thing?

And my all time favorite Matthew 7:3, because it was their kids/peers/fellow Christians who were caught smoking weed, having sex, flunking school and generally going against the will of the Lord the most.

What a load of crock.

sorry, clarification. i'm not against people converting, just against people forcing their view of things on others and discrimination based on religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

Saheli,

I apologize, If my Comments were not civil.

To be honest...I hate everything when it comes to conversion. These missionaries are forcing the helpless people to convert to christianity. I hate when people, use someone's situation (poor, hunger) to their benefit and expolit them accordingly.

All these phenomena are multimodal; let us not conflate issues too deeply.

hallelujah? :)

Guys,

Do you have any thoughts on the IIPM vs bloggers issue?

http://indiauncut.blogspot.com/2005/10/question-of-principles.html

As a long time reader, I guess you should blog about this & fight for the freedom of speech

These missionaries are forcing the helpless people to convert to christianity.

the problem is that they are helpless. note,

but conversion for food, or under any other type of pressure is abhorrent.

yes, it is abhorrent, i find it unseemly. that being said, i've never really been hungry, but there are plenty of people out there who are. so when you balance the abhorrency i don't see it as that bad. not being a believer in any religion or god, i'm cool with people mumbling any particular profession if that will get them through the day.

so granted, i can understand why people object to christian missionaries focusing the down-trodden, but from the perspective of the down-trodden the key, in a materialist sense, is there well being before and after. if it is marginally improved, i don't think (as a unbeliever) it matters that much which god they bow to.

now, if you are a sincere hindu, muslim, christian, etc., then the situation is different, you do think it matters which power you bow to, what tradition you follow, etc. i won't get into the utility calculation because i'm not you, but i think it is there as well, but we have a situation where people believe in alternative supernatural agents, and by the nature of those agents we can't falsify one agent vs. another.

"thank you lord for bringing us to this dark continent so that we may bring these natives to you, so that you may save them from their sins," and "thank you Jesus for giving us the choice...to be saved or to be stupid," (this one was aimed at me after a particularly bad week of failed evangelism)

I didnt think it was this open. BTW, how come you call it

(I went to an amazingly wonderful Catholic school, and LOVED it).

I would have hated such a school. (which came out as a threatening place from your description)

hi yeah Don't apologize to me, it was day cruz you were talking to. You might want to apologize to him. you've got strong feelings, and that's the fire of good discussion. But hate's not going to help anyone, "everything" is a powerful word that quickly becomes meaningless, and generalizations are useless. Everyone involved is a human being, fallible and hurtable.

The most trenchant commentary on missionaries that I've ever come across is the South Park episode where the boys had to help their Ethiopian friend Starvin' Marvin and his people escape from earth because they were constantly being harassed by missionaries. Like many here, I don't care for evangelical Christians, but I think some of the handwringing over 'helpless' Dalits is a bit condescending. Sure Dalits are poor, but that doesn't mean that they're dumb or that they lack any agency whatsoever. I've come across some rather amusing stories of Dalits grabbing whatever goodies they can from their benefactors, while still practising their ancestral traditions in private. If you read missionary tracts, they often express frustration at how little conversions seem to stick in the subcontinent.

One reason the Hindu nationalists oppose conversion is becuase they don't want an East Timor-like situation in South India or the separitist difficulties of the Northeast. The subcontinent was split apart based upon religion, so their fears are not altogether unfounded.

I hope that a liberal Hinduism eventually supplants old-school orthodoxy in the hinterland (as it has with certain groups in urban India).

I am against an outright ban on conversions for all the reasons given by Saheli and others.

The best counter to missionaries have been charismatic Hindu leaders like Ma Amritayamayi (from a 'lower' fisherman caste), Bangaru Adigal and other (largely non-Brahmin) swamis who are devoted both to spiritual regeneration and to social service. They are the best counter to Christianity (besides a good, Enlightenment-style education).

(I went to an amazingly wonderful Catholic school, and LOVED it).

I would have hated such a school. (which came out as a threatening place from your description)

Sorry that was meant to be Catholic primary (1-8th grade)school where even though they taught Christian Religious Education (all public-system schools had to teach a religious education course, Christian, Islamic or Hindu), when Catholics had mass, they would have assembly for the rest of the students and they would read from the bhagvat gita, the Koran, any other religious texts the teachers thought relevant as well as various philosophers etc. Amazingly tolerant school :)

And since we are discussing this, let me say that traditional Christians (or rather Catholics) tend to oppose these aggressive evangelism. There's always this "we've been here for 2000 years, so we're better than you johnny-come-latelys" kind of thing.

can you get real?

"The peoples of Asia need Jesus Christ and his gospel. Asia is thirsting for the living water that Jesus alone can give," the pope declared in a Vatican document released during a ceremony in New Delhi on November 6. The document, "Ecclesia in Asia" (The Church in Asia), is the fruit of the Synod for Asia held at the Vatican in April and May last year. The pope has made it a custom to visit the regions covered by special synods to release the "apostolic exhortations" that summarize and conclude the work of the synods. In recent years the synods of Africa and of America were followed by papal visits to the regions concerned.

cite

syrian catholics might not be at the forefront of missionary activities, but roman catholic ecumenicalism with non-christian religions aside from judaism goes only to a certain point. let's keep our feet on the ground here.

Also, there is the fact that most of these "new" Xtians tend to be Dalits/fishermen etc, while traditional Kerala Catholics are more prosperous, and claim to have descended from Namboodiris (Keral Brahmins) converted in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

this implies that most of the namboothiri brahmins converted to christianity (last i checked, only 1% of kerala's population is namboothiri brahmin, 20% christian, even if many of these are new converts, we are talking at least an order of magnitude more christians than brahmins).

I didnt think it was this open. BTW, how come you call it

RC,

It's very Open.
Why they should be embarassed, after all they are spreading the 'Love of God':)
BTW, Can I get some Love?

On the other day in a high school in College park. There was some desi cultural thing. These so called missionaries, they were giving away pamphlets, that relates Jesus Christ, Virgin Marry to Hindu Gods, with vedic slokas written in Sanskrit, where Jesus Christ is mentioned, even before he is born.

This was funny to read at first. They would go to any extent to spread the 'Love of God'.

I should get that pamphlet from my friend, so that I could post it on this blog.

I've come across some rather amusing stories of Dalits grabbing whatever goodies they can from their benefactors, while still practising their ancestral traditions in private.

the nordic peoples were bireligious for a few generations too, when crops failed they always had a little idol of thor that they could bring out as a "back up." the key though is that these tendencies tend to dissipate in subsequent generations until the "alternative tradition" becomes a meaningless hodge-podge of folk beliefs.

Franklin, you seem to have missed the bit that Manish put in about per capita, 3rd quartile. By your Icelandic logic, the fact that there are more poor people in India than anywhere else is similarl irrelevant--there are more middle class people too.

Yes Saheli (who I know by another name), that was exactly the point I was making in my postscript. Both numbers are completely and totally irrelevant. More than that, both cloud the issue. "India is hardly one of the world’s poorest countries. It’s fourth in the world in GDP" sounds much more impressive than "India is hardly one of the world’s poorest countries. It’s 154th in the world in per capita GDP".

Such statements (those which serve no possible function but to potentially [and, in this case, no doubt unintentionally] mislead) are yet another pet peeve of mine.

The most trenchant commentary on missionaries that I've ever come across is the South Park episode where the boys had to help their Ethiopian friend Starvin' Marvin...

Dude, have you seen the one where Cartman starts a church and 'anoints the heathen in the naaaame of the lawd!'? That, is probably the most trenchant commentary on bible-thumping.

does it mention that ethiopia has been christian since the 5th century???

The thing is, Razib, much of the religious behaviour on the subcontinent is more a matter of practice than belief: so long as you show up and do the prescribed rituals, it doesn't matter what the heck is going on in your head. Missionaries are probably right in their worry that allowing converts to retain their ancestral practices is an obstacle to them becoming sincere Christians: some missionaries insist that members of their flocks violate some old caste prohibitions as a way to demonstrate their faith. By the way, the Dalits I mentioned earlier were in no way 'bireligious:' they clearly thought their benefactors were retards, and were planning to take them for all they were worth.

Franklin, the difference is that the quote Manish gave showed only one flat, non-representative aspect of the statistical situation, while Manish gave us at least two which together form a better picture. Flattening statistical histograms out into single factoids is a bad habit, and Manish et al generally try to present at least two or three or four, depending on how you count, to give us an overall picture. Since he (and not the excerpt) went a bit of an extra distance to paint the picture out, quibbling with him for the inability of one or the other factoid to convey a good picture of the situation seems unproductive. That's why he put out a few. Plus, he knows his audience is quite familiar with both Indian statistics and Indian poverty. His point is that the audience for this literature is not so familiar, nor so precise, and there are a number of measures by which the quote is simply not true. You truncate your quote of his statistical information so that it seems overly inflated, but he did not truncate his quote of the missionary literature. If you look at his "entire" graf, it's not misrepresentative at all.

And since we are discussing this, let me say that traditional Christians (or rather Catholics) tend to oppose these aggressive evangelism. There's always this "we've been here for 2000 years, so we're better than you johnny-come-latelys" kind of thing.

can you get real?

