Rajendra Pillai

isn't pillai often a christian name? i went to some intervarsity meetings to meet chix in college and the brownz were usually from christian backgrounds as opposed to converts (some were adopted).

re: asian american youth & evangelical christian, the reason this is such a big deal is that the base was really low, asian americans are the least religiously affiliated of ethno-racial groups, so penetration is easy. that doesn't mean that most asian americans are evangelicals, the vocal minority just is really prominent. many asian immigrants become "buddhist" in the USA because it is normal here to be part of a religious community. in south asia, obviously the situation is different, explaining why christians have a harder time gaining traction since they have to face a group that has a strong religio-communal identity already.

when i was in school in middle-of-nowhere, wisconsin, the school's christian fellowship used to pray for us "misguided nonbelievers" (aka the non-christian international students) at each one of their weekly meetings...

in fact, speaking of strategy, they used to meet in the school union's lounge (the only place you could smoke - and we all know who smokes the most) and pray quite loudly and in unison. not-so-subtle strategy there! i think they may have managed to convert one or two chinese students. the rest of us desis used to just laugh at our "misguided-ness" and have another smoke...

You could just as well dig into the game-plans of British missionaries in pre-Independence India. After all, one of the euphemistic goals of the British empire was to liberate the brown souls from ignorance.

The Campus evangelicals however have to contend with the guile of Indian students on campus. I had a friend on campus who joined the Bible study course because the girl teaching it was really hot. It was a bonus that he was the only person in her group.

I guess this has been going on for a long time. You should read Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography. He has described various such attempts during his stay in England when he went to study law to get to convert him to Christianity. Maybe that experience later prompted him to come out against proselytyzing really forcefull.

Seems like the 4 times or so i have been approached by badalos in US they seem to be getting better
1st couple of time it was in high school by amatuer kids. Incidentaly both were koreans.
the other 2 times, once i was appraoched by a desi guy in a univerities library.
He said his name was Raju and gave his pitch
so i told him come on lets to saudi arabia and convert there.
Last time was last year when i was sitting in a park w/ a sikh friend. It was w/ a white woman who spoke broken hindi
and punjabi and did say sat sri akal to my sikh friend before giving us the pitch.
I told her she had to do a lot of homework on being a saleswoman.

in first grade at a christian school i was taunted as the devils child..

in college they invited me to a party...but albeit a chritian meet up of sorts trying to convert through 'non threatening' methods...

What kind of "non-threatening" methods did they use chick pea?

targeting as a 'bbq/party' not as a 'place of conversion'.. so kind of a misleading experience to say the least.. i felt the heat the moment i entered..and exited quickly.

Being the enthu kind, in my first year at the univ here I promptly signed up for some of the activities advertised at the International Students Office on campus. One was with a group with an innocuous name like "Friends International" or some such thing...and I signed up to go with a host American lady to the LA County Fair. We had an utterly fun day, the two of us...but at some point I realized that, while she was genuinely very nice and out to be a good 'host' to a newcomer in her country, there was a definite agenda :) i.e. what she most wanted to do was talk to me about Christ :) and sign me up for activities with her (Christian) group.
I remember feeling a little let-down when I realized this, but I liked her and thought I had made a fun friend...but sadly, since I told her that I am not into religion *at all* she lost all interest in me (we had said we'd continue to be friends, and I did call a few times after that). Oh well. Since then I'm VERY careful to really carefully check the fine print of any group before I sign up for an activity :(. The pity of it is that the evangelist lot (being master marketeers plus funding!) have the funnest *free* activities ...dances, going sailing, the zoo etc but I've never felt comfortable going along for any of them.

It's not just the Christians who want to reserve the right to save your heathen ass.

A conference grouping an array of world religions, including Christians, Jews and Muslims said on Wednesday everyone should have the right to convert to another faith.

I wouldn't mind so much if these groups were upfront about what they are doing (but then, of course, someone like me would just not sign up for an activity). The problem is they get people to sign up by using altruistic/innocuous platforms and initially totally downplaying the very clear agenda they have. Really dislike that combination of sneakiness, arrogance and complacency!

Apart from the Hare Krishnas who walk around in saffron and the Bhagvad Gita in public places (and I can't help but notice that they are predominantly white Hare Krishnas), I wonder what a "strategy memo for conversion" would be like for Hindus in America who seek to proselytize Protestant Americans??

Another ethnic group that has been targeted for conversion are the Cambodian refugees. Yes. The Mormon Church has aggressively pursued Cambodian refugees in America to embrace the Mormon Church. For those who are interested, read Aihwa Ong's book The Buddha is Hiding.

The idea that someone is born into a religion has always seemed rather silly to m

Apart from the Hare Krishnas who walk around in saffron and the Bhagvad Gita in public places (and I can't help but notice that they are predominantly white Hare Krishnas), I wonder what a "strategy memo for conversion" would be like for Hindus in America who seek to proselytize Protestant Americans??

But we can expect more bobby jindals than more hare krishnas.

e should have the right to convert to another faith.

wuz wrong with that?

a lot of xtians around her dress like 'hip' street kids. dress like the locals....

GGK:

Most of them were not converted via any proselytization...There is an organization called ISKCON which started most of the hare krishna movement in north america...A lot of them are transitory birds whith no nest and found some ritual aspect appealing.

I know about the ISKCON. I'm not talking about the Hare Krishnas as converts, but the Hare Krishnas that attempt to convert people, one of their strategies being to stand in front of the gates at airport terminals to greet arriving passengers with copies of the Bhagvad Gita. What I meant to say was, apart from the Hare Krishnas who seek to convert others, what would another Hindu group/organization's "strategy memo for conversion", targeting Protestants specifically, look like?

I wonder what a "strategy memo for conversion" would be like for Hindus in America who seek to proselytize Protestant Americans??

You'll have to ask the Hare Krishnas since they seem to have picked up their cues from the evangelicals and insist that Krisha is the *only* way.

The concept of conversion is absurd in the Hindu context since one is free to worship anyone and anything. I always tell the missionaries that I already include Jesus in my pantheon. This does not go over very well with them, specially when I add that our pantheon includes not just the assorted gods and goddesses but also serpents and other animals, and depending on the occasion even our pens and books, not to mention the local streams and mountains, the rain and the clouds and in fact the entire earth.

In Japan too people belong to many different religions simultaneously - buddhism, shinto, tao. Hindus tend to have a similar outlook, not feeling compelled to accept just one religion.

It was the seventies. My wife and I were starving grad students. Cooking a proper Indian meal back then, sans spices, in the middle of Florida was considered quite a feat. The Hare Krishnas came to our rescue every day. In return for listening to their exhortations on how to be a good "Krishna bhakt" or whatever they called their model citizens, we received four "puris" made in pure ghee, a scoop of vegetables and another one of halwa. They were our on-campus meal ticket. And we didn't even have to convert to an alien religion to survive.

In Japan too people belong to many different religions simultaneously - buddhism, shinto, tao. Hindus tend to have a similar outlook, not feeling compelled to accept just one religion.

Floridian:

It was the seventies. My wife and I were starving grad students. Cooking a proper Indian meal back then, sans spices, in the middle of Florida was considered quite a feat. The Hare Krishnas came to our rescue every day. In return for listening to their exhortations on how to be a good "Krishna bhakt" or whatever they called their model citizens, we received four "puris" made in pure ghee, a scoop of vegetables and another one of halwa. They were our on-campus meal ticket. And we didn't even have to convert to an alien religion to survive.

Chho, chho sveet of them! A sorts of community outreach, or community service, if you will.

But I get the feeling that you've been traumatized by this experience. Is this true? Am I correct to assume so?

Only four puris though? How big were they? That's not a lot. I mean, beggars can't be choosers, but still. What do you do with four puris?

Wait a minute, you're not talking about prashad time, are you? Like when we sit in a row Indian-style and fellas with big pails of daal, subji, shikand, and rice come by one by one to plop food onto our plates?

If i had a penny for every time i was approached by people looking to convert me at grad school ....

The best was a recent attempt by the LDS - 2 really young guys knocked on my apt. It was late afternoon and i had just woken up from a nap and feeling rather like a good debate. I invited them in, let them make their pitch. And then asked them what the Pope thought of them and would they be willing to repent for their sins for deviating from the catholic church :) And then i changed track and handed them "Chariots of the Gods" in return for accepting their version of the bible :D

I haven't heard from them since.

Yes and No. If you buy that buddhism shito and taoism are religions. Religion is a judaism inspired idea, where as being a hindu is not the same.

I agree. Just didn't feel like getting into the hinduism-is-not-a-religion debate.

When two Jehovah's witnesses rang our door bell, I briskly told them, "No, thanks. In this house, we are Sikh and Hindu". One of them said, "Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. For how long?" I petulantly told them "Why are you sorry? We have been this way for a long time." He then replied, "May I ask why and since when?" I snapped back, "Look, Hinduism is older than Christianity, and Sikhism is centuries old as well. Christianity is not the only religion in the world, you know. And to answer your question as to why we're Sikh and Hindu, it is because we just happened to grow up that way and we are content with who we are". Then, comprehension dawned on them-- "Ohhhhh, when you said "Sikh" you didn't mean "sick"?

>>And then i changed track and handed them "Chariots of the Gods" in return for accepting their version of the bible :D

You do know that Chariot of the Gods has been exposed by the BBC as fiction and pseudoscience, don't you?;-)

I feel denied. Why don't they target members of my peaceful religion of peace and tolerance? The solution to this Hindu-American problem is, quite clearly, the introduction of a 'death to apostates' clause (with stoning as the preferred method of execution) in Hinduism.

(Incidentally, I noticed that most of the World Vision child sponsorships available in Bangladesh are for Hindu children. And then I heard that children need to either convert to xtianity or participate in xtian activities to qualify. Is this a global trend?)

When two Jehovah's witnesses rang our door bell, I briskly told them,

I noticed that most of the World Vision child sponsorships available in Bangladesh are for Hindu children.

i have read xtian missioanry literature on this issue. the powers that be in bangladesh don't care if hindus convert to christianity, but there is serious fear of violence if missionaries target muslims (some of the literature then goes onto describe how to 'stealth preach' and shit). they just go where the picking is good. same thing in malaysia, targeting hindus and buddhists and daoists, etc., is kosher, but not muslims. the funniest thing though i have found re: muslims and missionaries is that in many arab countries the missionaries end up preaching to local christians, people whose families have probably been christian for around 1500 years or more!!! needless to say, the eastern churches aren't pleased :)

local christians, people whose families have probably been christian for around 1500 years or more!!!

I too had my fair share of Jehovah's witnesses knocking on my door..or stopping me on the sidewalk. I don't have any problems with them as long as they try to "sell" their stuff....but I can't stand the fact that they try to demean other religions at times. Once I had a 10-15 min discussion with a couple of them..and tried to explain them that I was a tough nut to crack..a hindu..who believes in 100000 gods, worships cows, "don't eat no meat" and worships sun, air, fire etc.

