*jaw dropping*

How do you get to be stupid enough to put this in writing?

further evidence, that if you can't conduct yourself well, emails have a really bad habit of resurfacing and biting you in the ass...

You guys are assuming that Rae Hart Anderson wouldn't want this stuff public. I think you misunderstand the evangelical mindset. It's likely that, as far as she's concerned, the ensuing tamasha is an opportunity to preach salvation through Jesus Christ. Wish for the best, indeed.

To get a sermon is definitely a surprise,” Chaudhary told WCCO. (Perhaps he should write back: “Tat tvam asi, Rae!”)

Hellz yeah. But I agree with bidismoker: There is nothing scandalous or unusual about this; many of us grew up with this.

Argh - I grew up there (actually lived in Shoreview where Anderson lives) and am reminded of why I left.

As a Christian who married a Hindu this kind of thing annoys me. I can remember a sermon once in which the pastor quoted Gandhi something to the effect of "I have no problem with Christ, it's the behavior of Christians that's the problem".

She definitely wants this publicized and made public. It appears that this woman is merely pandering to her constituents. I am sure she believes that she is being sincere, the tone of the letter comes off a bit smug and self-serving. Religious conversion is a personal issue and should not be coerced or flaunted. Actions speak louder than words and in my opinion letters, handouts, etc are relatively ineffective in terms of conversions. Christ himself cautions against overtly public and ostentious displays at least in terms of prayer.

Live and let live. If someone asks you about your religion fine, but don't shove it in their face.

There’s nothing like belonging to Christ…not winning, not money, not degrees…it’s the best.

Good wishes and better wishes…until you wish for the best!

Such mawkishness....yuk!
They need something like the bad sex writing award for spiritual stuff too.

this country needs a (viable) third party, desperately.
a libertarian party.

I'm from the midwest and have been subjected to some form of this bullshit continuously for the last 20 years. As soon as they figure out that you are smart, more educated and have a brighter future, they immediately set in with the whole "save the savage" angle. Brown people can't catch a break.

Easy with the hating on Minnesota -- don't forget who actually *won* this race! (And some other fantastic folks have been elected in Minnesota -- Mee Moua and Mark Ritchie, for example, and of course a few years back the late Paul Wellstone.)

My experience in the Midwest wasn't anything like that at all. And don't lull yourself into thinking that we are somehow immune from this kind of thing on the coasts....

Minnesota's former Governor's comment on religion comes to mind...

Wow. That is my only reaction. I think she should be pained to think that a non-xian is actually being her "ruler", her "king", who is being forced upon her because of democracy. If she has her way, she would amend the constitution to the affect that only xians can run for office. Hmm, about xian variation of jijia tax?

It annoys me to great length that whenever I meet a xian, that he might be thinking of saving me and when I meet a muslim that he might be thinking that I am a kafir. Enough of these insults already.

I wanna say what Abhishek says in Sarkar - "Mein tumhara bhagwan pe viswaas nahi karta"

those who can only see darkness in others from which they want to save them will never see the light.

Prey.

Thanks for the Jesse Ventura link, an honest politician there!

Who will Jesus condescend to today?

Who will Jesus condescend to today?

:-D . That was hilarious.

My Dad always tells me this story about how when he first came to the states (for grad school) he ended up in the south. The year that he started his program, they rounded up all of the Indian graduate students and tried to covert them to Christianity. I guess some things never change.

my answer to all these people has always been:

Your God, being omniscient and all, still put me in a Hindu family knowing that I would never convert...what does that say to you about your God/religion etc.

this usually baffles people enough to keep em quiet. It doesn't hurt that I can quote the Bible back to them when challenged :P

a side note: did you know that the text "John 3:16" is printed on the bottom of Forever 21 shopping bags. Because the owner is religious. So religious infact, that he wants young girls to show off as much of their God-given bodies as possible, in slutty slutty clothing (I love this store :P, but I always refuse to take the bag)

Honestly guys, is this such a big deal?

I don't exactly have the same perspective, being Catholic, but why does this admittedly irritating phenomena have to be anything other than a low-level annoyance?