Yes, I know Vatican has been gung-ho about conversion, but the Kerala Catholic Church is pretty ambivalent about it. Let's say we are more practical , considering the ground realities in India at the moment with regard to conversion. Most of us Syrian Catholics feel that these Protestant/baptist/bible-belt-funded evangelists are "bringing a bad name to us".

Daycruz's remark that

as Christians we believe the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ

Most of us Syrian Catholics feel that these Protestant/baptist/bible-belt-funded evangelists are "bringing a bad name to us".

Agreed. I know many Malayalees (Jacobite, Marthomite AND Catholic) who share that viewpoint, as well as the "tsk-tsk-Johnny-come-lately" attitude. It's hard to keep in mind but crucial to remember that the Christians in India belong to several diverse churches and some of those churches also have sects within, further dividing the pot. Kerala's Christians are different, but then, Kerala is just plain different.

A traditional Jacobite/Orthodox Malayalee has little in common with a Pentecostal like Daycruz. No one in my Orthodox family really believes that the rest of India is going to hell and we find all of these attempts to convert Rice Christians distasteful. If you want to help your fellow man, do it out of the goodness within you, and love thy neighbor as thyself, do not bribe him. And like the bible says, love him quietly. I find a lot of this proselytizing, hand-waving and prophecy-mongering unseemly. Feel free to flame me for it, you're not going to change my mind.

Most of us Syrian Catholics feel that these Protestant/baptist/bible-belt-funded evangelists are "bringing a bad name to us".

i'll grant that. i have read a fair amount of literature on the christians of the middle east, and i know that many palestinian christians resent the fact that protestant evangelicals pretty much ignore them (they are the "wrong side"). but to some extent, you take the good with the bad, right? being a christian at least means that other christians don't laugh at you for worshipping an elephant-headed god or a monkey-god. unfortunately, identifying as a christian, even if you are of a particular denomination, means you have to accept you will be lumped in no matter how hard you try, they are brothers and sisters in christ after all. my understanding is that many evangelicals believe that traditional christian churches who have maintained a long history in non-christian lands have lost the "big picture," but then of course, many of the missionaries will only spend a part of their life in heathen lands, so they don't have to deal with the shit that comes about because of their soul catchin' :)

A traditional Jacobite/Orthodox Malayalee has little in common with a Pentecostal like Daycruz. ... in the context of christianity, but to outgroups (hindus, muslims, etc.) you are very similar, you even accept the council of chalcedon and its follow ups in terms of the exposition of the nicene creed (i don't believe there are any nestorian churches among the kerala christians anymore, but someone can correct). you seem to be the type of christian that frankly, i as an atheist, would be comfortable with. and that there i think is the problem that some people would have, what kind of christianity is so live and let live?

p.s. yes, i've read the NT and know the varying interpretations...i'm just expressing what seems normative in the americo-flavored missioinaries who are rice christianizing right now.

daycruz..
"... If you saw someone drowning in a pool, you would do anything in your power to save that individual. ..."

Question for daycruz. Do you think it would be un-Christian of you if you get deeply offended when I suggest the same to you for believing in what you believe in. Part about me doing all I can to save the lost souls who are pimping their beliefs on the street and indulging in downright rudeness.

Do you think it is appropriate for me as a non-Christian to do a Hindu/Muslim/Sikh version of "Promise Keepers" and call on the thousands (it does not take too much to gather a crowd in India) of men to attend and ask them to accepts "Bajrang Bali" in their hearts, that they will reach nirvana only if they get their hearts cleansed off of this evil Jesus business.

Do you think I should publish and distribute pamphlets here in USA that charter the progress of region that has been conquered (be defeating the Evil of Christianity) and the region that is still under the claws of evil evangelicals.

See, It was ok for early missionaries to prop their rosters and motivate their "troops" with the rhetoric of "the burden of the lost..", but today this message is deeply offensive. And you cannot, in-spite of your professed sincere desire to not being offensive, not offend.

Daycruz,
I think you are entitled to your opinion, and it should be treated with respect.

I do have a problem with what you expressed with -

"...as Christians we believe the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. Thus, there are missionaries working among the rich and poor of India spreading the gospel, because we have a burden for the lost...I hope to see all of them in Heaven once I die. Thus I tell them about the love of Jesus Christ..."

You see, while you might believe there is a heaven, that going to heaven is important, that there is only one key to heaven and that you have it, this is all belief. It can't be said to be truer than something else or the only truth. All believers of beliefs are entitled to the notion of having the right answer, FOR THEM. To insist that you have the right answer for everyone is arrogance at best, and delibrate propogationist self-preservation tool installed by the founders of your beliefs at worst. I mean for the noble actions the missionaries carry out how dare they feel comfortable reducing fully-functioning, senient human beings to the status of 'lost' that must be 'saved'.

For it to be THE TRUTH, it must be ever-present and self-evident universally across time and space - a test that christianity and others that espouse "I have the ONLY right answer" fail. As someone else noted here, if it were true, everyone would know it already and follow it already. This notion of saving souls with whatever you do is a preservationist and expansionist response to the trying life and times of early Christian believers that founded the christian organized religion.

Believe in whatever you believe in, its your personal matter. But when it involves imposing it on others while demeaning other ideas, its entirely unacceptable to me.

here is survey daya from 1984, table 3.6 from the future of religion by rod stark and william bainbridge.

"We should not allow missionaries form non-Christian religions to spread their teachines in a Christian community."

Missouri Synod Lutheran 35%
Southern Baptist 41%
Church of God 36%
Church of Christ 41%
Nazarene 41%
Assemblies of God 55%
7th Day Adventist 23%
Total Protestant 25%
Roman Catholic 23%

also, that data is from the USA.

But when it involves imposing it on others while demeaning other ideas, its entirely unacceptable to me.

come on, let's get real. i think daycruz's beliefs are pretty nutty, probably nuttier than anyone else here, from where i stand. does that hurt daycruz? you crying? ideas don't have feelings. all you are doing is imposing your own belief, that "All believers of beliefs are entitled to the notion of having the right answer, FOR THEM." frankly, that's a very hindu latitudinarian viewpoint that you are demanding be normative. as long as daycruz & co. don't break your bones with sticks and stones, names can never hurt you.

Thanks, Saheli.

Both numbers are completely and totally irrelevant... Such statements (those which serve no possible function but to potentially [and, in this case, no doubt unintentionally] mislead)...

Actually, the gross GDP figure is quite relevant. It's national purchasing power in a language Texan evangelicals understand and respect: satellites, subs and battleships.

Here's another one they understand, G. Franklin: False start, offense, 5 yard penalty.

Actually, the gross GDP figure is quite relevant. It's national purchasing power in a language Texan evangelicals understand and respect: satellites, subs and battleships.

If you want to say, "Hey people of Texas: yes, India is a very poor country but it's also very large so the total amount of wealth ends up being big." then I'd have no objection to that.

But if Bill Gates, Michael Eisner, and Ted Turner decided to buy an island and start their own country (with a population of 3) on it, then I don't think we'd be seeing anyone talking about how poor Billionaireistan is even though its GDP would be lagging far behind even Malawi.

But if Bill Gates, Michael Eisner, and Ted Turner decided to buy an island and start their own country (with a population of 3) on it, then I don't think we'd be seeing anyone talking about how poor Billionaireistan...

On a national level, they'd be impoverished. BillG can fund a moonshot by himself, but not a world-class military over time.

Here's another one they understand, G. Franklin: False start, offense, 5 yard penalty.

I am assuming that none of this is a slur on my homeboys in Austin.

Ok wow, quite a few comments. There is a lot of discussion in the CATHOLIC church about preaching the gospel and such. As Pentecostals we tend to treat the Bible as our sole basis for anything to do with our religion. Thus we follow what Christ told us: "Go out into all the world and preach the gospel" For many individuals in this forum, I can have a belief- but please keep it to yourself! My answer is this, you can reject my message if you want to. It is as simple as that. Someone asked about phamplets promoting other religions? Why not? Go for it. It doesn't offend me if someone is trying to convert me into their religion. I just think they are horribly wrong and wont leave mine. So attacking my religion doesn't matter to me. I'm not sure how I would be "imposing" on other people. Now what Kenyandesi said is a good example of "imposing" your belief on other people. What I do is, say "Jesus Christ is the answer" You can ridicule it and reject it. And the world goes on. KIT, in answer to your question. It would not matter to me at all. Islam has missionary movements all across America. Mormons try to convert everybody that doesnt go to their Church. Not a problem. We have a freedom in this nation to do that.

I don't want to start a theological discussion here. But Kairali, if your orthodox family doesn't believe those who aren't Christians arent going to hell, What exactly do they believe? To avoid starting something like that here. Feel free to come over to my blog and comment.

Oh and razib.. I'm sobbing like a little girl right now... just kidding.. really! I'm KIDDING!

what kind of christianity is so live and let live?

The kind of Christianity which recalls that the man they worship chose prostitutes and low-lifes as his friends.

also, let me add one final comment to clarify my point: i am not here to defend missionaries and assert that because they think they are doing good they are doing good. rather,

1) from a purely utilitarian perspective i can understand why dalits would associate with them, whether as converts, quasi-converts or not.