Aside:
Many of the good schools in Indian cities are run by Catholic missionaries. I studied in one such school..for 10 years. Not once did I feel that they tried to "convert" us.

I'm so sad that I don't have attempted conversion stories to share... well, there was that j-hova who had an incessant crush on me! Really... same boy every Sunday, coincidence? Yah right! I think we're all hip to that game. (or was it the inverse? did i have the crush? did I tease him by gently grazing his thumb knuckle while reaching for that pamphlet?)

Anyway, to compensate, I offer you Lambuel, a good Christian flock-member on a mission to save children from the fates of poor souls such as Habu...

Hey, Habu... How many gods do you have?

Habu says: 'I don't know... I lost count!'

Wouldn't you rather have just one God who loves you a bunch than a bunch of gods that don't love you at all?

I fear our local Tabligs more than the Jehovah's witnesses. They always seem to materialise at the most inopportune time e.g. Friday night, right before we are about to go out and I am 100% convinced that if one lies to them ('yes yes brother, we will go to the mosque tmrw') they use some evil form of wizardry to ruin one's weekend.

Not once did I feel that they tried to "convert" us.

I think it's lovely and touching. Almost the exact opposite of religious bigotry. Take the anti-semite; an anti-semite would hate a jew even if he were an athiest. His hatred has nothing to do with the religion per se, but rather it is almost a racialization of the religion. In other words, the religious bigot hates people b/c of an accident of birth. Thus to recruit people to your religion regardless of birth is an act of love, not hatred.

In a world where "the other" is so hated; this behaviour is a nice counterpoint.

isn't christianity pretty diverse any way? the asian christians i know are not oppressed. during colonialism i can see missionary work maybe was ominous. but nowdays.......honestly i think it gives people a voice sometimes that they didn't otherwise have. don't african christians have pull in the episcopalian and catholic churches? is christianity a "foreign" religion in india?

I studied in one such school..for 10 years. Not once did I feel that they tried to "convert" us.

on campus, i usually have to contend with an inordinate number of faithfuls talking to me about hell. :) it is usually annoying when you are running someplace and this bloke tries to stop you.

you know what is worse? some guy who "teaches" me about intelligent design. they even have a institute for ID in my school. and we claim to be a good univ!

and what is worse than that? the friendly guy in the grocery store who speaks kannada (so happy whenever i meet anyone i can speak to in my mother tongue) but then nudges the conversation to AMWAY. that is *betrayal*.

I agree with GGK that religion is not the same as Dharma/Philosophy/way of life and it is so difficult to reconcile the Eastern philosophy to western religion because lot of the eastern concepts don't exist in the west and there is no equivalent language to descibe these ideas. The western academicians and their eastern followers have/are doing a great disservice to Hinduism/Buddhism/Taoism/Confucian etc by modeling them using the concepts of semitic religions.

oh the fond memories....my father being told by a student that he was going directly to hell after giving a lecture on Hinduism at school. the cheery jehovah witness who waxed eloquently about Gandhi until i reminded him that the mahatma said in his autobiography (someone else mentioned it) that he would outlaw proselytization if he had the power to do so. and so many more.

missionary battle plans would be impressive if they weren't so detestable and a little repulsive. one particular one i read about involves a step-by-step plan to convert the people - sculptors, builders, artisans and so forth - who build Hindu temples. the idea being that once they are converted, an important tradition will have died out and this will result in fewer temples being built. a how-to guide on how to destroy and undermine another religion. how charming.

after last year's tsunami, the ICC held a charity tsunami cricket match involving all the top players from all the top cricket powers. unfortunately the money they charged viewers went solely to world vision's tsunami recovery efforts. considering that all of the countries affected were predominantly non-christian and given world vision's unclear stance on using their aid work to proselytize, this was really odd. they could have given the money to the red cross, unicef or several other non-affiliated groups.

It’s like finding a general’s battle plans. :)

No kidding, Abhi. I felt like I happened upon a verse from Sun Tzu. Especially the bits that refer to "the Hindu"...it conveniently depersonifies the individual and "others" him...all very Art of War-ish.

Indians are generally considered quite religious. But one thing that binds us together is our diversity.
- a hindu majority with a sikh prime minister, muslim president and a christian leader of the majority party.

I'm a hindu who studied in a Catholic school situated in a city known for its Muslim culture (Lucknow) and used to have free 'langars' (community lunch) at the guruduwara :). Never had any kind of friction visiting temples, masjids, gurudwaras or churches. did I miss something ?

@brown_fob

Never had any kind of friction visiting temples, masjids, gurudwaras or churches. did I miss something ?

a lot of entertainment.

Isn't the broader problem with conversion, particularly religions that advocate conversion or "spreading the message" that they assume their theological institution and its development is universal and doesn't have unique anthropological origins. Of course, if one assumes that the message is divine and has heavenly origins, then enter some sort of sel-fulfilling, circular-thinking fallacy because you've ignored that every other group of people have formed their own theology and is intricately related to their economics (dry, desert agrarian vs. lush, green temperate), their culture, their development. All of this compounded further when you factor in the primacy and power of monotheism which was detailed in Kirsch's God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism.

Jomo Kenyatta's classic Facing Mount Kenya highlighted this point with respect to the Gikuyu.

In reponse to Manju, no I don't think it's "lovely and touching" and I do think its bigoted because the assumptions made about one's own religion are categorically wrong in relation to the assumptions made about the other's religion. Know thyself before becoming preachy.

Furthermore, if Jews weren't "racialized", then why do geneticists study Ashkenazi Jews? IIRC, the Ashkenazi has had less variance in their gene pool primarily due to lineage requirements, no? The race is uniquely intertwined with the religion is it not?

@bytewords

a lot of entertainment.

indeed.

HIndutvavadi in Ca:

it is so difficult to reconcile the Eastern philosophy to western religion because lot of the eastern concepts don't exist in the west and there is no equivalent language to descibe these ideas.

I know what you are trying to say here, but "western religion", ie Christianity, is not really western in its origins. Christianity is an "Eastern" religion, seeing that it was born in Palestine. But yes, usually when we think of Christianity, we tend to think of the "West" since Western Christianity is the predominant strand of Christianity that now runs through the globe.

I can understand the religious person's dilemma though - it's just a natural response to "what about the unfortunate people who weren't born into righteous religion X and will go to hell?" Both Christianity and Islam place great importance in the need to convert the heathens hence there is a higher proportion of annoying people from said religions.

brownfob:

I'm a hindu who studied in a Catholic school situated in a city known for its Muslim culture (Lucknow) and used to have free 'langars' (community lunch) at the guruduwara :). Never had any kind of friction visiting temples, masjids, gurudwaras or churches. did I miss something ?

No, you didn't miss anything. I've had similar experiences; as a Hindu, I've gone to gurdwara, Church, masjids , Buddhist temples, and probably other things that I can't remember right now. I've never had a problem.

NyukNyuk:

Furthermore, if Jews weren't "racialized", then why do geneticists study Ashkenazi Jews? IIRC, the Ashkenazi has had less variance in their gene pool primarily due to lineage requirements, no? The race is uniquely intertwined with the religion is it not?

I agree. Religions do tend to "racialize" (the idea that someone is born into a religion) themselves though society has been queesy to call this "racism" as it is not really born out of hate. Charles Murray studied Jews as a "race" in his controversial book about intelligence--even while acknowledging that race is an artificial construct. That "race is uniquely intertwined with the religion" as you say is true, and this is precisely my point about this behavior being "lovely and touching"...these christians are de-racializing religion.

They are doing nothing more than you and I are doing right now...asking others to accept our beliefs as true, ie universal. To ask religious people to concede that their "theological institution and its development" is not universal and has "unique anthropological origins" is asking them to sieze to be religious. To say their failure to acknowledge this is bigotry would make bigots out of everyone, minus the relativists (who could also theoretically be called bigots b/c they believe relativism is universal). It all gets quite absurd...like your name.

I don't mind people converting. But, why do I get the feeling that Jindal had political motives when he converted...

i think converting is silly. in the most non-judgmental way possible. religion, for me, is synonymous with culture/heritage/i'm as much muslim as i am brownie, as i am woman.

religions are all different paths to the same goal. walk the road less travelled. does it need a name, a guide or road signs for the journey to be valuable??

Manju:

these christians are de-racializing religion.

Nonsense. They are targeting those they deem theologically and spiritually inferior. If this wasn't about power and more about righteousness, you'd have to wipe out 90% of the historical record regarding conversion. Even today, religion/theology, in all its various forms from Abrahamic to dharma, has its own politics and is susceptible to having its message cannabilized by power and indoctrination. This is not de-racialization but a realization that Europe is no longer the center of Christian power, and if the Church seeks to be relevant, it must build a congregation in the America's and Asia. It's a political response mired by a superiority complex.

They are doing nothing more than you and I are doing right now...asking others to accept our beliefs as true, ie universal.

I certainly hope I am not asking you to believe my points. I am not so audacious to think my beliefs are universal. What I do believe, however, is that enormous logical fallacies are littered within the polity & theology of religion and these fallacies need to be uncovered in reasoned discussion. Asking someone to believe your point is not an element of reasoned discussion.

You are also confusing universal truths with the perceived universality of an entire religious dogma, history and its subsequent universal application. The latter is ignorance, not a jaunt in relativism.

the people with the social power nowdays are not the one's converting people. you're getting people who aren't all that socially powerful who, in their own way, think they are doing the good thing. maybe there's some people who think different, but some evangelicals really are trying to do what they think is a loving act. the black church is willing to try to tell people about religion as much as the anyone else. i think there's people who don't concieve of christianity as a racialized religion anymore. it can be said that christianity, nowdays is one of the more multi-racial social movements going

NyukNyuk:

They are targeting those they deem theologically and spiritually inferior.

I don't doubt this but the key words are "theologically and spiritually," as oppossed to racially. The christians want you to become their spiritual equal, while the real bigot (say a racist) would never accept you as an equal.

Sahej's point: "the people with the social power nowdays are not the one's converting people" also exposes a critical departure from "90% of the historical record regarding conversion." Conversions and colonialism are no longer intertwined as they once were. Plus, in the context of US universties, becoming an evangelical christian would hardly put you among the social elite. Among the socio-eonomic/ political elite in the US in general, Christian Evangelicals are at best only one of many competing groups.

Sahej:

but some evangelicals really are trying to do what they think is a loving act

At the individual level that is sometimes true but they assume that the origin of Christ's message, and by extension the Church's message, are not earthly but heavenly and ahistorical. Now, assume that is not true- that the past and present proponents are preaching a message with a history as a social institution shaped by human experience. Enter humankind's vices and virtues.

yes, i agree it may be explicitly ahistorical. but in the context of a conversation, history plays a part. the growth of the black church is a historical movement. how common is it to see afro-centric motifs in a black church? common enough. its not shocking to refer to jesus as a man with hair as lamb's wool anymore is it? religion in general is often ahistorical explicitly no matter what faith you're speaking of. i agree on the point about enter mankind's vices and virtues. the lack of explicit historicity can lead to vexing results

Manju:

I don't doubt this but the key words are "theologically and spiritually," as oppossed to racially.