Unless the same person keeps bugging you after you've made it clear you're not interested, just consider it part of the background noise of society. I wouldn't make massive generalizations based on it like "she would amend the Constitution" or "they think we're savages."

This email just seems like an overenthusiastic, pushy woman doing a little evangelizing in a private email to someone she never expects to see again. Just smile, nod, and move on.

CS

OMHG!!!(Oh my heathen God) Ignorant fool and one HELL of a sore loser!!! The thing about the US is that many Americans don’t want to learn about other religions or learn to swallow the fact that the concept of religious tolerance exists. My sob story for being a hated hindu.... I was chatting with a colleague and in response to a statement I said "You have my word on that", his response was, "Why would I trust your word when you aren’t a Christian." I usually would not dignify that with a reply, but I was shocked, you don’t usually get this shit in diverse DC, so I replied, "So you don’t think my word is worth much because I pray to god and not his son." And yes, it was wrong but it made me feel better!!!
Overall people like that aren’t really doing the work of god; Mr. Anderson had better come up with a good excuse to explain his behavior when he meets his maker.

Kenyandesi - never noticed that about the Forever 21 shopping bags! Jesus would be pissed to be associated with cheap, poorly-finished, trendy, revealing clothing (much as I LOOOVE that store ;)

Remember that Britney Spears was evangelical too...and Jessica Simpson started out as a Christian singer.

ooppss, Sorry Ms Anderson!

did you know that the text "John 3:16" is printed on the bottom of Forever 21 shopping bags. Because the owner is religious.

I'm sure Jesus told him to put Asian and Latina women and girls in sweatshops to work all day for hardly any money.

The burger joint In-N-Out also prints Bible verses on its cups and wrappers.

Monotheism is the problem.
If you are an honest/true believer in one of the Abrahamic faiths, you have no option but to proselytize. And to crow about the superiority of your god/prophet etc.

CS:

It would be just a minor annoyance because you dont have to feel and re-live the indifference that I do, when someone would insinuate that you are praying to a 'false god' or that that 'many gods doesnt make sense' etc. When someone says, "I dont want my daughter to marry a muslim, but if she likes a hindu boy, then it would be great if he goes to church also. About you *name*, you are a good man, I will pray for you, because I dont want you not to go to heaven just because you dont believe in jesus".

Come on seriously, are these people for real?

I guess this was what she thought was meant by losing "with grace". ;)

The burger joint In-N-Out also prints Bible verses

I would totally forgive them because they got such good taste in making fresh cut fries.. yumyum :)) Also, their minimum wage policy is unmatched by any other fast food joint.

Honestly guys, is this such a big deal?

Yeah it kindda is.

What she's basically saying is, "you may have won this race, but you're going to hell so nyeah nyeahnyeah nyeah nyeah!" it reeks of being a sore looser, and just like we don't allow this kind of attitude/behaviour on a sports field, it shouldn't be part of any civilized exchange between people.

I have no issue if I'm going through a tough time if anyone of any religion says "I'm praying for you", but it's very different from praying for my salvation/soul...I had a French teacher who would spend half of class time everyday praying for my and my Catholic friend's souls (She believed Catholics were going to hell too). There was a girl who lived across the hall from me freshman year who had a prayer list by her bed. I was often on it (for the salvation of my soul, not because I was having a tough time)...

I have come to a point where I can ignore these kinds of people, but if I was to be put in a position where I had to listen to this kind of condescending drivel all the time (like in highschool) I'm not likely to be quiet about my discontent :P

What she's basically saying is, "you may have won this race, but you're going to hell so nyeah nyeahnyeah nyeah nyeah!" it reeks of being a sore looser

Exactly. Good old traditional MN passive-aggressiveness.

"You won the race, and that makes you petty because Jesus is what matters, not the race or your superior intelligence, etc."

If I was Satveer, I'd send back a reply:

Thank you for your concern about the state of my afterlife. At this time however, it seems that God, yours if you insist, has decided that my time should be spent taking care of the state. Here's wishing you lots of luck finding constructive things to do with all your spare time.