2) i am not particularly sympathetic to the idea that legal or social customs should prevent the free flow of ideas and attempts at suasion.

on point #2, i am not defending christian missionaries per se, i simply think that a "modern" mindset is rooted in a reflective rationality that can only flourish where a free movement of ideas, sometimes aggressively, sometimes not, is necessary. as some of you know, the rationalists of india can sometimes be very aggressive, and frankly blasphemous, in challening shamans ang magicians, whether they be christian, muslim or hindu. certainly they hurt the feelings of believers. that should not be the judge of whether something is acceptable or not, or at least i don't think that it should be (in india the final judge is the india people and their democratic insitutions and liberal constitution).

The kind of Christianity which recalls that the man they worship chose prostitutes and low-lifes as his friends.

and i'm glad that you believe in that sort of christianity, but jesus also could be ungenerous to the gentile and a prophesier of swords. there are many faces of god :) unfortunately in the USofA daycruz's christianity is more vital than yours. (all false in my opinion, but that is a different issue)

The kind of Christianity which recalls that the man they worship chose prostitutes and low-lifes as his friends.

I second that. To say that you have to choose between Jesus or Eternal Damnation is , to put it politely, a distortion.

Karaili-

Jesus loved every human being- and he did hang out with those who used to do these things. But the Bible also states very clearly- whenever Jesus forgave sin- "Go and don't sin anymore" Wow! I'll stop myself.. I've just begun a theological argument..

To say that you have to choose between Jesus or Eternal Damnation is , to put it politely, a distortion.

i don't think it is if you read the gospel of st. john, which is the one that protestant evangelicals tend to focus on (i'm speaking from hanging out at intervarsity christian fellowship as an undergrad to meet chix). like here. i'm not one of those people who think that any one interpretation of the bible (or koran, or whatever) is right. i just wish the latitudinarians would shout a bit louder and come better prepared with talking points. but as i've said before, moderates have their role, but it is i think left to un-abashed heathens to bring out the heavy artillery against all the idols (no offense :).

daycruz:
>>It doesn't offend me if someone is trying to convert me into their religion.

There are two ways to do this. Pull and Push. Let me explain...

Saheli,

It is a fallacy that Indic faiths do not convert people. They do. Conversion is as much an inherent trait in Hinduism, Buddhism etc as much as it is in Islam/Christianity. However, Indic religions use the Pull method of conversion. The guru/saint does not approach prospective Bhaktas - they approach him if needed. Since the Vedic times, the preferred method in India has been for the sanyasi/saint to come to the outskirts of the town and sit down under a tree in Padmasana posture. He waits. The word goes around that a learned sanyasi is in town. Interested people come on their own and bring fuits and other eatables. They listen to the man. They take some of it and reject some others. After a few days, the man moves to the next town. Sometimes he spends days without anyone coming to him. And at other times he is mobbed. Sometimes even the local king touches his feet and "converts".

This is the Pull method of conversion. It is free, non-demanding, non-intrusive, and does not use the support of any Enforcer(State/Clergy) to spread and sustain itself. All Indic leaders, from the Vedic rishis to Puranic saints to Buddha, Mahavira, Shankara, Ramakuja, SikhGurus - everyone followed this method. Even today, SaiBaba and Amritanandamayi follow this approach with success and no ill-will to anyone. In the Abrahamic world, Jesus was the only one I know who used the Pull method. He did not go to people - they flocked to him(could it be he learnt this in Kashmir where he is rumoured to have learnt under Indic sages?). He did not use the help of any Enforcer(State) - in fact the Roman state and Jewish Enforcers ended up stopping him. It is another story that Christianity itself ended up becoming an Enforcer-based ideology. More on this in my latest article Deleted scenes and Alternate Ending on Sulekha and my latest comment therein.

The Push method of conversion is where you approach prospective converts irrespective of whether they ask for it or not. Most Christian saints a few centuries after Jesus adopted this method. Islam has spread by this method as well. This method has various degrees of push - sometimes approaching people and withdrawing when they reject(Christians in west today, HareKrishnas), enticing by tricks and miracles(missionaries use this against tribals the whole world), putting pressure on poor people(free schooling for converts, free hospital care etc), misusing someone's misfortune(tsunami "relief" etc) and outright violence(Muslim/Portugese rule in India, terrorist in Kashmir/NE etc). This Push method is intrusive, conflict-ridden and uses State/Enforcer support for sustainability.

This Pull-Push method is also prevalent in other walks of life. When I need a stapler and I go to Walmart to buy it, it is the Pull method. When Walmart sends me its brochure in junk-mail, it is Push variety of the least intrusive kind since I can throw the brochure away(but it does require some effort on my part, not to mention the wastage of natural resources). When a Walmart telemarketing representative calls me during my dinner time, it is the more intrusive Push method - a rude interruption that I did not ask for.

Amway folks use the Push method as well - the amount of ill-will, lost friends/relatives that they have caused needs no mention. Prostitutes use the Push method as well("Wanna have a good time, baby?").

If a man goes to a strange woman and says: Wanna sleep with me? it is the Push method. What does the law permit her to do? Slap him? Press charges? How does the law punish him? Jail time? The same law should be applicable to all Push activities, and implemented rigorously. No other anti-conversion law is needed.

M. Nam

It is free, non-demanding, non-intrusive, and does not use the support of any Enforcer(State/Clergy) to spread and sustain itself.

my impression is that this is not totally true. did not the kings of south india endow lands for the purpose of supporting brahmins? did not jains and hindus battle each other in southern india? my impression is that prior to islam hinduism suffused the state, and the state suffused hinduism. the decoupling of state from hinduism was a byproduct of the hammering that the hindu superstructure (the state and elite) received at the hands of the muslims. hinduism survived by falling back on non-state local insitutions, the jati-caste system especially (zoroastrianism in general failed once the support of state was withdrawn after the fall of the sassanids).

in any case, i think your narrative has a lot of truth in it, but

If a man goes to a strange woman and says: Wanna sleep with me? it is the Push method. What does the law permit her to do? Slap him? Press charges? How does the law punish him? Jail time? The same law should be applicable to all Push activities, and implemented rigorously. No other anti-conversion law is needed.

this depends on where the individuals are. if you are in a seedy bar, or at a swingers party, she shouldn't be shocked. if it is in a public space, it is probably inappropriate, but aside from public disturbance laws being interpreted liberally, what are you going to do? if it is in your own home, than it is a gross violation.

in the USA outdoor revivals and street preachers are part of the culture, and that's why they transmit these sensibilities to the rest of the world. perhaps in india this isn't acceptable, but i don't think it is an issue of universal decency.

p.s. at my college there was a christian preacher who would shout once a year and yell at walking women and tell them they were whores and jezebels.

p.s. at my college there was a christian preacher who would shout once a year and yell at walking women and tell them they were whores and jezebels.

mine too! the two times he called out ridiculousness at me, i let him have it and told him that almost two thousand years ago, his people were beating each other about the head with sticks in the forest while my ancestors were worshipping the Lord whose words he perverted and twisted. always made for a fascinating lunchtime.

Razib writes:did not the kings of south india endow lands for the purpose of supporting brahmins?

But they endowed lands to everyone else as well!

did not jains and hindus battle each other in southern india?

Verbal duels? Sure. That's part of Indic tradition. Jaina monks hurled invectives at Advaitins. Dwaitins hurled abuse at Advaita. Philosophy. Buddhist demeaned Dwaita in debates.

In the end, they all prostrated before each other's idols and went home for dinner.

All in the spirit of debate. It was well organised, with specific ground rules to follow. Pretty much like SM!

>>The decoupling of state from hinduism...which survived by falling back on non-state local insitutions

Because Hinduism at its core is a non-State Enforced ideology.

p.s. at my college there was a christian preacher who would shout once a year and yell at walking women and tell them they were whores and jezebels.

Not sure about free-speech rules on specific college campuses, but on the street if you he did that he would be in jail.

M. Nam

daycruz

U r the pits man !!

U say that u have met "several" missionaries that are good. Granted.

But then the rest are rascals !!

Also, not to be disrespectful, who cares what your religion thinks as being the way to heaven. Live and let live man !!

And I am so surprised that u presume that u will find a place in heaven...if such a thing exists.

And frankly whats wrong with hell then ??

There are too many ifs and buts when it comes to discussing religion. Therefore your blanket statements as to what the bible says is one authors interpretation of what someone heard jesus say. There are no known records or transcripts of what was said at that time.

And dont we have enuf poor in india, so then whats the need for your uncle to go to africa. Shouldnt we clean house first before helping neighbors.

And then u post all this shit on your blog making yourself out to be a hero.

Am sorry that i am fuming away. I generally dont like to get personal and deviate from the topic, but i find it ridiculous that someone can bullshit away so well and think that he has the spoken word from God to do it.

Conversion is not something necessary.
As another commenter mentioned, religious identity is not necessary. If someone does not like their religion, it does not mean he or she has to like another one. Its not like food....which if not consumed will lead to death.

Christian missionaries came to India and were allowed into the country with good faith. See what they landed up doing...converting left right and center.

I can think of another corollary, where another set of indigenous people...the Parsis set foot in India much before the christians but never went about forcing their religion down everyone's throat. Dammit if we had done it, we wouldnt be so few in numbers. Ok i stop bcos now I am digressing.

Even today, SaiBaba and Amritanandamayi follow this approach with success and no ill-will to anyone.

SaiBaba does that by giving idea to people that he can fly :-))

Sorry couldnt resist. I had heared this from an actual SaiBaba follower who mentioned about that "ability" of SaiBaba :-) This is the Neuvo SaiBaba we are talking about.
Sorry If I have offended anyone.