If race wasn't a factor, then why aren't the conversionists operating in Europe where the majority have theologically and spiritually rejected the Church? It is afterall, the heart of the Catholic, Protestant and Greek Orthodox Church. Why is the white non-believer off-limits in Europe but the dark uncouth-polytheistic-pagan believer the target? Certainly there's a historical foundation for the former, so why isn't it done?

This topic is much more explosive when it involves christians trying to convert Jews. Many Jews scream "holocaust" at this thought. It's quite an emotional issue in an already complex relationship. Christian evangelicals are one of the greatest defenders of israel, so they are simultaneously considered zionists and Nazis.

It is not my choice to use these extreme terms, this is actually how the argument is being framed out there.

If race wasn't a factor, then why aren't the conversionists operating in Europe where the majority have theologically and spiritually rejected the Church? It is afterall, the heart of the Catholic, Protestant and Greek Orthodox Church. Why is the white non-believer off-limits in Europe but the dark uncouth-polytheistic-pagan believer the target? Certainly there's a historical foundation for the former, so why isn't it done?

I don't know but I don't think a superiority complex explains this. I do know that the Catholic church under the last pope made a concerted effort to go after africa and latin america b/c he thought europe was hopeless, ie too secular. Probably its harder to go from a secular/scientic viewpoint to a religious one than vice versa. it must be easier to convert someone already in a religious framework.

Economics must also play a HUGE role...Poor people are simply more inclined toward religion. So one must go where the poor are.

Christian evangelicals are one of the greatest defenders of israel

not for altruistic reasons though- the evangelical relationship with Islam is key to that posturing; as is the politics- if evangelical's seek to be relevant in the GOP, or the broader American political spectrum, they must half-heartedly defend Israel.

there aren't too many people running to convert hedonistic swedes, you're right

they must half-heartedly defend Israel

from what i've heard it is relly quite heartfelt and strong...and I run in republican circles now and then. They are quite passionate about israel primarily b/c they really believe the bible is literal and that god promised israel to the jews. "and god does not go back on his promises" said pat robertson or Jerry falwell (i forget and get them confused). which makes their position more radical than most israeli jews...who (minus the orthodox) are generally liberal and secular.

CAD

ie Christianity, is not really western in its origins. Christianity is an "Eastern" religion, seeing that it was born in Palestine.

Would replacing Western with Semitic satisfy you? The West has appropriated the Judeo-Christian traditions and concepts as well as Greek philosophy as the fountainhead for western thought. And by geography, Palsestine is to the West of where the influence of the Eastern philosopies lie. And the influence of Middle East in most of Asia only happened in the last 600 years, mostly thru' invasion and Christianity was never an Asian religion until the last century.

Manju:

Economics must also play a HUGE role...Poor people are simply more inclined toward religion. So one must go where the poor are.

on this I agree.

the ineffable Marx (sacre bleu!):

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

JK Galbraith said something about this too which I have never been able to find. The poor, whose life is so materially deprived can only hope for a better existence in the next life via religion; the rich don't share the same sentiments as the present life is pretty darn good.

b/c they really believe the bible is literal and that god promised israel to the jews

true, but there is that annoying bit about not accepting Jesus as the son of god, err, Son of God.

It is the opium of the people

of course the other marx, groucho adds some colour to this:

"Opium is the religion of the people"

if evangelical's seek to be relevant in the GOP, or the broader American political spectrum, they must half-heartedly defend Israel.

Plus, the GOP is not the historical home of pro-israeli policy, despite the fact that nixon saved israel. Most jews are democrats and pro israeli lobbying $$ has historically gone to them. But w/ the rise of neoconservatism in a post 911 world and the influence of Christian evangelicals, the GOP seems to have become even more pro-israael than the democrats. I don't think it has converted into many votes quite yet though.

But i think it really is, right or wrong, a genuine policy based on principle (as oppossed to influence).

Jesus, its 4am, i gotto get up soon.

I don't think it has converted into many votes

Sometimes it more about money than votes. Why do you think the politicians humor Indian-Americans? The GOP has been getting a lot of the Pro-Israeli money lately.

Sometimes it more about money than votes. Why do you think the politicians humor Indian-Americans? The GOP has been getting a lot of the Pro-Israeli money lately.

Yah I agree. Principles in power politics is a thin veil indeed.

Good God!
This is a much better strategy than the tracts they mailed me informing me in comic detail why I shouldn't become a suicide bomber. Who are their marketing consultants? Amway?

Hey, Habu... How many gods do you have?

Habu says: 'I don't know... I lost count!'

Wouldn't you rather have just one God who loves you a bunch than a bunch of gods that don't love you at all?

As if that wasn't hilarious enough, if you click on Habu's, erm, "Gandhi dot," she expectorates a bubble with a question mark out of her trunk.

And for the record, Objective Ministries is a hoax, albeit an elaborate and sly one. With people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson running amok, its getting harder to spot parody from genuine bigotry and intolerance.

I would like my Muslim friends, the descendents of Abraham's evil son Ishmael, to open their eyes after reading this.

I wonder how people will react when some of the nastier Chick tracts show up.

If only we could identify the point where piety becomes perverse...

If only we could identify the point where piety becomes perverse...

I posit that proselytizing is the punishable point of perverting any putative presence of piety into proven and pestilent perfidy.

No, seriously I do.

ROFL at the cartoon stories in that chick.com website..
Seriously I don't have problem in the missionaries offering money for conversion. I'd take it.. :-)

Simplistically speaking

Religions are basically what stories you believe in..

If you believe in local stories related to the regions of India you are a Hindu.
If you believe the stories cooked by Mohammad about Allah in Arabia, you become a Muslim.
If you believe in the stories cooked by John(??) about Jesus you become a Christian..

I have no problems in people believing in any of the stories if they can make some immediate money now.. Too bad, I have not come across any of the missionaries..

Simplistically speaking

Religions are basically what stories you believe in..

Fighting over religion is like fighting over who has the best imaginary friend...

If you believe the stories cooked by Mohammad about Allah in Arabia, you become a Muslim

Muhammd (salalaho waleho wassalam/peace be upon him) did not cook stories though he was well known for cooking a mean schwarma with hummus. God's angel Gabriel (Jibra-eel) delivered to him the message from God which he then delivered to the people around him.

Religions are basically what stories you believe in..

Thats the positivist viewpoint - that religions are primitive (pre-scientific) worldviews which people "believe in." But I would contend for very many people outside the monotheistic framework, practice counts for plenty more than mere belief. For example, there is a deep agnosticism that runs through much of Hinduism. Belief isn't necessarily central to some orthodox sects of Christianity either.

But I would contend for very many people outside the monotheistic framework

I think that perhaps a more accurate description would be ".....outside the Abrahamic framework" -- Sikhism is an avowedly monotheistic religion, but the emphasis here is also on practice and direct personal experience of God, rather than mere "belief".

I think that perhaps a more accurate description would be ".....outside the Abrahamic framework" -- Sikhism is an avowedly monotheistic religion, but the emphasis here is also on practice and direct personal experience of God, rather than mere "belief".

Yes Jai, I agree. Thank you.

For example, there is a deep agnosticism that runs through much of Hinduism. Belief isn't necessarily central to some orthodox sects of Christianity either.

But agnosticism, atheism etc. are also belief systems. The difference between Hinduism and the rest is that Hinduism does not make any truth claims. The stories are there for whatever they're worth, which may be different things to different people. It is irrelevant whether Shiva is real or not. Of course, as the days go by hinduism begins to resemble the JC traditions more and more. In the California text book case the Hindu side took great pains to assert that Hindus believe in only one God!

speaking of missionarry plots/plans/battle plans/whatever you wnat to call it and Kenyatta, here's one of his most famous quotes:

"When the Missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible. They taught how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible".
-Jomo Kenyatta.

"In the California text book case the Hindu side took great pains to assert that Hindus believe in only one God!"

the basis of Sanatan Dharma is a belief in one supreme being or universal reality, although this is expressed through diverse Gods and paths. so to an extent it is true. the problem arises when one reacts to being called a "pagan", "heathen" "idolator" by trying to respond to these insults and challenges by mistakenly equating this belief in a supreme reality to the abrahamic concept of monotheism in the vain hope that it will begin to command "equal" status to that accorded to the "religions of the book" siblings in western countries. and by mistakenly downplaying the polytheistic aspects of Hinduism. the supreme reality and the abrahamic concept of monotheism are not the same thing and this difference should not be fudged merely to try to get those who cannot understand the concept to understand it.

those chick tracts are freaky. it's also amusing that people really wrote that. craziness.

Muhammd (salalaho waleho wassalam/peace be upon him) did not cook stories though he was well known for cooking a mean schwarma with hummus. God's angel Gabriel (Jibra-eel) delivered to him the message from God which he then delivered to the people around him.

That's another nice story.. :-)
What's schwarma / hummus ??

also heard pope condemned india's ban.

"also heard pope condemned india's ban."

when is the vatican going to become a secular state and allow religious freedom within its own borders? :) why did it try to insist that the EU call itself Christian in its charter?

What's schwarma / hummus ??

Are you serious?

Schwarma is da bomb!

Schwarma is da bomb!

Thanks for the link.. looks good. I've had "Chicken teriyaki rap" for a "to go".. it looks similar.. have to find out the taste..

I would like my Muslim friends, the descendents of Abraham's evil son Ishmael, to open their eyes after reading this

*gag*

I would like my Muslim friends, the descendents of Abraham's evil son Ishmael, to open their eyes after reading this

*gag*

That was attributed to the link in the highlighted comment - The "chick" website.

I joined IVCF my first year of college, and stopped going at the end of the year when they urged me to accept Christ. I'm not a believer of anything, so their efforts were wasted, but what IVCF does provide at a large public university is, as the article says, community, wholesome fun, and good-natured people who cared. Personally, I never saw it as a religion thing (until they really pushed it) but I was having a hard time fitting in anywhere, and they seemed to fit the bill. I actually even enjoyed singing hymns in an informal setting, attending meetings, being around generally happy people, and ignored the parts where they talked about Christ. If I were more receptive to faith of any kind, I may have felt swayed by their brand of religious practice, but I'm not; I went as far as to research and proclaim my adherence to the atheistic Charvaka sect in middle school to counter the ritualistic and dietary interpretations of Hinduism my North Indian friends had when talking to me about religion (I'm Bengali).

As far as my experience goes, the article is right on re: IVCF and Campus Crusade. CCC is more confrontational and less effective, but IVCF has the whole "welcoming" thing down pat. They don't really talk about religion until the fifth or sixth meeting, and really emphasize the community, and not attending church part. And the vast majority of IVCF at my university was Korean or Chinese American. In fact, Caucasians were significantly in the minority.