I think we should all be thoughtful and pitch in to send her one of those "What Would Krisha Do?" t-shirts. ;)

"What Would Krisha Do?" t-shirts. ;)

honestly, even a WWJD shirt would do, because like someone else mentioned, Jesus surely wouldn't behave so badly...just his followers need reminding of that occasionally (as we all do :P

Craig Thompson’s Blanket comes to mind.

Lonely kid raised in a strict evangelical family in the Midwest. Tries really hard to follow the scriptures. It all comes crashing down when he realizes that it is possible to have more than one interpretation of the Bible, due to complexities of translating from Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek etc.

The book is, among other things, a fair and compassionate portrayal of this culture. Worth checking out.

what a crappy conciliatory letter. definitely a sore loser.

what i don't understand about minnesota is the how such disparate strands of political ideology co-exist prominently. there's anderson types and then there is the whole wellstone camp. it makes no sense to me!

"He died for the sins of the world, yours and mine"

This has always been a point of contention for me. How can it make sense, both spiritually and logically, that a being could exonerate another's transgressions or 'sins'? Would it be acceptable for an innocent individual to stand in lieu of a guilty person in a court of law in this realm? How is that just and fair?

Jesus surely wouldn't behave so badly

True, true. Y'know, I think someone should remind her that Jesus was not a good Christian, he was a nice Jewish boy.

Imaginary absurd convesation:

Random Guy: Hey there, Jesus

Jesus: What's up, Dude?

Random Guy: Hey, I was wondering...um, have you noticed Jesus for yourself at any point in your life?

Jesus (confused): Um, I looked in the mirror this morning.

Random Guy: I mean have you REALLY and SERIOUSLY noticed Jesus for yourself?

Jesus: Do I have something on my face?

Random Guy: No, I mean...

Jesus: 'Cause I just ate a mallowmar. Do I have chocolate or something on my face?

Random Guy: No. Listen, I just want to make sure that you have accepted Jesus..I mean yourself..I mean Jesus, you, know as your Lord and Savior and everything.

Jesus: Uh. Ok.

Oh that cheeky Jesus! ;)

Since as some would have it here, I am genetically inclined to call most of you kaffirs, being a Muslim, I have a question thats not directly related to the post but indirectly related.

Do some of you have problems with this kid of comment due to the let's say simple rudeness and the implications of the comment only? Or is that many of you don't hold your own inherited religous beliefs strongly or don't care much about the varied theologies of Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism? (I focus on Hinduism because it seems like most people responding are Hindu)

Being Muslim, when I have encountered a situation like this, I usually say something about the Trinity not being coherent and other theological arguments which gets them angry or introspective.Most Hindu cats I know don't seem to really be concerned with their religion. The only Hindus I knew that consistently went to temple were Guyanese and Trini. Would it be accurate for me to say that most of you range from secular to agnostic to athiest? Also, most of you don't know the theology of religio/philosophical ideas of Hinduism well enough to debate?

I hope my tone doesn't come off as arrogant but I couldnt think of a better way to word what Im thinking.

Would it be accurate for me to say that most of you range from secular to agnostic to athiest?

This is probably only somewhat accurate as a whole. Speaking for myself, it is wholly accurate. Its a nice feature that allows us secular, thinking people to not go around blowing ourselves and others up in the name of a fairy tale.

SemiDesiMasala

I'd be totally suprised if she knew that Jesus was not only Jewish (but also a rabbi).

Anyways, here's a really funny story about the lack of knowledge that he was Jewish (and a rabbi to boot). There is an English Prof who gives (at least 10 years ago was giving) amazing tours of the Chartres church in France. He has spent his life studying the church and writing about and also creating documentaries about it. He told us that on one of the documentaries on Channel 4 in UK, he talks about Jesus' background including the fact he was jewish (and all the jewish stuff that is in Christainity including the fact that early christians had to get circumcized to convert to Christianity and obviously why this custom was quickly dropped with great relief to all the men converting over).