But they endowed lands to everyone else as well!

my impression is that there was a distinct heirarchy. priests of the sanskritic tradition were tops. local priests had less prestige and less support. my point was that hinduism did have state support and backing at various times (you can look at southeast asia, though you might not term that hinduism in a genuine sense). i mean, muslim rulers sometimes also endowed non-muslim places of worship, that doesn't mean there wasn't a strong bias toward islam on the part of the state. but, i'm not indicating an equivalence, the muslim relationship with the polity is tighter than the hindu relationship, simply that a black-white dichotomy needs to be nuanced (and to some extent, talking about "muslim" and "hindu" is orthogonal since muslims espouse a precise creedal formula, while hindus are a broad church of various professions and practices).

Verbal duels? Sure.

no, i mean wars between jaina and hindu kings in the karnataka around 1000.

Not sure about free-speech rules on specific college campuses, but on the street if you he did that he would be in jail.

you have to get permits.

Christian missionaries came to India and were allowed into the country with good faith. See what they landed up doing...converting left right and center.

india was directly ruled by a christian power for nearly 100 years (england has an established church). and last i checked, christians were like 2.5% of india's population, and a large chunk of that is the indigenous christian community in kerala. let's keep our perspective (granted, you basically conceded you wanted to rant).

Dammit if we had done it, we wouldnt be so few in numbers.

also, you would be 0 in numbers, since the reputed settlement of parsis was conditional on them not-rocking-the-boat.

.

>>>my impression is that this is not totally true. did not the kings of south india endow lands for the purpose of supporting brahmins? did not jains and hindus battle each other in southern india? my impression is that prior to islam hinduism suffused the state, and the state suffused hinduism. the decoupling of state from hinduism was a byproduct of the hammering that the hindu superstructure (the state and elite) received at the hands of the muslims. hinduism survived by falling back on non-state local insitutions, the jati-caste system especially zoroastrianism in general failed once the support of state was withdrawn after the fall of the sassanids).

Very many Hindu kings supported Brahmanas AND Sramanas (Buddhists, Jainas, Aivikas)and even heard out Lokayatas (materialists) --recall Ashoka's edicts and his insistence that rival sects retain their civility.

The locus of Brahmanic traditions--like Vedic chanting--and of much orthodox tradition generally, was the village; it did not necessarily depend on the state. The patronage of a rich merchant or farmer caste often sufficed. The villages were generally outside the gaze of the upstart nabob. Further, the traditions were decentralized--one Brahmana village didnt necessarily know what another was doing. That helped a lot.

is survey daya from 1984, table 3.6 from the future of religion by rod stark and william bainbridge.

"We should not allow missionaries form non-Christian religions to spread their teachines in a Christian community."

Missouri Synod Lutheran 35%
Southern Baptist 41%
Church of God 36%
Church of Christ 41%
Nazarene 41%
Assemblies of God 55%
7th Day Adventist 23%
Total Protestant 25%
Roman Catholic 23%

Another perspective-- I offer Newsweek's latest survey, which shows that 79% of Americans believe "salvation" can be attained outside of Xianity. Americans are becoming curiously latitudinarian, in a word, Hindu :-)

And I would not dismiss the influence of neo-Hinduism on American views.

On Belief
Steven Waldman

www.belief.net

The Pearly Gates Are Wide Open
A new Newsweek/Beliefnet poll shows a stunning level of acceptance of
other people's faiths.

One of the central tenets of evangelical Christianity is that to be
saved—to earn admission into heaven—you must accept Jesus Christ as
your savior. At football games, it's not uncommon to see Christians
wearing T-shirts with the numbers 3:16 on the back, a reference to
the Gospel of John passage in which Jesus says the Father can only be
reached through the Son.
Yet 68% of "born again" or "evangelical" Christians say that a "good
person who isn't of your religious faith" can gain salvation,
according to a new Newsweek/Beliefnet poll.

This is pretty amazing. Evangelicals are among the most churchgoing
and religiously attentive people in the United States, and one of the
ideas they're most likely to hear from the minister at church on a
given Sunday is that the path to salvation is through Jesus.
Apparently, rank-and-file evangelicals have a different view.

Nationally, 79% of those surveyed said the same thing, and the figure
is 73% for non-Christians and an astounding 91% among Catholics. The
Catholics surveyed seemed more inclined to listen to the Catechism's
precept that those who "seek the truth" may gain salvation—rather
than, say, St. Augustine's view that being "separated from the
Church" will damn you to hell "no matter how estimable a life he may
imagine he is living."

For a few thousand years, wars have been fought over this point;
countless sermons have been given—by people of all faiths—to prove
the opposite point. It is one of the main ways that clergy of any
given faith can explain why it's important for people to show up at
their particular church and read their particular sacred text.

How could so many Americans be tossing aside such a central element
of theology? I think the Newsweek cover story that grew in part out
of this poll has the best theory. Americans have become so focused on
a very personal style of worship—forging a direct relationship with
God—that spiritual experience has begun to supplant dogma.

Other results from the poll indicate that the appeal of religion is
more spiritual than cultural. Thirty-nine percent said the main
reason they practiced their religion is to "forge a personal
relationship with God" while only 3% said it was to be part of a
community. This would help explain why many people report having a
regular prayer life but not attending church. Seventy-nine percent
said they pray at least once a week compared to 45% who said they
went to worship services during that time. In addition, 40% said they
felt "most connected with God or the divine" when they were "praying
alone or meditating" compared to 27% who said they had that sense
when they were in a house of worship or praying with others.

The poll also showed a more basic point that may be obvious to
Beliefnet readers but not others: spirituality is crucial to most
Americans. 57% said spirituality was "very important" in their "daily
life" and another 27% said it was somewhat important. Their behavior
seems to back up this notion. 79% said they prayed at least once a
week and 55% said they read a sacred text -- Bible, Koran, etc -- at
least once a week.

The Newsweek/Beliefnet poll produced a number of other fascinating
findings:

One quarter of Americans have veered from their childhood faith. When
asked to compare their current faith lives to that of their
childhood, 68% said it was the same or mostly the same, while 24%
said they'd changed faiths mostly or completely or become an atheist
or agnostic. The spiritual approaches that seem to be gaining fans
were evangelical Christianity and atheism, while Catholicism and non-
evangelical Protestants lost ground. Nevertheless...

How many of us believe in intelligent design?
Read more >>

Most Americans describe themselves as pretty traditional. We tried to
get at that question a few different ways. First, we asked directly—
if they consider themselves traditional or not. Twenty-five percent
said they were either "not traditional" or "on the cutting edge,"
while the remainder said they were either somewhat or very
traditional. Then we asked whether they were "spiritual"
or "religious" or some combination. Twenty-four percent
said "spiritual but not religious" while 76% said either "religious
and spiritual" (55%) or "religious but not spiritual" (9%). We also
asked whether they were likely to borrow bits of spiritual wisdom or
ritual from other practices. Thirty-two percent said sometimes or
often while 66% said hardly ever or never.

Most American families have experienced religious diversity up close.
We attempted to assess a typical American's exposure to other faiths
or spiritual approaches. In all 42% of Americans either have a
different approach from their childhood, saw a sibling shift
approaches, or married someone of a different faith. These overall
numbers don't explain how these changes might have affected them but
it does mean that a large number of Americans have had very personal
and direct experience with some religious approach that's different
from their original spiritual practice.

We are all intelligent designers. Eighty percent of the population
believe that the universe was created by God; only 10% do not. This
would seem to indicate that many of those who advocate the teaching
of evolution in school do, nonetheless, believe that the universe was
created by God.

We are selfless pray-ers. Most people do not spend the majority of
their prayer life trying to get God to do something for them. The
most common purposes of prayer were "to seek God's guidance,"
to "thank God" or to "be close to God." Only 9% said it was
to "improve a person's life."

Evangelicals love big churches and small groups. Much has been made
of the rise of large stadium-sized churches for evangelical
Christians. But 61% of evangelicals said they participate in some
sort of religious activity outside traditional church at least once a
week (compared to 35% for non-evangelical protestants and 35% of
Catholics).

There's a big generation gap. In general, younger people are more
experimental, less traditional, less Christian—and less passionate
about their spiritual lives. While 63% of people aged 40-59 said
spirituality was "very important" in their daily lives, 44% of those
ages 18-39 said so. Ninety percent of the older group said they were
Christian, while 77% of the younger group did. Before the older folks
get too worried about kids today, remember that people tend to get
more religious as they age.

despite differences in details with moornam, i think he has hit upon the crux of the issue. it seems there are two main ways that religions get expressed and communicated. there is the public, aggressive and forceful manner that one can find in some expressions of the abrahamic religions, traced i think all the way back to the prophet jeremiah, and the more relaxed and unobstrusive form of proselytization which is the norm in the rest of the world religions (that is, those of india and east asia). ultimately, the crux is not conversion, but communication, and how that occurs. but that brings me back to the initial issue: what exactly are christian missionaries doing that is offensive? if, for example, they are standing on street corners shouting about the devil-ganesh, that is quite clearly offensive. but, if they invite people in for a free meal, during which they show a video on jesus christ, is that offensive?

individuals may differ. i tend to take an expansive american view of speech and public civility (or lack off). the evangelicals who are being backed by american churches have roots in the most aggressive and market-oriented christian culture in the world. you can see its apotheosis in the megachurches. i can see the argument that this is not viably exportable to india (and christians in the middle east complain that it isn't exportable there either, and not only is it unproductive, but it endangers them). nevertheless, though i can see how the extremes are shaved off, i am skeptical that the majority of christian missionaries are quite that vulgar (self-interested and christ-promoting in an unsubtle and insensitive fashion perhaps). i will do some reading, i don't have much to say without more data....