I don't know what proportion of IVCF's Indian recruits are bad investments like me, but I know of others like me at my alma mater who have experimented with IVCF while they try to find a place for themselves. Usually they tend to be turned off by the Indian American social groups, surprised by the heavy party atmosphere and not ritualistic enough to be in the Hindu Students Council (some of those people are pretty extreme).

Hindutvavadi in CA:

Would replacing Western with Semitic satisfy you? The West has appropriated the Judeo-Christian traditions and concepts as well as Greek philosophy as the fountainhead for western thought

Dude, do you not read comments? Read my first comment. It seems like you read the first sentence of each comment and then go off.

I should stop being nice to you to give you credit on certain points, because you certainly don't even take the time to read comments. Don't argue for the sake of arguing.

FYI, The first Christians in India, were converted by St. Thomas the Apostle [an Israeli Jew], who arrived at Kodungallur on the Malabar Coast of India in 52 AD. [Link]

I'm a Christian--protestant/"charismatic" to be specific. (Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons try to convert me.) I agree with folks who mentioned how shady it is to pretend "just" to chill with people if 80% of your interest is in sharing your faith with them. It’s like the Amway comment someone made earlier. A friend of mine said he flat out told a coworker of his one of the first days they had lunch together. “I’m a Christian and part of the reason I’m cool with us hanging out is because I’d like to share my faith with you.” [note: not covert] Of course the dude was like, “Whaaa?!” Funny thing is, they haven’t had that theological conversation yet, but they still hang out. If/when they do, the shock factor is gone. I’m sure the guy respects the fact that he kept it real.

The Christians in India were doing pretty well for nearly 1500 years. In 1498, when the Portuguese navigator Vasco da Gama landed on the Malabar coast, there were an estimated two million Christians across the land, and they had 1,500 churches. [Link] Fast forward about 50 years and Portuguese colonizers are persecuting, torturing and executing Hindus, Jews and non-Roman Catholic Christians alike. Thank God those days of supremacy are dwindling. Those hardheads are a shrinking minority.

The point of all that is to say: Sadly, it is necessary to write “conversion strategies” if only based on the history of the Christian church at large.

And by geography, Palsestine is to the West of where the influence of the Eastern philosopies lie. And the influence of Middle East in most of Asia only happened in the last 600 years, mostly thru' invasion and Christianity was never an Asian religion until the last century.

I'd like to point out that while all of us are using "West" and "East" (including me), these terms have been geostrategically coined. So whether you think Palestine was in the East or West is subjective. Yes, Palestine was under Roman occupation. I still don't think that means that Palestine was automatically part of the West. This would be analogous to saying that because India was under the Moghul Empire, largely from Turco-Mongolian origins, it consequently became an extension of Turkey.

Christianity was never an Asian religion until the last century? What of the Syrian Christians in India, who constituted the first Christian community outside of Palestine?

Would replacing Western with Semitic satisfy you? The West has appropriated the Judeo-Christian traditions and concepts as well as Greek philosophy as the fountainhead for western thought

This was my original comment:

I know what you are trying to say here, but "western religion", ie Christianity, is not really western in its origins. Christianity is an "Eastern" religion, seeing that it was born in Palestine. But yes, usually when we think of Christianity, we tend to think of the "West" since Western Christianity is the predominant strand of Christianity that now runs through the globe.

Like I said, don't read the first part of the comment, get all hot and bothered, and then write your response. Calm down, read the entire thing, and then reply.

Comment #93 is addressed to hindutvavdi in california.

Proselytizing Hindus are scary! Look at the ones who've converted to Amway and chase us down the aisles in Walmart. If Hindus start converting, the whole world will hate us!

"I studied in one such school..for 10 years. Not once did I feel that they tried to "convert" us"

Brown_FOB,
I too studied in Catholic/Christian schools all my life in India...and loved the schools, nuns and all. However, like you, while nobody tried to 'convert' me per se, just the act of being in those schools is a sort of 'soft' indoctrination...in some ways, at least in some of the cultural knowledge that comprises us, many of us products of missionary schools have to admit that we are sort of 'christianey' ...by which I mean we know the bible quite well, loved singing carols and hymns, celebrated christmas with great enthu complete with santa :). I guess the ultimate proof of the effectiveness of the 'soft conversion' is that I don't even really mind this...

Although, as Divya and others have mentioned, this might also have to do with the fact that being Hindu (at least back in those good old days) allowed one to quite happily absorb different religious practices (if not the religions themselves) with no sense of contradiction. I loved going to gurudwaras with friends, had assorted Muslim friends and basically was happy to celebrate anyone elses festivals.

Couple of corrections in previous post:

hindutvavadi in ca

And by geography, Palsestine is to the West of where the influence of the Eastern philosopies lie. And the influence of Middle East in most of Asia only happened in the last 600 years, mostly thru' invasion and Christianity was never an Asian religion until the last century.

I'd like to point out that while all of us are using "West" and "East" (including me), these terms have been geostrategically coined. So whether you (or I) think Palestine was in the East or West is subjective. Yes, Palestine was under Roman occupation. I still don't think that means that Palestine was automatically part of the West. This would be analogous to saying that because India was under the Moghul Empire, largely from Turco-Mongolian origins, it consequently became an extension of Turkey.

Christianity was never an Asian religion until the last century? What of the Syrian Christians in India, who constituted one of the first Christian communities outside of Palestine?

Would replacing Western with Semitic satisfy you? The West has appropriated the Judeo-Christian traditions and concepts as well as Greek philosophy as the fountainhead for western thought

This was my original comment:

I know what you are trying to say here, but "western religion", ie Christianity, is not really western in its origins. Christianity is an "Eastern" religion, seeing that it was born in Palestine. But yes, usually when we think of Christianity, we tend to think of the "West" since Western Christianity is the predominant strand of Christianity that now runs through the globe.

Like I said, don't read the first part of the comment, get all hot and bothered, and then write your response. Calm down, read the entire thing, and then reply.

It seems like you read the first sentence of each comment and then go off.

No I, didn't take off after reading the first comment. I had a problem with "Christianity as an eastern religion" which was in your statement below:

Christianity is an "Eastern" religion, seeing that it was born in Palestine.

Let us leave it at we agree to disagree on this.

I should stop being nice to you to give you credit on certain points, because you certainly don't even take the time to read comments. Don't argue for the sake of arguing.

No, I don't argue for the sake of arguing. My original comment in the thread was in support of GGK.

st. thomas went to india around 52 a.d. according to Wiki. historically thats a pretty significant fact. india is so old man. Pali, Sanskrit, and Tamil are from this Asian Subcontinent; three of the original classical languages. we been doing this for a long time (having language that is). non sequiter? if anyone is a lover of the Asian Subcontinent, isn't it someone who sees the diversity and history of this region. all this history and most of it i don't even know yet. how smart must people who speak Tamil be, their language has continually been used for literature for over 2,0000 years

Conversion is not part of the hindu dharma; because we are accepting of all religions, we find ourselves constant challenged, that our identities as Hindus are not sufficient in Western eyes. You don't see too many evangelical groups on campus trying to figure out how to convert the Muslim students; they know it probably won't work.

I suppose I am little touchy on this issue because I am from a small midwestern town, and many attempts were made to convert me, which always seemed funny since the Indian (hindu) kids in my town were the only ones that ever went to good colleges or did anything with their lives. Still, they got to my kid sister and converted her, and it nearly tore my family apart. The thing that bothers me is not the embracing of Christian teachings; everyone should try to find inspiration wherever they can. It's the necessity of drawing lines, of needing definition and rejection and separation. The idea that any group or cause is the "only way" seems ludicrous to nearly anyone who thinks for themselves; that is why nearly every developed nation with the exception of the United States is heavily secular. Here, we mistake our grotesque levels of material comfort for divinity; the very reason that an Eastern philosophy is totally incompatible with an American lifestyle.

Also, we all know that Sahej is perfectly correct. People who speak Tamil are far smarter than the rest ;)

The idea that someone is born into a religion has always seemed rather silly to me,

Couldnt agree more. Thats why unfortunately some Pakistani born brothers cant take pride in the Harappa-Mohenjodero civilization and the worlds first University of Taxila. Its sad.

as does a notion I have previously read on our comment boards which declares that “white people can be real Hindus.” Religion should be a personal choice.

say what you will but cola is a pretty nice product when you first drink it. our taste buds aren't wrong. but now that we know it leads to obesity people'll drink it less. i find this reluctence to trust el pueblo odd. as a group of humanity, we love a few things. soccer/football, and cola are among them. along with poetry, pop music and hip hop. and dancing. and intercourse. those things should be celebrated as the true love of the people

This would be analogous to saying that because India was under the Moghul Empire, largely from Turco-Mongolian origins, it consequently became an extension of Turkey.

i never said smarter than the rest, i just said its got to make you pretty smart to be reading a language thats been in play for 2,000 years. thats a lot of collected wisdom

Muhammd (salalaho waleho wassalam/peace be upon him) did not cook stories though he was well known for cooking a mean schwarma with hummus.

Incidentaly early muslims prayed towards jerusalem not mecca.

say what you will but cola is a pretty nice product when you first drink it. our taste buds aren't wrong.

Actually our test buds are wrong. Well, again marketing told us that they are wrong and we "bought" it.
PEPSI's Aquafina brand is showing highest growth amongst PEPSI's protfolio of beverages and in a few years will provide more revenue than the Soda products at PEPSI.

Marketing works !!!

marketing is not the reason people like Coca Cola. coca cola is fizzy and has sugar, people like sugar

marketing works for water bottles because people like water. the delivery now is different, in that we pay for it. you're welcome to run a tap and put water in a bottle all you want, but people don't because we're lazy. another thing about people, they're lazy

Marketing works !!!

hinduism is not a religion, it is a sadflasfd! if you disagree with you, that hinduism isn't a sadflasfd, well, you're dumb.

Razb in Post 110:

I did a Google search for sadflasfd and drew a blank. Could you explain to this dumb bloke what "sadflasfd" means?

hinduism is not a religion, it is a sadflasfd! if you disagree with you, that hinduism isn't a sadflasfd, well, you're dumb.

Re #111

Probably some pathetic attempt at humor :(

Razib - You have a point. As long as there's an "it" that one is points to, it does not make a difference whether one labels it religion or xyz. Scholars never fail to remind us that there is no adequate definition of religion - and then promptly proceed to define it themselves (equally inadequately). However, Xtianty, islam and judaism at least recognize themselves in this description. Hindus do not.

Secondly, and more importantly, hindus do not have a belief system that revolves around truth claims. Christianity for example claims that there is a God and his son is Jesus. At a minimum being a Christian means acceptance of Jesus, with certain constraints on what Jesus can be interpreted to mean. Jesus cannot be interpreted to be the son of the devil for example. Hindus do not have any such constraints on interpretation of their stories. Of course they must hold up to some sort of logic or tradition but there is no concept of blasphemy or heresy.

Remember, xtianity and islam were super-imposed upon existing pagan traditions. Hence the similarity between religious and pagan practices. But the similarity is merely superficial. Religion constructed a belief system upon traditions. Hindus do not have a required belief system - not even belief in karma or reincarnation.