So after this particular documentary aired, the TV channel was flooded with calls about "the nonsense of Jesus being a Jew and what an idiot that person on the documentary was!!!!!

sp

As a born and raised Minnesotan Hindu who is just now getting out and about the rest of this country, I am glad that Satveer is making such a good example of a Hindu who is engaged in the civic processes of his community, rather than just critiquing how messed up the US, American and/or basic Western culture is.

I am learning that regardless of your faith, others will always try to pull you down when they are jealous of how they perceive your position in the community relative to theirs. There is a difference between being a civic individual and being one who finger points to get attention. Most of us unfortunately fall into the second category, and are folks who (like Kenyandesi keeps alluding to) can’t let misguided venting of the ignorant pass…

It is a problem. Plain and simple. When someone constantly is telling you throughout your childhood that you are going to hell, that you and everyone in your family and everyone that looks like you is a sinner, is doomed etc. then it is a pretty big f****** deal.

I agree. It absolutely crushed my feelings when a high school "friend" once told me that it was impossible for me to be biracial and that I had to "pick" either my American side or my Indian side and that he thought I should pick the American side because if I chose to embrace being Indian (and in my case also learn about Hinduism), I would go straight to hell. He also firmly believed that Gandhi was going to hell because he wasn't a christian. He was completely ignorant. He also tried to convince my biology teacher that the male skeleton has a rib missing on one side because the rib was taken to make eve.

It made me angry and things like that certainly still hurt my feelings but I've sort of accepted that there are a great many people like that in this world and I will have to put up with them from time to time.

Ghazali:

I am well aware of the nuances of my religion (the differences of various school of thoughts, etc), but I dont have time/patience/desire to debate with a stranger. In other words, I dont need to prove that I am superior because I am not taught to believe that other faiths are inferior.

To give a crude/nonreharsed example: Supposed you sneezed (due to dust) on subway and someone offered you cold medicine when you know you're not cold, do you hold your next sneeze just to prove that you dont have cold? When I am not willing to accept an assumption at a "base/bodily" level, how do you make an assumption about my spiritual level?

Comprehendo?

"couldn't fathom that there was a whole world where non-Christian people lived without spontaneously combusting due to the weight of their sin."

chuckle.:)

I have no problem with the e-mail, other than I disagree with the contents. I'd feel the same way if Ms. Anderson asked Mr. Chaudury to become an enviromentalist. But of course, the prevailing opinion is that religion is a private matter and should not be part of the public discourse. I disagee. Religion is a public matter and should be up for debate just like every other subject. Many great politicians, like MLK and Reagan, tryed to impose their religious beliefs on others. As gandhi, who i ususally don't agree with, once said...if you don't think religion is political, you understand neither. (i can't find this quote on the web so maybe i'm wrong)

He also tried to convince my biology teacher that the male skeleton has a rib missing on one side because the rib was taken to make eve.

Sakshi,

But the rib should be missing only in Adam's skeleton, no?

;) his reasoning skills were in need of improvement. (wink wink)

Sonya,

So after this particular documentary aired, the TV channel was flooded with calls about "the nonsense of Jesus being a Jew and what an idiot that person on the documentary was!!!!!

That is HI-larious!!! They don't seem to get the absudity that if Jesus was Christian, he would be worshiping himself!! Funny. :)

Comprehendo?

Wow! This IS amazing. The she thinks its an acceptable way to respond. That some evangelizing sounds good. That evangelizing is the appropriate civic response when its time to concede. And if winning here is not important was was she, pray, in the race to begin with?

CS,
Yes it is a big deal because it points to a fundamental difference in which religions permit their followers to behave. As Kritic points out, Abrahamic faiths by default require evangelizing, if not outright proselytization and conversion, because they are monopolistic. There's only one right answer and followers are encouraged to act based on that belief. Hence this drivel about 'save the heathens', or 'kill the infidel', or unsolicited praying etc. are not just inconsequential noise, it often sets core state polity at a very deep level - observe throughout the last 2000yrs. Also, the monopolistic claim to 'right-ness' allows followers to interpret any behaviors (such as the drivel above) as permissive and true to faith. Quite simply, what you call noise is a symtom of basic intolerance. It may just be a crap email now, it was once the basis of inquisitions and crusades. This is why its a big deal.