Conversions--unfortunately perhaps--are about more than individual spiritual preferences. The culture of individuality (which someone here equated with 'modernity') works very well in a state with creedal, cultural and (for all intents and purposes) linguistic unity like America. What is at stake in far more fractious India? The survival (arguably) of a very resilient, ancient culture and perhaps--if you sympathize with the Hindu nationalist view--the future of India itself.

Having longstanding democratic rights and institutions, India cannot go medieval and snuff out Christians or abrogate its citizen's rights of expression. So ultimately its up to Hindus themselves to create institutions that provide for their own, and to engender internal reforms within the religion.

At the moment there is great assymetry, because Christianity, Inc. simply has more money. This is perhaps why Hindus resort to the 'moral' argument, ie., exclusivism is unsavory and unrighteous--and frequently get laughed at.

So Hindus will have to rethink their tactics.

There is a Buddhist parable about a bodhisattva who encounters an evil dragon. The bodhisatva tells the dragon that he should not kill anymore and instead adopt the five (Buddhist) precepts to care for all life.

The dragon does so, and local children who once trembled in his presence lose fear of him--they pull on his tail, stuff dirt into his mouth and sit on his head.

The dragon complains to the bodhisattva: "You told me if I was compassionate I would be happy, look where that got me."

The bodhisattva replied, "Besides compassion, you must have wisdom and intelligence. That is the way to protect yourself. Next time the children torment you, show a little fire!"

daycruz

U r the pits man !!

U say that u have met "several" missionaries that are good. Granted.

But then the rest are rascals !!

Also, not to be disrespectful, who cares what your religion thinks as being the way to heaven. Live and let live man !!

And I am so surprised that u presume that u will find a place in heaven...if such a thing exists.

And frankly whats wrong with hell then ??

There are too many ifs and buts when it comes to discussing religion. Therefore your blanket statements as to what the bible says is one authors interpretation of what someone heard jesus say. There are no known records or transcripts of what was said at that time.

And dont we have enuf poor in india, so then whats the need for your uncle to go to africa. Shouldnt we clean house first before helping neighbors.

And then u post all this shit on your blog making yourself out to be a hero.

Here's the problem with rants... After the first few lines.. they stop making sense. Are you saying Christians shouldn't go to India or shouldn't they? Look I've already said that you can disagree with me if you want to, so you don't need to apologize to me. I'm saying this from my basis of the Bible. You can certainly think it's wrong. Why is that such a huge problem. I don't understand why so many commentors on this blog get so angry just because I say a belief that differs with their's. Look you may think that conversion is not neccessary. But you have no right to deny conversion to those who seek to convert. And that's all we're saying. As you can see, I'm avoiding a bitter arguement here. All I see myself as saying is.. "Here's the way- you can choose it or reject it" You reject it? That's ok, let's go out and have dinner. I have numerous Hindu friends who I have told the gospel to. And that's it. Too many people make blanket statements about other people thinking that no one wants to hear these things. Actually there are quite a few people out there who are willing to hear something new and something different. I am so done with this. And on my blog, I can not speak for the commentor. I did not intend to try looking like the hero. But as you can see from the thread here, I have established myself as the only Pentecostal Malayalee here and I have recieved several comments attacking me for that. I personally think Razib, Saheli, and few others have made the most well thought out comments on this post. I'm done. Have a nice day... and God Bless! Ooops... I thought someone sneezed. Yeah.. sneezed.. thats right..

daycruz said

I'm done. Have a nice day...

Good riddance !!

Arzan.. I meant that I'm done on this topic.. I'm always around here.. sorry buddy :(

Day Cruz, This Pentecostal mullu stands by you brother. Tell it like it is. I'm pretty sure Graham Stains and his children http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-9-2003_pg4_14 would have disagreed with all the bigoted ideology that's being spewed here by those who would deny conversion.

Question: Why don't missionaries ever try to convert poor people in the U.S.? I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who are godless, poor and in dire need of some divine intervention. Are the impoverished here harder to take advantage of?

GC, actually they do. Do a little research in your local city and you will find many organizations that preach the gospel and help the poor. My church youth group went downtown the other day to help the Union Gospel Mission pass out food, clothing, and other things to homeless people in our city. You will definitly find other ways to help out in cities across America. I encourage you to give it a try.

Please keep things in perspective : Christians make up less than 3 % of India’s population.

The insinuations by a commenter above that the future of India itself is endangered somehow if Hindus are reduced in number is misplaced. Christianity has a long history in India and we don’t need to prove our Indianness to anyone.

There are certain separatist movements in Christian majority states like Nagaland, but that is a complex dispute, not related solely to Christianity (although that is a factor, Hinduism is seen as the oppressor and imperial religion in the North East).That being said there are separatist movements in Hindu majority Assam, Tripura etc.

Some would argue that Christianity has a longer history in India via Kerala then the Hinduism practiced today which was basically codified by Adi Sankara (8th century). Conversion is a natural process. There were periods in Indian history where Buddhism and Jainism were the dominant religions in various parts of India. Presumably, Hinduism re-established itself through some form of conversions,

Hinduism is a tolerant religion in terms of dogma but socially it can be very oppressive towards low castes and tribal people. If another religion offers them dignity, equality and a chance for salvation, what’s wrong with that? As a dalit or a tribal ( it is debatable if tribals are Hindus in the first place), on one hand you are faced with daily depredations from your Hindu co-religionists. On the other hand, you are offered food and education. Even in a purely mercernary sense, it is natural for many marginalised communities to wish to convert. This of course discounts the numerous cases of genuine conversion for the love of Christ.By the way, a Dalit loses all reservations in education and jobs when he converts to Christianity.It is in fact counterproductive for them to convert .If people are still converting, please give them the benefit of the doubt.Just becuse people are poor, it does not make them naive or stupid.
The earthy wisdom of these people is probably superior to the average white Hare Krishna neo convert who embraces ISKCON I never see Hindus complaining : The Caucasians are being converted by force or allurement. Why ? They are white so are intelligent enough?

Conversions by force are the biggest bogey of the Hindu right. What force ? Can a community that makes up less than 3% of the population force people to convert when all the institutions of power are controlled by the Hindus? This is a blatant falsehood.
Let me make it clear that I am Catholic from Goa and there is a lot of debate within our community and many are not in favor of the aggressive style of American evangelical missions. The vast majotiy of Indian Chrsitians DO NOT BELONG TO the American evangelical churches. We ceratinly do not claim that Hindus and heathens going to hell or anything of the sort. Please understand this.

However the right it freely practice, and propagate ones religion is enshrined in the Indian constitution and I defend the right of Christian or any other missionaries to freely preach their religion.

I'm pretty sure Graham Stains and his children would have disagreed with all the bigoted ideology that's being spewed here by those who would deny conversion.

oh, spare me your righteousness. i'm sure they would've disagreed with your fumbling use of their tragic end, all because you were too lackadaisical to craft a cogent argument. i know i'm disgusted by it.

yes, there's so much horrific bigotry here. you have an atheist muslim arguing christianity better than you can. look, disagreement is not the same as denying conversion; if they are sensible, and the vast majority of the people who frequent this space are, they are denying retarded methods, i.e. push vs. pull. i know, it takes all the fun out of playing martyr, doesn't it? pooh.

GoanDude - a clear headed contribution. Thanks!

Question: Why don't missionaries ever try to convert poor people in the U.S.? I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who are godless, poor and in dire need of some divine intervention. Are the impoverished here harder to take advantage of?

Two words for you GC: Salvation Army

nothing like a little religion, conversion, etc to get this comment section rolling.. just had to be 100...

Truesay Chick pea! :)

My two cents: P. Sanal Mohan's excellent paper on subaltern conversions in colonial India emphasizes the autonomous agency of (in this case) dalits in making such decisions. The common notion of rice conversions among supposedly ignorant and desperate people is innacurate and simplistic.

The common notion of rice conversions among supposedly ignorant and desperate
people is innacurate and simplistic.

well, perhaps innacurate, but saying it is simplistic is simplistic. is it just coincidence that conversions in india tend to have a SES correlation? is it coincidence that the #1 predictor of your religion affiliation is your parents' religious affiliation?

i am one for making free choices, but i think it is naive to ignore the proximate factors which scaffold the "choices" you make.

Daycruz,

You either don't get or don't want to see what the problem is. You surely have the right to see the world as you wish. What I'm looking for is to be left alone - I don't want to listen to Gospels or any propoganda. You say "Here's the way- you can choose it or reject it" You reject it? " Again, its presumptuous of you to imagine you know its 'the' way for me. It is I who will decide whether there's a way, any way, whatever. I don't want your way to be shoved in my face however politely, the same as I'm not overly eager to expose my belief systems on you until you seek them out. And the reason is - your way is exclusionist and dismissive of a non-christian life for reasons that are purely non-rational.