Hindus do not have a required belief system - not even belief in karma or reincarnation.

Good to know.. So you can get anyone who doesn't believe in the selfish God (who claims he alone controls heaven) can be captured as Hindus. This is another good marketing strategy.. :-)

I think if you have a good military power and good marketing skills, you can start your own cult / religion..

Bush can try his hand now.. I'd support him. :-)

Or perhaps Razib indeed meant the sort of nuanced thing Divya implies...in which case I apologize. Perhaps just an unfortunate choice of a 'nothing' word -- the 'sad' at the beginning and 'fd' at the end made me suspicious!

hinduism is not a religion, it is a sadflasfd!

We always come back to the question of wtf is Hinduism.

I would define Hinduism as ethnos - a cluster of traditions, practices and identification with cultural motifs informed to a great extent (but not exclusively) by our locality. Belief is secondary, which is not to say that there are not deities or darsanas, temples or orthodox lineages going back thousands of years, but just that such beliefs are not absolutely crucial to the definition. Even within so-called "spiritual" traditions, it is behavior - kindness, charity, the elimination of the subjecive ego, even yogic practice, which takes priority over beliefs in gods or godesses. Hinduism as ethnos is also why several people here have no problems going to church and mosques or being atheists.

Hinduism as a universal faith tradition is still struggling to find expression. Though some organizations, like the Arya Samaj, will convert you into a Hindu, such conversions are still the exception rather than the rule. (This may change in the future.) I believe in South East Asia, where Vaishnava and Shaiva traditions certainly exist, such a culture came into being by the will of the governing elite, rather than by individual conversion, for the most part. I may be wrong.

Ethnos is also community. Brownitude may be ethnos secularized, informed and altered by the ever-transforming tradition.

My two cents...

my point is that we should be instrumentalist in how view these definitions. look at the muslim idiots (as opposed to some muslim non-idiots too) on this comment thread who are arguing that allah's name is allah, not god, and he wants you to call him allah, because that's his name, blah, blah, blah

three issues

a) there are definite issues with how to define hinduism in india, and definite issues with how to define hinduism in the USA. many japanese who arrived to the shores of these united states in the early 20th century had to reorient their world view so that they could understand the point of confessional and congregational religions of choice. they did, and they created the buddhist churches of america. similarly, reform judaism started in germany, and some joke it is basically 'christianity with curly hair.' it is in the USA that reform judaism has flourished. in contrast, in the vast majority of the world the diaspora is either secular or orthodox, no 'middle-way' really arose. my point is that these arguments that 'hinduism is not a religion' are defensible on academic grounds, and might have some relevance in india, the organic matrix in which hinduism developed. but in the USA hinduism is operationally going to live as a confessional religion. or, it will die as a non-religion. pick your poison.

b) by defining the undefinable as undefinable aren't you defining it?

c) if hinudism has no central belief system, if one can not explicitly capture it in words, then i fail to see the point of really talking about it as opposed to practicing it. i also am skeptical that many people who define themselves as hindu would agree with some of the generalizations made on these boards.

finally, some of the attributes you use to define the abrahamisms are not as strong as you might assume. judaism, as it is generally interpreted today, is not a confessional belief-centered faith. much of islam, despite the shahada, does not revolve around formulaic confession. some might argue that christianity's preoccupation with theology is a greek pagan tendency, a syntheses of philosophical systemetization along with the milieu of formula based mystery cult/clubs which pervaded the roman empire circa 300.

USA hinduism is operationally going to live as a confessional religion. or, it will die as a non-religion. pick your poison.

not god, and he wants you to call him allah

Hindus do not have a required belief system - not even belief in karma or reincarnation.

As a hindu, I have practiced Animism(worhiped the sun), Ancester Worship(my grandfather), Atheism(while waiting in line at Tripathi), Monotheism(hindu philosophy) and Polytheism(a God for each holiday). But now mostly I'm an Agostic and feel lost at these multi-deity temples they build in USA. I don't think I'll get reincarnated, only recycled. I've given up caste, astrology, vastu, and other sideshows of hinduism. I eat beef sometimes and feel guilty about it but only because of the fat content. But I identify myself as a hindu. And I rejected all other forms of religion for myself not because they are wrong and their gods are false, but they don't have anything to offer me. I don't buy that I'll go to hell if I don't accept Jesus or Allah. And I have no need for their company or assistance.

If you have good values, community and support system where you live, you wouldn't convert. Those are the lackings evangelists look for in a person as supported by the article covered in the blog. But these are things outside of the religion itself.

Why else would someone convert?

If you have good values, community and support system where you live, you wouldn't convert. Those are the lackings evangelists look for in a person as supported by the article covered in the blog. But these are things outside of the religion itself.

That hits the nail on the head. If you ask me, the thing that's crazy is not that people are converting to Christianity, but that people who are part of an open philosophy like Hinduism feel the neccessity to essentially take a step backwards into a dogmatic religion. If you're going to abandon culture and tradition, at least do it for a good reason like atheism.

A good deal of hindus in US are tied to india. The migration pattern is not some one came here and stayed here. A lot of them go back more frequently for business or R&R.

that's irrelevant to my main point. american hindus are american, not indian, and that is the key issue. i see no reason that the confessionalization and abstraction of hinduism into a more sectarian protestant form won't happen. it happened to roman catholicism, it happened to judaism, and it happened to buddhism (for that matter, it happened to some of the more traditional protestant faiths like lutheranism that came from a religious monopoloy society). all it takes time is for people who were raised in a predominantly hindu society where their way of life was implicit and shared with many to being raised in a pluralistic society where individual beliefs need to be made explicit because if the din of diversity and discord.

i really doubt that hindu americans will ever be as binational as american jews (i hope not!), and even american judaism has shifted into a protestant self-image (aside from the 5% or less who are ultra-orthodox).

good reason

sociology of religion (see stark's work) tells us that most people join religious traditions sharply at variance with their own for social reasons, not intellectual

ones. they will give intellectual rationalizations, but those aren't the real reasons. to give you an example i knew a girl of chinese origin who was raised in a moderate buddhist family. she told me she left buddhism because it was superstitious. since she was a christian i asked her if she really felt that the nicene confession made sense to her. she really didn't have a good idea of what i was talking about, and so i asked, "if you come into a religion with a lot of esoteric philosophy and agree to that without understanding that philosophy, isn't that superstition?" i think i made my point to her, and knowing this person, she obviously needed a support group, and there were reasons she felt like a "black sheep" in her family. christianity made sense for her because of social reasons, not that buddhism was superstitious (though she'll tell other people that 'till the day she dies).

^^ well no at people are lazy. people without running tap water who go to wells are not lazy

_not all_ -- referring to comment #108

GGK:

The turks in turkey were not same group as central asian turks. Babar called himself a called mugul (cause babar didnt like uzbeks...even though he had ancestors who called themselves uzbek) oojbak is still a gali north india, it means wierd and lack of intelligence. The eary moguls were turkish speaking uzbegs. Babar was 'chugtuy turk' racialy he was a different mix than the turks in turkey.

Yes, you are absolutely right in making that distinction. That is why I said "Turco-Mongolian". Turks in present day Turkey are not the same Turks as back then. Babur was not Turk in the present sense but from the region of Samarkand, as you quite rightly point out. So it is inaccurate to say that Babur was the founder of the "Moghul Empire" (I don't think he referred to himself as "Moghul", did he? In his memoirs he says something different).

For those of you who are interested in this topic, Babur's Memoirs, translated by Wheeler Thackston, is very informative.

many japanese who arrived to the shores of these united states in the early 20th century had to reorient their world view so that they could understand the point of confessional and congregational religions of choice. they did, and they created the buddhist churches of america.

But everyone and everybody in this globalized world have oriented themselves to the JC outlook. Hindus talk exactly the same way as Christians. They talk of right and wrong as if they were clear cut categories. They talk of God as if he’s up in the sky. They treat non-violence as a normative value. They seek meaning in texts and let that serve as proof rather than what they can see with their own eyes. When talking about abortion, they take for granted that life begins at some point or the other, which does not even bother to take into consideration the alternate hindu notion that life is cyclic. This automatically becomes a moral issue rather than a practical one. I could go on and on but basically I agree with your point that hindus treat Hinduism exactly like a religion.

But in the last 20 years hindus have woken up to this fact. Besides, there is a genuine interest in understanding their culture. So things will improve. Yoga is certainly helping.

it happened to roman catholicism, it happened to judaism, and it happened to buddhism (for that matter, it happened to some of the more traditional protestant faiths like lutheranism that came from a religious monopoloy society).

And most sadly of all, it happened to the gay community. They’ve adopted the same exact pattern of values and erased a lot of their distinctiveness. Feminists too aspire to fit into the pre-existing framework. But I think this too will change.

Driver-you said previously,

The thing that bothers me is not the embracing of Christian teachings; everyone should try to find inspiration wherever they can. It's the necessity of drawing lines, of needing definition and rejection and separation.

Some say the Bhakti movement/philosophy in Tamil Nadu was influenced by Christianity. Christianity today doesn't resemble what it was in the beginning. The bible has similar stories/parables as Indian puranas.

Any lines and definitions have already been smudged. To insist on drawing new lines between religions and cultures is arrogance. Evangelists are mostly seeking validation for their religion.

i really doubt that hindu americans will ever be as binational as american jews (i hope not!)

30 years ago if there was a large migration that uccored things would have been different.
But pattern is different. The numbers are small almost fixed amount per year.
I dont like to act like a prophet but to me the outcome looks more likely to be a more assimilated hindu(duh!) but not aping of church structure.

[Deleted at the request of the commenter]

but against the powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil and empty philosophies

Regarding Jindal
I dont live in that part of the woods so dont read about day-day politics of the region, but Jindal appears to be an ass kisser.
He 'milked' his religion for all it was worth, had he not done so I would look at him differntly.

They talk of God as if he’s up in the sky.

you should read some cognitive science. 99% of human talks of god as if he's up in the sky because that's what they "reall believe". abstract idea space is malleable, but our cognitive architecture has bounds and our actions are primarily dictated by abstract idea space, and that is what you are "missing" in your analyses. differences on paper matter because of perceptions of differences, as opposed to reality of difference.

ggk,

i think you are missing my point. my point is this: living a society where 80% of the population is "hindu" and "hinduism" has thousands of years of history and is fundamentally a permeating aspect of culture is very different from living in a society where 99% of your fellow citizens are hindu and hinduism is a "new religion" whose values do not necessarily have a transparent direct connection with the "mainstream" culture. the key is to remember that humans have different levels of cognition. on a surface conscious layer i think it is not implausible that american hindus will avow the same beliefs in indian hindus. but, to borrow a phrase, america is the oxygen that american hindus will breath, and that will have an implicit and wide-ranging effect on their interpretation of their religion.

this does not mean an explicit church structure, rather, my prediction is that american hinduism will be

a) more explicit and creedal
b) more socially congregational
c) more personal

these transformations can be seen in orthopraxic religions like judaism in the USA, or in liturgical religions like catholicism. i don't see why it shouldn't happen to hinduism unless hinduism is sui generis. i don't think it is. jews have a connection with israel and catholics with rome, but if you survey the viewpoints of american jews and catholics there is a definite "americanist" tinge which is reflective of a "protestant confessional" mindset.