Ghazali,
Prasad's post #43 basically states what I feel. If indeed your inquiry is honest, following is what I think:
Reading your post, I interpret as being written from the baseline of how you read/see/follow your faith. Because Hinduism is pluralist, and sees the world as 'there is one truth, sages see it in different ways', I see your question coming from perhaps following your faith from one definitive source, with more or less literal interpretation (I could be wrong, but its based on my experience on friendships with self-described devout Muslims). Not decreeing the correctness of only one specific thing/concept/writing like in Islam does not mean a dilution of belief or indiffernce towards faith in Hinduism. Since Hinduism readily recognizes the possibility of multiple paths, and indeed umbreallas many variant paths itself, requires no more than benign indifference toward other paths from its followers. As Hindu, I really don't care much about varied theologis of the various religions, or even within Hinduism. I am simply content to follow the path within it that makes sense to me WITHOUT evangelist onslaught, and believe such is the right of every other person. If I have interest in learning about other thoughts, it does not make me any less of a follower of Hinduism.

Going to Temple is another thing - going to the Mosque or Church is clearly of more import to the respective religions. Temples are important, but not AS important. A Hindu can have a shrine if he/she pleases, inside their home, or car, or whatever. Or not at all. Physical expression has no relationship to inner feeling of faith unlike some other religions.

By 'most of you' do you mean people on this board, or Hindus in general? There are like a billion Hindus give or take so most would mean about 1/2 a billion. I'm pretty sure the majority of Hindus would be able to debate the practical theology of their religion. I say practical because again, given the expanse of religious/spiritual thought Hinduism covers, and given that most Hindus cover a small subset of it, Hindus will debate from the philosophy they follow.

This kinda crap makes me want to take paint to my white skin. Absolutely ridiculous.

Comprehendo? What language is this

its 'comprendo' , spanish for "(you) understand"

I took an Art In Religion class in college. I once heard from the teaching assistant* that "you have to be born a Hindu and converting is not allowed or accepted." He said some Brahmin told him that. That kinda runs contrary to what my Hindu friends and family say... So wassup with that? Anybody know the truth to it? Or was he just tryin' to holla at yours truly by perpetratin like a mothafucker?

*arrogant white guy looking to impress this so-called exotic latina with his 'eastern knowledge'

you have to be born a Hindu and converting is not allowed or accepted

one form of hinduism (most hindus around here are white converts to the krishnas).

this is america. or at least parts of it. no big surprise, evangelicals 'witness' to everyone who isn't evangelical. i've had catholic friends encouraged to convert to 'christianity' in mississipi.

btw, this is fundamentally about different boundaries. myself, i have no problem with evangelicals witnessing to me once. but if i keep an acquaintance or friendship with them i tell them that i don't like my time being wasted and i'll give them just one shot so their conscious is salved. if they persist, i simply tell them what i think of their delusion and they don't usually bring it up again. the american radical protestant zeitgeist is strange. most european christians, muslims, hindus, jews, etc. are not comfortable with it. but it isn't like we can ignore 1/3 of the population or pass non-proslyetization laws. so simply develop interpersonal strategies. if you are a public person like satveer not interacting with these sorts is not an option.

most european christians, muslims, hindus, jews, etc. are not comfortable with it.

Uh...this American Orthodox Christian is very uncomfortable with it.

this American Orthodox Christian is very uncomfortable with it

good point. i think there are regional differences within america about this sort of thing. g.w. bush's dad grew up episcopalian in connecticut and never really grokked evangelicals because it seemd weird to talk about personal faith. g.w. bush grew up in part in texas and he's mastered their lingo.

Echoing nik (39), Lokayata philosophy is considered to be a part of hinduism, but is also atheistic. Popular hinduism is based mostly on practice. I have been an atheist--perhaps the correct term is teapot agnostic-- most of my life, but I have also been always considered Hindu (no contradiction there, unlike in monotheistic faiths). Like nik said, life is far too short to be spent arguing about the relative superiority of fairy tales.