The unsolicited attempts to liberate souls is comparable to junk mail. The information was unsolicited!!

Also, a conversion is worth it only by spiritual fulfillment of the convert. Everything else is enticement to convert for its own sake - free food, education, healthcare etc. Show me a conversion without access to improved material life, and I'll show you ten that wouldn't be were it not for material gains.

Hey Razib,

"frankly, that's a very hindu latitudinarian viewpoint that you are demanding be normative." Big words but true. Like I said above, I just wish people minded their own business and didn't define it as minding other's businesses as well.

Seeker,

I find that we actually agree on some points. Let me clarify; If you tell me that you don't want to hear me say the gospel to you- I will not preach it to you. But, you do not have the right to deny others the right of hearing the gospel if they choose to. I'm not going to get into the materialism standpoint- that's really a personal choice. Prosperity theology is very rampant in America and it is rampant around the globe. I hope I made myself clear about the other issues.

Like I said above, I just wish people minded their own business and didn't define it as minding other's businesses as well.

hey, i don't give a shit what anyone thinks, if they don't bother me. but, i've learned to live with the fact that people will take and interest in what we are doing. the only way pure amity emerges is by wiping away either your kind (everyone keep to themself) or daycruz's kind (everyone bend the knee to christ, or listen to said message). i see no near future where such unanimity is plausible, so i say keep the shoutin' civil and learn to live with public disagreemants.

also, people here seem offended that daycruz has x views which he is expressing. the first is that his comment was responsive, if you look at his weblog he has no problem witnessing, but i wouldn't have known he was christian if i hadn't checked out his blog a while ago. the second is that the problem isn't daycruz, don't make it all personal, it's his religion. he's only on the unwitting carrier of a meme which demands that he spread it all about. hate the sin, not the sinner.

Once again, Razib, it is the Northwest bloggers that are up at 3:00 am.. perhaps we should do something else with our time. :)

With all due respect everyone, Razib is right. Daycruz is being very polite and restrained in expressing his/her religious views, and although I don't personally agree with them (for obvious reasons -- take a look at my name), he/she is entitled to his/her opinion as long as he/she doesn't become aggressive or abusive towards anyone else.

I can fully understand the resentment people would have towards some evangelical/proselytising interpretations of certain faiths, especially those that state "Either believe in my God and religion or you're going to Hell", but I think people should save their ire for the really hardcore aggressive Bible-bashers (and those with similar characteristics from certain other proselytising religions).

Some comments:

*I've been in several Desi forums, even liberal and feminist ones, where admitting that I am a Desi evangelical Christian has perceptibly shifted the attitude towards me. It is appalling to see the closed minds of people who claim to be so enlightened.

*The reason Catholics are not considered Christians (along with some Jacobites) is for the reasons already stated by a Catholic-- they do not believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven-- a fundamental twist of basic Christianity. ('Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' John 14:6).

*When I talk about Jesus or Christianity, I have nothing to offer the person in terms of food, drink, homes, or new Beamers. All I have is peace, a comfort of knowing what life and eternity is about, and where I will spend mine.

*MOST missionaries I know are good people. I am very sorry Kenyandesi that you had to go through such things, and I am not doubting you that it happened. I wish more people would be true to Christ in their calling; just like we do not decide to stay single because the divorce rate is so high, we should not judge a religion by it's followers. Mahatma Gandhi so aptly said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

(Daycruz for you--> Mat 5:10,12)

"*The reason Catholics are not considered Christians (along with some Jacobites) is for the reasons already stated by a Catholic-- they do not believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven-- a fundamental twist of basic Christianity. ('Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' John 14:6)."

Can someone verify this with other sources?

Isn't a Christian a follower of Christ? Isn't Christianity a religion that happens to be divided into a bazillion sects where Catholicism and "Orthodox" happen to be major ones?

just trying to get some real info amidst the comments

bin wrote...
*...where admitting that I am a Desi evangelical Christian has perceptibly shifted the attitude towards me. It is appalling to see the closed minds of people who claim to be so enlightened.

Why take offence ? Just as you have a right to inform me that I am going to hell lest I should become a Christian, I have the right to inform you that you are a bigot. We stand in agreement on our disagreement. The experience on other blogs you think you had is not exceptional. If you are brown...try this... assume a Hindu name and spend a day in Wichita KS. We will trade our experiences.

*When I talk about Jesus or Christianity, I have nothing to offer the person in terms of food, drink, homes, or new Beamers. All I have is peace, a comfort of knowing what life and eternity is about, and where I will spend mine.

This is noble, till you get into the business of "HELL". Also, the outrage that some have ( I do not share that sentiment) over conversion is when food, drink homes, ..TATA-Sumo...being supplied with a new name and religion.

You can try to sugarcoat the inherent insult in the core of evangelical message but try not get offended when people see right through this "message of compassion".

The whole missionary idea that you are already indebted to Jesus from birth and you are going to hell otherwise, it's the oldest confidence trick in the book. It reminds me of Hare Krishnas pressing a "free" flower on you at airports and then asking for a "donation." It's very much like a stranger saying "your mom's fallen sick, so you must come with me." I thought we didn't believe in visiting the sins of the father on the son.

Can someone verify this with other sources?

Isn't a Christian a follower of Christ? Isn't Christianity a religion that happens to be divided into a bazillion sects where Catholicism and "Orthodox" happen to be major ones?

I don't mean to be stepping on razib's turf (christian history) :) But yes, the church does have many "sects"/denominations. The major splittings/schisms in the church came around the 5th century (when the "oriental" orthodox churches --- nestorian & monophysite -- split), in the 10th century when the catholics split with the other orthodox churches (greek,slavic etc.) and then the protestant reformation in the 16th century when they split from the catholics. And each sect believes that their beliefs are, to varying degrees, superior to all the other ones. Commenter bin apparently takes a more hardline view.

Also: though I am not one, I know that even many evangelical christians do not take as hardline a view of other religions as bin does. They do not believe that everybody but consciously professing christians are condemned to hell (like bin does). Source: page 347 of this book.

hey, i don't give a shit what anyone thinks, if they don't bother me.

See, only you know what bothers you. If what daycruz says bothers you then will you accept what seeker was saying.

the only way pure amity emerges is by wiping away either your kind (everyone keep to themself) or daycruz's kind (everyone bend the knee to christ, or listen to said message). i see no near future where such unanimity is plausible, so i say keep the shoutin' civil and learn to live with public disagreemants.

Cool. But only works in theory. I do not live my life in a blog so I donno if by keeping the shouting civil i will be able to keep shouting (or speaking even). You are a knowledgeable atheist, still for the kicks, would you try the Bismillah (a civil loud shout) before boarding a NY Subway. "We are a nation of street-preachers" like you said. It should be OK.

also, people here seem offended that daycruz has x views which he is expressing. the first is that his comment was responsive, if you look at his weblog he has no problem witnessing, but i wouldn't have known he was Christian if i hadn't checked out his blog a while ago. the second is that the problem isn't daycruz, don't make it all personal, it's his religion. he's only on the unwitting carrier of a meme which demands that he spread it all about. hate the sin, not the sinner.

Daycruz is able to do what he is doing because he a Xtian. Do you expect (in reality not in theory) a similarly rabid Muslim or even a Hindu will get away with this kind of crap. The message of Kafirs going to Jehannum (i guess) 'coz they Kufred can be stimulating for the protectors of the homeland .

>>The insinuations by a commenter above that the future of India itself is endangered somehow if Hindus are reduced in number is misplaced.

It is not misplaced. I should remind the poster that the subcontinent was divided on religious lines. This is why religious demographics is a primary focus of Indian strategic thanking.

>>Christianity has a long history in India and we don’t need to prove our Indianness to anyone.

I don't think anyone is talking about indigenous Indian Christians who have succesfully appropriated Indian institutions like the caste system to survive and even prosper. Its American-style Christianity Inc. which seems to irk.

>>There are certain separatist movements in Christian majority states like Nagaland, but that is a complex dispute, not related solely to Christianity (although that is a factor, Hinduism is seen as the oppressor and imperial religion in the North East).

Certain Christian organizations do INDEED support separatism in the Northeast.

>>Some would argue that Christianity has a longer history in India via Kerala then the Hinduism practiced today which was basically codified by Adi Sankara (8th century).

This is false. Sankara represents a narrow stream of Hinduism which in modern times appeals primarily to intellectuals. Talk to any Shaivite about whether he thinks Sankara reformed Hinduism.

If another religion offers them dignity, equality and a chance for salvation, what’s wrong with that?

Noble rhetoric, but divorced from ground realities.

The truth is that upper-caste Christians look down on Dalit Christians. Why, a few posters in this thread have said as much. One said the upstart pentecostal Christians were from lower castes and "dark".

In David Davidar's novel, the House of Blue Mangoes, you will read of a Church separated by a curtain so that the upper caste Christians did not have to see or be polluted by lower caste Christians. This is a common phenomenon. Vellala Christians look down upon Nadar Chritians and Dalit Christians. There are even some who claim Brahmin status! The Dalit Christians themselves complain that they are marginalized.

>>>However the right it freely practice, and propagate ones religion is enshrined in the Indian constitution and I defend the right of Christian or any other missionaries to freely preach their religion.

Sure. I hope you support "freely chosen" reconversion as well.