I have spent much of my life in the midwest (north and central) and come from a lutheran-hindu religous family background. Each time I am "approached" with an evanagelical message I have come to realize that it is an expression of faith for belivers who are still seeking their traditions truth in their own lives- hindu, christian, jewish, catholic, muslim, or jehovah's witnesses ..there is no difference. Through selling "the pitch" to others, they themslves are in the act of vaildating their own faith in the stories by being able compare how it is different (good and bad) from other belief systems. this is why its important then to "..First and foremost...learn as much as possible about Hinduism."

This is quite different however from being invited to social functions, organized by religous groups, simply for the human need to be social with other beings..the brunch after a baptist church service has much the same intent as the dhal, chai and puri stop at the roadside stand after the morning cycle out to the village temples on weekends in santiniketan. I do puja at home, but at the same time, go to church when invited on the holidays because its important for my friends...we also do yoga togther...we "share" activites because aknowledging our different traditions strengthens our unique friendhip bond.

The percived increases of "targeting" particular groups, I feel, is only a partial telling of the entire picture. It is very much a product of the increased frequency of interaction between individuals an increased mobility of populations today than there was 10 years ago, but it is still up to us individually decide if these interactions are threatening or just part of being human.

: living a society where 80% of the population is "hindu" and "hinduism" has thousands of years of history and is fundamentally a permeating aspect of culture is very different from living in a society where 99% of your fellow citizens are hindu and hinduism is a "new religion" whose values do not necessarily have a transparent direct connection with the "mainstream" culture

The scenario you are describing should be looked in the hindus working in middle east context where the culture is very different and accomodations towards hindus is seen differently.

I dont see much evolution in those circumstance so i doubt that i will see it here.
Regarding hinduism being personal...For many it has been for most it hasnt been I dont see any thing coming out there.
Regarding it being more congregational, it happens in india itself as well as here
My family often used to go to a south indian style temple in bridgewater nj, which interestingly made the exact same accomodations that
I saw another south indian temple in vishakhapatnam make for north indians (ie create another mini complex for North indian style
ram,sita,hanuman mandir)...
But certain ritualistic practices are community based and ritual based and dont extend congregations that easily
Aryasamaj it is still comprised of north indian hindus. In aryasamaji practice reading veds is a bigger part and yog practice as well.
So they are not open to increasing congregation size at the expense of ditching reading ved(as).
incidentaly there is 1 arya samaj mandir that that shares its building and with a tibetan org, cause the founder is from manikarn,
HP where similar sharing is done between hindu and tibetan influenced buddhism, but the buildings are on separate floor,
each side is a bit of a spectator on the other sides ritual.
But Its not that off in HP ascetic sadhus were used to stay in buddhist monastaries...Even though a sadhu is more of
a hindu culture than a buddhist culture(where he would have to be a proper monk)...Even Guru Nanak was given accomodation in buddhist monastaries when he traveled in HP region going into tibet proper.
So now if sikh org or a hindu org invites dalai lama, its not being extra congregational in US sense as in india this sort
of thing has been in the flux.

I do however see the role of desi professional/semiproffesional club
eg The Indus Entreprenuer, PunjMech(to be renamed indian Mech and civil),Association of indian physicians etc....
So i do see such orgs becoming a bridge between different groups.
and since for the most part indians being allowed to come here are professionals only so i do see a them playing a bigger part.

And of course you will have some SAsian groups here and there too.

rasudha

Bhakti movement/philosophy in Tamil Nadu was influenced by Christianity

Can you clarify this? Is it it the same thing like some Christian evangelists coming with statements that 'Kural' was a christian document and Valluvar was inspired by the bible. That was one of the most ridiculous assertions. But they make these claims because they know Indian philosophy/culture/tradition can't be as easily shown to be inferior/supertitious compared to Christianity and will backfire with the natives, so it is better to coopt the native traditions as derived from/inspired by Christianity.

if hinudism has no central belief system, if one can not explicitly capture it in words, then i fail to see the point of really talking about it as opposed to practicing it.

Okay.

Om nomo durgaya nomo.

:)

In seriousness, I wonder if you're adequately incorporating both sociological and political/historical lenses of this--though perhaps because I only think this because I didn't fully understand this installment of the Collected Works of Razib ;)

I think I've argued this with you before--it seems like the evolution of "Hinduism" at least since 1757 fits into a modernity/nation-forming framework at least as well as it describes a body of believers or their traditions in religious terms. "Hindoo" was a word of imperial convenience that described all desis and had nothing(?) to do with faith--based largely on generalized notions of "what Indians are like" as far as I know; "Mohammadans" and others were then separated out (thouhg this is probably a key question here--why were they separated out and on what thinking by the Orientalists?) and eventually the remainder--"Hindoos" were given a rather large and incoherent box to put themselves and their diverse traditions in to make coherent into modern "Hinduism". You can still see the vestiges of the two understandings of "Hindu".

Which is not to say there are no common threads among these traditions now...I just wonder how much these commonalities were present prior to the consolidation of identities that happened with the imperialism/colonialism/nationalism/capitalism (or perhaps more gradually over time with different states establishing sovereignty over larger numbers of and more diverse peoples) and how much they were post-1757 innovations.

i also am skeptical that many people who define themselves as hindu would agree with some of the generalizations made on these boards.

As opposed to every other topic that gets discussed here (and elsewhere)? :) Replace "hindu" with any other identity category and you have Saurav's First Law of Internet "Dialogue."

Regardless, there's obviously some notion of identity, now that the identity-formation has happened--that different people apply to their faith or practices or however they understand their religion and call it "Hindu," despite how different it is from mine or the next person or the next person who, in some circumstances, calls themselves "Hindu." Some people don't get this last part, obviously, or are still trapped in the relentless drive to categorize one's self and all around him/her that pervades modernity.

s,

1) you need to push it back before 1757. the late 19th century british censuses had a big impact on 'systematizing' and formalizing hindu & caste self-perception, as did the earlier attempts by the british to find appropriate categories...but it seems pretty clear from the historical record that muslims were boxing and categorizing south asian kaffirs well before the british showed up. they had to, remember that traditional sharia doesn't give much quarter to pagans, so one had to figure out if hindus were basically like pre-islamic arabs, ergo, had to face the sword or the shahada.

2) one can trace particular cultural motifs in south asia all the way back to the indus period. some might contend this is ascertainment bias, that we're looking for commonalities that thread across the centuries, but, i think a good argument can be made that a non-trivial continuity exists. additionally, the genetic and linguistic coherence (roughly speaking) of south asian peoples (indo-aryan speech in the north, dravidian in the south) gives them a sense of identity. from on high it seems clear that a sense of otherness toward mlecchas existed amongst south asian peoples at a relatively early stage, just as chinese & greeks viewed others as barbarians. but there is a class issue here: the typical villager in rural india (or greece or china) probably never encountered these issues because they didn't conceive of them identity in picayune detail. on the other hand, literate administrative & religious classes had to elucidate these differences because to some extent differences between peoples were necessary precondition for their bread & butter.

what i'm saying is

a) brown pan-identity predates the british at the elite level. systemating thinking wasn't invented by europeans, they simply turned in into a science :)

b) hinduism was probably "created" by the muslims who had "name the enemy" more or less (one could argue it was created by the emergence of local converts, "black" muslims, who were ethnically hindu but religious muslim, so that the ethnic reading had to be nuanced)

3) different identities have different distributions of expression and clarity of category. there is less debate about "what is a black american" than "what is a hindu" because the latter is a lot more malleable, but purely about ideas. there are blonde haired blue eyed black americans (by self-definition), but there is an average physical prototype around which a range (variance) exists of a black american. additionally, since being a black american is partly a function of familial history, biological identity, etc., it is somewhat clearer beliefs about a set of beliefs, which are naturally more slippery (e.g., it is weirder to deny that your mother is your mother than to say that 3 = 1 a la trinity, or the other typical religious gibberish-that-passes-as-profundity).

4) history and politics are higher order social processes that are interesting, but most people here have read some history and politics and can understand those biases are aware of them. i'm trying to reiterate that there are cognitive biases and blinders which are relevant to this discourse. divvya's categories and word-games are relevant because humans, especially elite humans, tend to fixate on verbal demarcators and outward markers of difference. they tend to to think that what is said and written is the sum of all existence, that because the bible is written in script and generates a creedal religion while hinduism (despite the vedas, upanashiads) is more distributed in its "canon" (e.g., in place and people as well as book) and not tied to fixed sets of beliefs, that this has a fundamental effect on the worldview of a human, that abrahamic man is on a deep level a different mental creature from non-abrahamic man. my point is that experimental results from cognitive science point to the fact that abrahamic man talks a big game about difference, but that when you get down to it abrahamic man worships the same idol as non-abrahamic man, and that this might be do to the limits of human cognitive architecture (mathematicians talk about higher dimensionalities, but humans can't really imagine 4-space, 5-space, etc.). talk matters, but it isn't everything (people kill each other over words, so i'm not going to dismiss it).

>If you're going to abandon culture and tradition, at least do it for a good reason like atheism.

I don't see why one has to abondon Hinduism as ethnos for the sake of "atheism." Amartya Sen, Debiprasd Chattopadhyaya, and so many others in the modern period identify with Lokayata, which is perfectly materialistic and rational, without reliquishing their Hindu identity. Heck, the founder of Hindutva was not a "believer." This is far more difficult, perhaps irrational even, if you subscribe to a creedal faith, where the basis of the community rests upon shared supernatural beliefs though Jews have been doing so for a long time.

I read that the intelligentsia in India - three out of four - according to Arvind Sharma, subscribe to "Absolutistic Hinduism," which is based upon Advaita Vedanta, though not as dependent upon orthodox tradition.
The basic idea is this: there is a state beyond thought in which the subjective sense of "I" is not present, (making it non-dual),which can be approached through meditative practice, and which is uniquely liberative.

In this admittedly modern formulation, God in the sky has been dismissed or at least marginalized, which is not the case with classical Advaita Vedanta, where Brahman is rendered into relative(saguna) and absloute (nirguna) conceptions. The relative (God as form) must still be approached through Bhakti, and the caste order must be maintained.

So the elite, in any case, have found at least two ways out of the God-in-the sky problem. (And the Absolutistic formulation of Hinduism is under challenge constantly by ppl adhering to different sects, especially ISKCON, the Sri Vaishnava and Madhva sampradeyas, and Saiva Siddhanta.) And everyone else belonging to the ethnos continues on as always, where philosophy has been superimposed onto what is essentially an animistic substrate.