Communis Rixatrix :

"Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated"

KIT,

i have been in the USofA and have to experience rather aggressive preaching from hare krishnas and black muslims. you are right to some extent than daycruz is cut a little slack because the christian worldview isn't considered weird, but let's be careful about an either-or proposition. this thread was initiated by a rather broad topic, missionaries in india.

let me address the issue of daycruz thinking non-his-beliefs-will-go-to-hell. it doesn't bother me, and the reason is they are his beliefs, i think they are ludicruous. if, on the other hand, someone assumed i was muslim because of my name (which happened a few times before i changed my handle) i would become offended, because that was a precise and specific assumption about me, rather than a general one in an abstract sense. to extend the analogy, if someone said they weren't attracted to brown dudes, i wouldn't care much, but if someone said i was butt ugly, it would bother me cuz it was more specific. i take daycruz's assertions in the more general sense.

in any case, there is a wide range of christians, from nutters like "bin" who showed exactly how unseemly and disrespectful that sort of christianity can be (i.e.; dismissing the thousand year tradition of catholics as 'non-christian'), to people like daycruz, who have pretty strong beliefs that would offend people but manage to be civil, to christians whose views aren't even exclusive. i understand why people put them all in the same 'missionary' box, but i don't think one should.

frankly, overall i think christian missionaries have had a strong positive impact on india in the historical long view, from founding schools, hospitals all the way to initiating reform movements in non-christian movements.

p.s. you might be amused that some of my more liberal (and naive) friends are actually more tolerant of islam than fundamentalist christianity, though in terms of the attitude toward unbelievers they aren't that different.

"The reason Catholics are not considered Christians..."

Would be news to Catholics, I'm sure.

To those who say that believe in my god or you are going to hell ....

I give an old saying : "You go to heaven for the weather and hell for the company"

Daycruz is able to do what he is doing because he a Xtian. Do you expect (in reality not in theory) a similarly rabid Muslim or even a Hindu will get away with this kind of crap. The message of Kafirs going to Jehannum (i guess) 'coz they Kufred can be stimulating for the protectors of the homeland .

I wouldn't describe Daycruz's behaviour on SM so far to be "rabid" -- his/her views are fairly orthodox Christianity but so far haven't been expressed in a particularly aggressive way. I've heard far worse, from both "born-again" Christians and conservative Muslims.

Mark IV -

It is precisely because India was divided along religious lines that there needs to be greater wisdom in dealing with religious issues now.

American Christianity Inc. has only been in India for about thirty years - the Evangelical Christian community in India goes back some two hundred years.

Some Christians support separatism in the North East and others strongly oppose it because of the violence and political unrest the separatist movements have caused.

Advaita and Samkhya/Yoga are the more influential schools of Hindu philosophy today, and the chief textual sources of these traditions date from after the advent of Christianity in India.

Ironically, caste is most prevalent among the older Christian communities and least prevalent among evangelical Christian communities in India.

Reconversion - The PRDS group described in Mohan's paper eventually reconverted to Hinduism with no opposition from local Christian groups and Churches - the point being they were free to make whatever decision they wished to make.

Razib wrote....

... you are right to some extent than daycruz is cut a little slack because the christian worldview isn't considered weird,...
That is a problem. I think even chrisitians believe we are all children of god so why is a fire breathing Muslim preacher more weird than say, Pat Robertson.

…someone assumed i was muslim because of my name (which happened a few times before i changed my handle) i would become offended, because that was a precise and specific assumption about me, rather than a general one in an abstract sense. to extend the analogy, if someone said they weren't attracted to brown dudes, i wouldn't care much, but if someone said i was butt ugly, it would bother me cuz it was more specific. i take daycruz's assertions in the more general sense.

Not quite. Daycruz makes an allusion that non Xtians are going to hell. This is precise enough for me..and on your anology what if daycruz said that all brown dudes are butt ugly. Would you be offended then ? At least this is how I hear daycruz.

in any case, there is a wide range of christians, from nutters like "bin" who showed exactly how unseemly and disrespectful that sort of christianity can be (i.e.; dismissing the thousand year tradition of catholics as 'non-christian'), to people like daycruz, who have pretty strong beliefs that would offend people but manage to be civil, to christians whose views aren't even exclusive. i understand why people put them all in the same 'missionary' box, but i don't think one should.

I'd say the width of the spectrum from "bin" to "daycruz" is pretty thin and pretty unimpressive. I would like think its much wider in reality. And again what you consider civil may not be civil to others. My anology of a pious Muslim offering Namaz at NY Subway station applies here. Anecdote - A muslim girl (student) was barred from saying Bismillah before her presentation in a classroom setting. The reason given was what she was doing was "not the culture of this country". Now was that a civil response by the instructor of the class or was the girl being uncivil. I am not a Muslim but for some reason this story outraged me.

frankly, overall i think christian missionaries have had a strong positive impact on india in the historical long view, from founding schools, hospitals all the way to initiating reform movements in non-christian movements.

Agree 100%. That is the main reason I do not get the "re-converter" point of view. It may sound hokey but I apply the "been there" test. Most of the people who are served by missionaries are improvised and living in absolute poverty. Some of those who are served choose to convert. I have never "been there" so I do not what I would do under those circumstances.

p.s. you might be amused that some of my more liberal (and naive) friends are actually more tolerant of islam than fundamentalist christianity, though in terms of the attitude toward unbelievers they aren't that different.

I am fine with unbelievers as long they do not condemn me to hell for believing.

.
I wouldn't describe Daycruz's behaviour on SM so far to be "rabid" -- his/her views are fairly orthodox Christianity but so far haven't been expressed in a particularly aggressive way. I've heard far worse, from both "born-again" Christians and conservative Muslims.

Not sure about orthodox Christianity part. I grew up with friends like "Dinoo"s and "Jose"s ( pronounced josee). Pretty orthodox Xtians - never they or their parents (i.e. UncleJi and AuntyJi to us all ) told me that I am going to hell.

To me, what daycruz espouses is not agressive Christianity it is downright bigotory.

To me, what daycruz espouses is not agressive Christianity it is downright bigotory.

I assume you made a typo so here is what I found for the definition of the word bigot (one who commits bigotry)

Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Since that doesn't really tell the whole story, I decided to look up the word intolerance:

Intolerance: Not tolerant, especially: Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background. Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.

Bigotry and Intolerance are words we throw around all the time. So here's how it works.. If you don't believe in Jesus Christ, I believe you are going to hell. There. Did it hurt you? You don't have to believe a word of it. Doesn't mean I won't help you out on the street or make you sit in the back of the bus. Doesn't mean I'm gonna do anything weird to you. Just means that I believe your afterlife will be different from mine. It is just a belief and nothing more. That is all. If that is bigotry, then I suppose I am a bigot. But from looking at the definitions, I doubt you can lay that label on me.

If you don't believe in Jesus Christ, I believe you are going to hell.

Read the Bible darling. YOU, as a falible human being, have NO right to condemn anyone to hell. Only your God can do that. For the Bible tells me so.

1Cr 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts.

Besides, who said anything about you going to heaven? You might be cast to hell too, so work on yourself first buddy, and when you've cast that log outta your eye, come a'knocking :)

Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

To me, what daycruz espouses is not agressive Christianity it is downright bigotory.
I assume you made a typo so here is what I found for the definition of the word bigot (one who commits bigotry)

Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

No typo. And thanks for the definition.

So if you are not a bigot would you accept Ganesha in your heart. We will even hold hands and do an aarti. I will bring the prasadam, it is good stuff..

See you cannot have it both ways. You cannot espouse a belief system that condemns people to eternal damnation if they do not share that belief system and then claim innocence. Trust me, the assault of the believers on non-believers need not be absolute direct physical violence. Even bigots have evolved. Just as they insult people with very sophisticated means their modus-oprandi has evolved too. Ask a few non-Xtian browns of their experiences while employed in Heart-Lund-based companies.
Try my “been there” test…assume a Hindu or better still a Muslim name and experience the heartland. You will understand why I say what I say about you. I’d call you naïve but you have suggested that you have been around and know stuff. So I will settle for bigot. Its just like your belief that I am going to hell.

Razib – should daycruz be offended when I say he is a bigot ? …’coz I believe that he is one.

daycruz:>>If you don't believe in Jesus Christ, I believe you are going to hell.

What if I believe in Jesus Christ, and in addition believe in Rama, Ganesha, Sankhya/Advaita/Vishishtadvaita, Gita, Vedas etc?

M. Nam

Read the Bible darling. YOU, as a falible human being, have NO right to condemn anyone to hell. Only your God can do that. For the Bible tells me so.

Kenyandesi,
My friend, I did not condemn you to hell. I just said I believe you are going to hell. Michael Jackson got arrested. I believed he would be put away for a long time. He was not. Now am I condeming you because you do not believe? No. I just hold on to Biblical scripture that say Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. If my brother points out the plank in my eye, or the scriptures reveal to me the plank in my eye, I will certainly take it out. But read the rest of the Bible, where it talks about what uses it has. To rebuke, to correct, to counsel, to encourage.

And, KIT, no I wont trust you on that one. While it can be verbal attacks. Expressing my beliefs in full simply means I tell you about God. We are arguing from two completely different viewpoints. You don't have to accept my viewpoint simple as that, and I don't have to accept yours. But I don't think any less of you as a person because of that. So are you saying that because I would not worship Ganpathi that I would be considered a bigot? Now isn't that bigotry? You can worship Ganpathi all you want.. I choose not to. I simply believe there is only one God.

I live over here on the West Coast where Razib is so my views are a bit different about the workplace. I've just found that many of my employers assume that I am a vegetarian or don't eat meat simply because I'm brown. I am sorry to hear people are treated terribly because of their religion, that is illegal and shouldn't happen. But once again, what are you really debating?

Am I a bigot because I don't give you a job because you are a Hindu?

or Am I a bigot because I simply believe that your chosen way does not lead to Christ?

As Kenyan Desi said, I do not have the right to condemn anyone to Hell. But I know the Bible says what gets you to Heaven and what gets you to Hell. And there are clear differences shown.

What if I believe in Jesus Christ, and in addition believe in Rama, Ganesha, Sankhya/Advaita/Vishishtadvaita, Gita, Vedas etc?

M. Nam,

I can only tell you what Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me."

BUT, does it mean you have no right to read the Vedas, or believe in any other God? Of course not, you have every right to. As I have the right to say you are wrong. And that is all I'm saying.

Kenyandesi darling,

I do not believe Daycruz condemned you to hell by saying "If you don't believe in Jesus Christ, I believe you are going to hell" ... When did it become so easy to condemn someone to hell just by uttering the right combination of words?!?

To me that sounded more like the product of his faith and belief. It only seems like he voiced his concern over something that he thought would be the probable state of your future.

You did rightly call him a fallible being. So given the fact that he does commit mistakes and sins, he was showing something wrong on your side too. What Jesus meant was "Do not go around correcting and admonishing people for their wrongdoings when you yourself commit equally punishable sins". Who in this world can then go about correcting another one, as there is no one in this world who can say that he has never sinned!!

if you play as the spanish in AGE of EMPIRES you can use your missionary unit to forceably convert the emeny units to one of your units

Razib – should daycruz be offended when I say he is a bigot ? …’coz I believe that he is one.

frankly, i think you are talking past each. i give daycruz slack in regards to telling us we are going to hell because it didn't come out of the blue, it was prompted by blanket condemnations of missionaries. i also think you are doing a little apples and oranges here. i have alluded to the fact before that being a christian and non-christian as a brown person in america is qualitatively different (hey, i was an atheist of muslim origin in a 99.5% white town in oregon during my teenage years, i "been there" too). that being said, ultimately this thread and story in indocentric. it is simply a fact that daycruz will be respected throughout great swaths of the south because he has a "fire for christ," while people would make fun of you as an idolator. on the other hand, i can point you to towns in california and oregon where hindus would be much more accepted than an evangelical christian like daycruz. they might even think that daycruz is a "sellout" to his "real culture." overall obviously evangelical christian browns have the long end of the stick here, but, it isn't an either or.

in regards to india, that's a different culture and country. i have watched how evangelical christians have been known to missionize and spread the gospel, and some of the attitudes and behaviors are pretty unseemly. i don't need to go into it. the question though is should they be tolerated? these are complicated issues, because unlike some here i don't think that many poor, illiterate people have that much agency. that being said, questions i would ask are, 1) are those poor illiterate people better or worse off after eating a hot meal and converting to christianity because the missionaries have told them everyone else in the country is christian (this is a tactic i have seen attested to in nepal and indonesia on isolated people), 2) what the ramifications for the rest of society if you intervene and pass laws by fiat to block the poor illiterate people from being abused? when the gov. starts regulating speech and communication wholesale, i think that is problematic. as an american, in this nation my opinions are pretty straightforward, we have the 1st ammendment. in nations like india, well, they have different legal traditions (though still skewed toward liberty from what i can tell). then there is the issue that there are many missionaries who do far more material good than harvesting of souls. and so on.

do i find daycruz to be a "bigot"? well, i think that term is overused a lot, and i'm not much into sensitivity. i'm the person who will ask people if they believe in god, and if they say yes, i'll tell them "ah, so you're gullible, i have a bridge to sell you...." being as offensive as i am, i am obviously cautious about casting aspersions at others :) he who has not sinned cast the first stone and all. in any case, let me be frank in that there are all sorts of bigotry, south asians from all backgrounds know the importance of skin color, good background, caste, north vs. south, amongst us all. hindus are certainly broad minded people when it comes to religious tolerance, and i wish the hindu religion well vis-a-vi christianity and islam, if it were not for caste. a lot of color will leave the world if hinduism disappears. but that being said, with all the bigotries of south asia, i'm not going to put a special spotlight on daycruz's exclusivist religious views (which aren't that different from many muslims). he thinks i don't believe in jesus, so i'm going to hell, and i don't think either of these things are anything more than ideas in the heads of him and his friends. so why should i care?

And, KIT, no I wont trust you on that one.

Convenient for you.

While it can be verbal attacks. Expressing my beliefs in full simply means I tell you about God.

But you believe that Hindus are going to hell.
Its is with us or against us. Aren't you fighting the evil but fine folks from hell.

We are arguing from two completely different viewpoints.

It is possible.

You don't have to accept my viewpoint simple as that, and I don't have to accept yours. But I don't think any less of you as a person because of that.

You are my brother.

So are you saying that because I would not worship Ganpathi that I would be considered a bigot? Now isn't that bigotry? You can worship Ganpathi all you want.. I choose not to. I simply believe there is only one God

If it was just that simple. You believe , and you share that with me that Ganpathi will lead me straight to eternal damnation. I call that bigotry.

Look... I'd hate to lower the intensity of this debate so can you for the sake of this debate firmly assume that I believe that you are a bigot. Lets not get too nice with each other.

About west-coast, "been there", north-west actually. Nice.

Daycruz:
When you say you believe I will go to hell, is that like you believed Michael Jackson would be imprisoned?

You passed a judgement on his actions based on the information you had at hand AND picked out what you thought would be the consequence (prison) even before his trial. Now in this there was a chance you would be wrong, (and you were, according to those chosen to pass judgement on him) and he went home.

Now, since you believe I will go to hell (given what you know: I will not convert, and your bible tells you those who do not believe will go to hell), is there a chance I could still slip into heaven?

And if you believe that there is NO chance for me to slip in, then you are saying that I WILL go to hell. Which in my books is passing a judgement on my future and what you where you think I should spend eternity before my trial before your God.

That's what I don't get about Christian evangelists. If you spoke of Jesus' love rather than threaten the world with fire and brimstone they might get less flak.

I have read the bible, and on a basic level, agree with the fact that people should not lie, cheat, steal, should love their neighbours and do unto others. I just don't agree that it's the only way to salvation.

"Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated"

still can't debate, eh? nice squirrel tactics.

do you have any of your own thoughts or are they all stolen from cyborgs?

To me that sounded more like the product of his faith and belief.

Razib has also stated this, but there's a line you have to draw. You can't continue saying, ohhh don't challenge someone on the way they think, because it's not them, their RELIGION makes them do it.

I think this is insulting to Daycruz. He has a mind (and a damn fine one, as evidenced by his civil responses) of his own and is making an informed decision to repeat what the bible says.

It only seems like he voiced his concern over something that he thought would be the probable state of your future.

Right and that's between me and God thank you :)

You did rightly call him a fallible being. So given the fact that he does commit mistakes and sins, he was showing something wrong on your side too. What Jesus meant was "Do not go around correcting and admonishing people for their wrongdoings when you yourself commit equally punishable sins".

Precisely. I know what it means but thank you for clarifying that for me. By the way you contradict yourself by saying that "he was showing something wrong on your side" and then saying that Jesus said you shouldn't do that. And also note that because I don't believe the Bible to be infallible, you can't hold me to that...

I was simply stating that before judging me and saying I will go to hell and he won't

Just means that I believe your afterlife will be different from mine

he should consider whether he really will have a different afterlife, bacause again only God has the right to admit you (according to the Bible)

Who in this world can then go about correcting another one, as there is no one in this world who can say that he has never sinned!

Again exactly, so why do evangelists want to "correct" me from my "wrong" religious path?

DayCruz and BJ,
Are you in favor of the Iraq war ?? Iraq war is very important in the evangelical community, so I have heared.
Its because Rapture and the second coming of Jesus as the "holy" land belonging to the Jews and Jews alone (who are going to accept Jesus after 2/3 of them die) and all those factors coming togather. Right ??? So to strenghten Israel the Iraq action has been taken, right ?? (Becasue Saddam was giving $25K to suicide bombers)

Why does your god need help from humans (such as GWB, in getting rid of Saddam)?? Doesnt sound very strong God.
So if your God is weak, then how can I believe in the promise of Heaven given thru' him? Or your entire thesis is flawed. One of two has to right. :-))

Daycruz,

I think you need to clarify exactly why you have come on this blog and made statements claiming that non-Christians will "go to Hell". Was it just a politely-stated point of view as per your interpretation of Christianity, or do you genuinely want to argue this issue out with everyone here ?

If it's the former, then I think you are entitled to your opinion as long as you don't force it on anyone else or don't keep hitting non-Christians over the head with it (especially if they obviously find this view offensive). If it's the latter, then you need to clarify whether you really want to initiate a dialogue with other SM participants on this subject, and are ready to hear opposing arguments.

You really need to make your intentions clear before we go any further and in order to prevent anyone unnecessarily wasting any time on this debate.

You're welcome to continue the flames debate here.