The problem of Hinduism as belief system rests on the definition of creedal boundaries. For the most part its a non-starter and leads to very restrictive definitions (Hinduism is the religion of people who pay allegience to the Vedas, or too wishy washy (Hinduism is a journey and the journey is the goal). In truth, the "creedal boundaries," for lack of a better term, are constantly in flux. For example, there is a move to appropriate the Indus Valley Civilization into the Hindu ethnos (with some justification based on shared cultural practices , and readily identifiable motifs. Buddha (Buddhist thought has a great deal of appeal among many modern Hindus) has similarly been appropriated. The atheistic Sankhya may be the oldest Darsana on the subcontinent, and originally probably very radical, but now its considered an "orthodox." On the other hand, you have some modern Hindu Gurus claiming not to be Hindu at all.

To me, Christianity or Islam is a step backwards, not a step forwards, and that is why conversion should be resisted. Lest anyone misunderstand me - It is as though calculus is banned from high schools and all you learn is geometry and algebra; any such move should be resisted too, and that is the nature of the resistance I mean.

algebra and geometry are easier than calculus. also, for most people they are probably easier.

*sigh* This is getting very contentious. I went to a Catholic university in the US, but didn't really have to deal with anyone wanting to bring me over to the side of Christ. Ironically enough, I got most of that from a handful of British friends who were at high school with me in Karachi.

As far as the Mormons go? I've managed to have sex with three of the seven that have shown up at my door. Not my best rate, but give me time! (I can't resist, something about those Utah boys, ROWR.)

mlecchas existed amongst south asian peoples at a relatively early stage, just as chinese & greeks viewed others as barbarians. but there is a class issue here: the typical villager in rural india (or greece or china) probably never encountered these issues because they didn't conceive of them identity in picayune detail. on the other hand, literate administrative & religious classes had to elucidate these differences because to some extent differences between peoples were necessary precondition for their bread & butt

what i'm saying is

a) brown pan-identity predates the british at the elite level. systemating thinking wasn't invented by europeans, they simply turned in into a science :)

Regardless of what the SA types say during the end of british era the identities had imerged as Muslims and others.
"Islam khatre mein hain" by Jinnah worked cause how the muslims perceive themselves.
Even today inside india this can be seen where muslims dont feel part of india.
In bangladesh the situation is funnier b/c they did not want to be dominated by west pakistanis and wanted a bangla
identity(the same identity they ran away from), and now still are playing mental gymnastic over accepting begali culuture
vs islamic culture.

Any attempt at increasing the congregation size to a larger brown identity doesnt go easy w. many.
as many others have blogged about some on this board may be ok w/ a Sasian label most indians are not
(despite Saarc or what ever geo political games happen back in india or some universities SA/postcolonial studies department)

I havent read any of the previous comments this seems to have somehow veered towards math.

Getting back to the original point of the post - How do you get American Hindus to convert ?

Here are some strategies I offer to the evangalicals:
- Try to make it seem like there isn't much difference between hindusim and christianity.
- Remember most hindus don't know jackshit about hindu philosophy, they are funcunally pantheist. Defeat pantheism using sentimental slogans like "Hindus believe every thing is god. We believe that everything is god's". The main difference between hinduism and christianity is the aphorstope s.
- Target 2nd gen hindus in their teens. (the best time to get them)
- Marry them. Then convert them. Hindus in general are horny this is not as difficult as it sounds. Any hot evangalical women need a soul to save give me a call. (note: must be willing to experiment beyond missionary style)
- Get them interested in running for political office in America.
- Impress them by speaking their language.
- Megachurches are nice.

Strategies you should NOT try:
- Free Stuff: the hindus are cheap bastards (specially gujaratis) and will take whatever you are giving them without converting.
- Free Food: Same as free stuff plus Hinduism has many food taboos.
- Handing out bibles: They usually end up being thrown in the trash.
- Invitations to casual get togethers: Same as free stuff.
- Trying to incorporate hindu motifs into christianity. (this corrupts christianity, and strengthens the pantheist belief of hindus).
- Dress like a crazy homeless person, then stand on the street corner shouting "Jesus Saves".
- Trying to convert the beef-eating-atheist-hindu (unless you are trying to use the seduction strategy I outlined above). He will dazzle you with science and leave you upset and confused.

Keep fighting the forces of Satan. Peace out.

In bangladesh the situation is funnier b/c they did not want to be dominated by west pakistanis and wanted a bangla
identity(the same identity they ran away from), and now still are playing mental gymnastic over accepting begali culuture
vs islamic culture.

Well. How did Islam spread in Bangladesh. i would contend that the majority of the current Bangladshis are descendants of people who were on the margins of Hinduism - semi-Hinduized tribals and others not fully settled into the jati structure that is common throughout the subcontinent. See Richard Eaton's pathbreaking work on the spread of Islam in Bengal.

I read that the intelligentsia in India - three out of four - according to Arvind Sharma, subscribe to "Absolutistic Hinduism," which is based upon Advaita Vedanta, though not as dependent upon orthodox tradition.

Regarding the origin of the word "Hindu", I believe Razib is correct; the term pre-dates European arrival in the subcontinent by many centuries and was derived from a Persian term referring to everyone in India who lived east of the River Indus (ie. Sindhu).

Also, in point #4 of post 138, my friend Razib has (unintentionally) actually described the Sikh view on God, in relation to the limits of Man's cognitive abilities in this regard. In fact, Sikh teachings explicitly state that, beyond a certain point, a person who claims to able to accurately "pidgeonhole" the nature of God is a liar.

Speaking from an objective perspective, this makes sense to me too. It would be extremely arrogant for a person to be able to claim to know (and/or accurately predict) the "mind of God", considering that the difference between Man and God would be like the difference between an amoeba and Einstein, but extrapolated to infinity. The former refers particularly to individuals who perpetuate negative behaviours (especially towards other people) while claiming that "This is what God wants" etc. You get the idea.

This is especially pertinent in the case of excessively anthropomorphosizing God’s “personality” by ascribing certain negative human behavioural traits (eg. Anger, hatred, jealousy, vengefulness etc) to such an entity; even more so when, bearing in mind “hard science” issues such as advanced physics on both a macro and micro level, one considers the sheer complexity, size, and age of the universe, and the staggering difference in scale that must exist between us and a being which would have the capacity and awareness to create, “run”, and permeate the universe and everything within it to this degree.

Following on from this, since we're comparing Abrahamic & non-Abrahamic faiths, another difference is the fact that in the latter (at least in the case of faiths originating in the subcontinent), all the answers are not handed to the adherent on a silver platter, ie. there is room in the theology for the unknown. This also overlaps with the concept that the adherent must make some effort himself/herself too in order to find out the “truth” and gain an awareness of God & spirituality directly, rather than simply blindly believing whatever is written within their respective holy book, overemphasising academic, theoretical, scholarly "knowledge" in religious matters, and/or essentially taking someone else’s word for it (ie. the writer(s) of the scripture(s)). This does make a significant difference to a person’s views on spirituality – and, indeed, their attitude to people of other faiths.

Well. How did Islam spread in Bangladesh. i would contend that the majority of the current Bangladshis are descendants of people who were on the margins of Hinduism - semi-Hinduized tribals and others not fully settled into the jati structure that is common throughout the subcontinent. See Richard Eaton's pathbreaking work on the spread of Islam in Bengal.

different identities have different distributions of expression and clarity of category. there is less debate about "what is a black american" than "what is a hindu" because the latter is a lot more malleable, but purely about ideas.

Aha! But here's my point--do the chracter of the term ("purely about ideas", "malleable") come about because the process of identity formation here was an attempt to take a vast range of people and groups and put them all into one category without common points? Incidentally, if anyone can recommend a good scholarly book on identity formation, i might be interested.

systemating thinking wasn't invented by europeans, they simply turned in into a science :)

Yes, Aristotle and all those other pre-Enlightenment folks--including many non-"Westerners"--whom I don't know about either because they didn't teach me about them or their work was lost. My point is simply to ask to what extent the intersection of state power and systematic thinking made the term and the "faith" of Hinduism and to what extent it was something that developed more organically and has a more internal and organic meaning today (i.e. "grew" out of some shared sensibilities or something) than one that was caused by external forces (definition) and then people in the community responded by trying to make it make sense, in varying ways.

Regardless of who started it (or where we attribute the starting point), the question still remains to what extent an understanding of contemporary "Hinduism" and "Hindu" identity can be understood without looking at the process by which the hypothetical faith (community) and identity were formed. It may have preceded the British, though certain elements of that process were very strongly implemented under British rule--census, control over the entirety of South Asia, generally the attempt to learn, categorize and taxonomize South Asians, etc. on a much broader scale by an external power with concrete ideas about hte world and how to divide it up.

Regarding the origin of the word "Hindu", I believe Razib is correct; the term pre-dates European arrival in the subcontinent by many centuries and was derived from a Persian term referring to everyone in India who lived east of the River Indus (ie. Sindhu).

It's not the origin of the term that's at issue. It's the extent to which the term has a meaning as a member of a religious community rather than simply being geographical (or nationalistic) and how that came to be. Maybe someone who's studying pre-modern South Asian history can elucidate :)

[Deleted at the request of the commenter]

I do feel that identifying oneself with a particular faith requires the prequisite of geographic affiliation. Yet, a friend of mine who is borderline atheist revealed to me once that the reason he has no "faith" is because none of the religous texts he has read relate to his personal experience of what he terms the "truth of today". His logic is based on two things: 1) the idea that these books are historical records of the various communities relationships with the divine as revealed (and later modified) with their interaction in the physical and ideological enviornments they pass through and 2) his aversion to letting any of that historical "baggage" lay claim to who he feels he is today.

In his rejection of all these collected understandings of what is and is not "divine" (right, true, real..ect...) he puts more value in his individual percpetion of the poli and sets his life "policies" according to how he feels he will benefit the most. But the crux of all politics is that nations and their constituent communties are cycling in and out of dominance..once you set a thought someone else has a counter to it,and to make that thought.. you used resources that someone else could have used.In my conversations with him I get the feeling he sees religous affiliation as some sort of salve for human conciousness..an explananation for the tension we feel between our ID/EGO.

"..my point is that experimental results from cognitive science point to the fact that abrahamic man talks a big game about difference, but that when you get down to it abrahamic man worships the same idol as non-abrahamic man, and that this might be do to the limits of human cognitive architecture.."

Civilizations who have existed in asia have a longer track record of physicial interaction with other groups than I think most western civilizations (east of the urals) have..despite their lust to paint pictures with a thousand words..westerner's don't get out of their suburban bubbles very much individually and experience "otherness" relative to their daily experience. To survive as a people..a de-emphasis of individual thought governing every day decision making has enabled the survial of "non-abrahamic" folks during their eurasian migrations....this could have polarized their ID/EGO policies cocnerning decsion making opposite those of my atheist friend.

Maybe its the need to have a "comfortable/recognizable balance" between our ID/EGO in our eveyday decision making that feeds a religous affiliation ontop of geographic...that despite living in a community of loners our awareness of this difference is not unfounded..

It's not the origin of the term that's at issue. It's the extent to which the term has a meaning as a member of a religious community rather than simply being geographical (or nationalistic) and how that came to be. Maybe someone who's studying pre-modern South Asian history can elucidate :)

extent is a function of modernity. preliterate agriculturalists in bengal, whether muslim or hindu, shared a lot in terms of their environment and folk-ways, and so operational syncretism was the order of the day no matter the labels. but once extracted from this situation and placed in more turbulent contexts, drilled in literate methods of categorization and systemetization, and a rise in post-village identities because you don't live in the village anymore, you get a gulf between hindu and muslim. i don't think this is a function of just the text (now that muslims can read commentaries on shariah they see that they should ostracize their hindu neighbors as dirty kufirs), but a tendency of 'mass society' to great mega-tribes around a few easy to remember codas or formulaes and outward markers.

preliterate agriculturalists in bengal, whether muslim or hindu, shared a lot in terms of their environment and folk-ways, and so operational syncretism was the order of the day no matter the labels.

this is probably true, but I wouldn't go too far with this (as some well-meaning historians looking for peace on the subcontinent are inclined to do), for while in the Hindu framework heresy is for all practical purposes nonexistent, apostasy - the complete abandonment of the frameork, has certainly been taken very seriously. And this, I would guess, applied as much in the 14th century as it does today.

eddie,

but it wouldn't be apostasy if you still aceded to the same verbal cues and accepted ritual marker differences. my point is simply that the atomization of 'modern' and urban life seems to have a tendency to cyrstalize and sharpen differences bretween putative 'world religions.' you can see the process in south asia and southeast asia, as well as china (see the relationship of the hui to the han majority).

to be clearer: the difference between a 'hindu' and 'muslim' is to some extent an explicit distinction based on different worldviews and outward ritual markers which are publically and consciously enacted. but basal 'religiosity' is more implicit, cross-cultural cognitive anthropology suggests that no matter the verbal-philosophical model of god(s) promoted by the elites the same general features seem to be internalized about the supernatural agents no matter the verbal profession (e.g., christians generally acede to some pretty sophisticated greek philosophy re: essences, substances and natures re: the trinity, but operationally it seems that they imagine the same sort of god-beings as jews, muslims, hindus,e tc.). in a rural preliterate village implicit basal religiosity plays a larger role for a variety of reasons. when one moves to the modern urban context explicit religious coda, formula and ritual markers loom larger, and it is in this realm that religious difference and perception of communal identity are clearest.

Saurav,

It's not the origin of the term that's at issue. It's the extent to which the term has a meaning as a member of a religious community

Well, Guru Nanak famously said "There is no Hindu, no Muslim" when he began his mission in earnest, so the formal "labelling" of the group in a religious sense is 500 years old at least. But yes, you're right in saying that someone with greater academic knowledge of South Asian history would be the best person to discuss the course of events in this regard.

Christian's do perceive evangelization as a battle but the enemy is not the Hindu, the Jew, or the Moslem-- the struggle is not against flesh or blood, but against the powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil and empty philosophies that take people captive. It is a polarizin

Ok Rano Matthews is baiting
He just asked me to turn the flame on.
Shall I resist the temptation to go broader and flame his entire group from india or shall I flame him only
Just in case if you wanna know who his group is,
you know its the one that takes western first names as both first and last name often sticks with hindu first names(damn! from that evil philosophy)}

Or may be I should just wait till next time if such a person comes nearby with the C intention.

I will create a cool and calculated scene...
I got to get a lighter and keep it w/ me and just make a note of where the toilet is(cause you never know when
such assholes will sneak up on you).

I will show interest only to the point of obtaining literature in my hand, once from their i will run the show.
I will take his literature and light it on fire, or flush it the toilet or urinate on it and say it with a
loud and boastful tone while flexing my muscle and taking the bull stance "dude/duddette" "I love you. Its not u i hate but your hate of my spiritual force coming from my evil and empty philosophy." and then rip out my 80s mp3 collection and play "love is a battlefield"
and just remind him dude my ancestors fought the portuegese catholics over conversion tactics vile and venal. We lost for a while running into the western ghats, but came back with a vengence...Its time to do something similar.

but basal 'religiosity' is more implicit, cross-cultural cognitive anthropology suggests that no matter the verbal-philosophical model of god(s) promoted by the elites the same general features seem to be internalized about the supernatural agents no matter the verbal profession (e.g., christians generally acede to some pretty sophisticated greek philosophy re: essences, substances and natures re: the trinity, but operationally it seems that they imagine the same sort of god-beings as jews, muslims, hindus,e tc.).

Razib,

I always felt that if there was a primordial religion, it would be some variant of animism, in which supernatural agents are imbricated in the natural environoment, rather than abstracted and disembodied into the "God-in-the-sky," (thats what we seem to be calling it on this thread anyway). Does that reconcile with cognitive anthropology?

Well, Guru Nanak famously said "There is no Hindu, no Muslim" when he began his mission in earnest, so the formal "labelling" of the group in a religious sense is 500 years old at least. But yes, you're right in saying that someone with greater academic knowledge of South Asian history would be the best person to discuss the course of events in this regard.

Not to offend you, but, got a citation for that? I believe the sentiment behind it, given the origins of Sikhism, but I usually take all quotes from Jesus, Buddha, Guru Nanak, etc. with a grain of salt :)

Saurav,

i totally know where you're coming from, but that sounds hilarious...its like asking, you got a citation for that crazy little thing called the Sermon on the Mount?

still i get where you're coming from

much love!

Sorry, didn't provide the answer,

other people more versed in Sikhi should answer but i believe the phrase Jai refers to is referenced in the Janam Sahkis. Its one of the more-cited phrases in the Sikh religion

much love

Sahej said :

i totally know where you're coming from, but that sounds hilarious...its like asking, you got a citation for that crazy little thing called the Sermon on the Mount?

Actually I do: Matthew Chapters 5-7
:)

Saurav,

Not to offend you, but, got a citation for that? I believe the sentiment behind it, given the origins of Sikhism, but I usually take all quotes from Jesus, Buddha, Guru Nanak, etc. with a grain of salt :)

Sahej has correctly answered your question regarding the origin of that quote. However, it should be mentioned that, with regards to the Guru Granth Sahib (the Janam Sakhis are not a part of this), the Sikh Gurus wrote the scriptures themselves (ie. they were not compiled by third-parties and, unlike some other holy books belonging to other religions, they are not biographical accounts of their lives or, on the whole, descriptions of alleged historical events). Guru Nanak's own writings are also included in the texts. The Guru Granth Sahib should be the first point of reference for anyone looking for "quotes" by the Gurus, as it is the most authentic source of their teachings and the final version was collated and authorised by Guru Gobind Singh himself.

However, canonical biographies of the Gurus' lives do exist in the form of the "Sakhis", and summaries can be found here (at least for the first 9 Gurus).

Quick addendum to my previous post:

Some other quotes and explanations of writings by the Sikh Gurus are detailed here.

Rather Interesting observation here. During my time in Australia as a student, many times the JW's turned up at my door on saturday mornings... Nice people.. pretty whitewashed with their own ideals of saving the world thru the one and only salvation of Jesus Christ. Good Idea. Their motivation is pretty strong. Behind that smile of theirs, lies an idea of saving this heathen behind the doors from the fire of hell.

Fine.

I kinda noticed that even in Australian campuses, the christian outreach is very active.(90% of Aussies are non believers)but this small majority shows up everywhere like a full blown puffer fish. I have witnessed Indian exchange students converting to christianity. All I can afford to do is smile. For each will find their own place of peace. It a miracle how the cosmic energy worls the mind. Then the horror starts, they start befriending you just to pull you into their new found glory. Everyday without fail they would come with that little gideons in their hands and explaining the torture that is waiting for me. They way their preachers stunted their mind with all these horror stories would put clive barker to shame. Trust me on this.

Everyday, I would face Paul Saminathan and Alexander Prasad ( check their names out)in the canteen talking to chinese and indian students. Soon their number grown in size.. and for a few hindus like me... it didnt matter. What was my action??? I did the inevitable. During my semester break... i had 2 versions of the bible in my room and i wanted to study and see whats its all about. THE KJV and RSV. I realised, something is very very ackward about this hold thing. Being a business student with science background, i cannot help to notice that Joshua could kill 50,000 heathens using the jawbone of an Ass... and god (whatever it is .. no christians have a clear idea who it is) held the sun still for 3 days so Joshua could kill kill kill. Bahhahahhha...

I completed the entire bible in 1 week. Front to the back and all over again. And I asked Paul about the validity of the calim made in Joshua. To my shock, he actually believed in it.. and the funy thing.. he never believed that man ever walked on the moon. It is all a lie made by atheists to disillusion the mind of the children of christ. Thats it.

I took them personally this time. The JW's came in and i invited them asked them many many questions that I have bookmarked in BOTH bibles. Funny how they had this blank look in their face" Show me where it is written in the bible.. I shall get back to you after consulting our head pastor".. they never got back. I would walk past by Coles supermarket every sunday morning and could see the look in their faces.. I would go near and cough " BullShit" loudly. Albert, my room mate ( an expired catholic) was instrumental in teaching me the bible.

As for Paul and Alex, they are now pastors i think.. somewhere in Toowong. they never went back to India.

And for a Malaysian like me, I am kinda glad, that I am free to do whatever I like, as long as I do not harm any living beings or hurting anything with or without my knowledge. I have no fear of hell fire, because simply i do not believe in the garbage that is spewed by self appointed sons and prophets of god or gods. Everything has a reason. ANd thats how the world works the way it wants to without our intervention.

There is an old saying, " it is no use trying to defend yourself from a attacking army, but what is useful is how you can best prepare your own self to face the attack" Let the world decide. We keep our horses tied and ready.

Regarding the origin of the word "Hindu", I believe Razib is correct; the term pre-dates European arrival in the subcontinent by many centuries and was derived from a Persian term referring to everyone in India who lived east of the River Indus (ie. Sindhu).

Err.. no its wrong. Whitemans account of the origin of hinduism is flawed as much as their Aryan Invasion theory. Persians never gave the name Hindu because there are people living on the otherside of the indus river bank. They Aryan invasion never took place as much as they would want to claim it. Aryavardhanam is a place stated in the vedas where it all took place. The seed of the civlization in india. It is no more there today.

A hindu is a person who believes in the first and most important rule of vedantic belief, that every soul is part and parcel of the cosmic energy. I would not use the the term "GOD" Because God is a wholesome humanlike character filled with all the emotions of a human being.

Hindu or Inthu are specifically used in the vedas, meaning "Atman". The inner Inthu or atman is what makes a person a Hindu by definition. Hindus believe that. the term is probably used thousand years before any kind of invasion took place in india.

I got all this from a learned person who happens to be neurosurgeon and a practicing vedantist. Also sources from Dr. Parthasarathy's book on vedantism.

oohhh burn on me!