Abrahamic faiths by default require evangelizing, if not outright proselytization and conversion

Not necessarily. Judaism, the original Abrahamic faith, does not require evangelizing. It actually provides for a different way for non-Jews to be "good people", by following a different set of rules. I'm not saying it's not elitist to consider yourself God's chosen people, but they don't generally believe that others are doomed to hell or even think that they need to follow the same rules for living a good life.

As a Hindu, I think I have a fairly good grasp of the theological subtleties of my religion. I, like others who have pointed this out, don't feel like getting in a theological argument with people who want to convert me. I'm polite to them because some of them actually believe they are doing me a favor (Mormons are a case in point) and are not trying to act superior. I do think though that a not conceding an election loss is a highly inappropriate place to proselytize.

I once heard from the teaching assistant that "you have to be born a Hindu and converting is not allowed or accepted." He said some Brahmin told him that. That kinda runs contrary to what my Hindu friends and family say... So wassup with that? Anybody know the truth to it?

I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but my understanding is that there is a minority of Hindus that don't accept converts. From what I recall, these are mostly orthodox Brahmins, so my interpretation is that they are averse to conversion because it upsets the social order.

Of course, given Hinduism's plural beliefs, there is no one way to convert and there is no one authority on who may or may not convert. Some organisations do have programmes to help people interested in converting, but very few, if any, actively try to pursue converts or evangelise.

My experience has been that most Hindus will welcome converts, though some may do so with a bit of curiousity. Of course, it's not always easy, given the cultural and linguistic barriers. Nonetheless, converts can become involved, respected, and influential within a local community (I can think of at least one example near where I live).

I suppose one caveat is that my experiences come from living outside India. Outside of India, most Hindus are a minority and need to assimilate into the local society. As such, given as they are `outsiders' most of the time, they may be more accepting of `outsiders' trying to blend into their own niche.

Manju --

I have no problem with the e-mail, other than I disagree with the contents.

What about the entire, overall context of conceding defeat in an email like that? What would your reaction be if a Democrat conceded with an equal and opposite email (perhaps, for example, by expressing some condescending disdain for the more conservative candidate's religious views or lifestyle in some way)? I'm not entirely sure that I would regard it all that favorably, even if I agreed with its contents even to some minimal extent.

Not necessarily. Judaism, the original Abrahamic faith, does not require evangelizing. It actually provides for a different way for non-Jews to be "good people", by following a different set of rules. I'm not saying it's not elitist to consider yourself God's chosen people, but they don't generally believe that others are doomed to hell or even think that they need to follow the same rules for living a good life.

many christian denominations hold to this view. even the catholic church has generally come around to the view that salvation is possible outside of the church, though it may be more difficult or less certain (generally the "out" is that one may be a christian without knowing one is a christian or something like that, since no one can really know for sure except god about such things). most mainline and liberal churches have also stopped active evangelization.

even the catholic church has generally come around to the view that salvation is possible outside of the church, though it may be more difficult or less certain (generally the "out" is that one may be a christian without knowing one is a christian or something like that, since no one can really know for sure except god about such things). most mainline and liberal churches have also stopped active evangelization.

Most of the old mainline protestant churches - e.g., Episcopalians, are really not all that different from liberal Hinduism. Even Methodists have come around to this view. They sell the Bhagavad Gita at the bookstore at St. Bart's in Manhattan. UU Churches celebrate Diwali And they are all dying.

Whats the big deal? She just politely asked him a question. there was no force involved, no threat of riots or pogroms.
Which is more than what can be said about the Shiv Sena, RSS, Bajrang Dal , Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other such representatives of the most 'tolerant' Hindu religion. Christians are facing overt, physical intimidation across vast swathes of India and here you have Hindus crowing about tolerance. I know first hand accounts of systematic, official (police/ govt) backed persecution in Orissa, Bihar, MP, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. I have a Dalit friend who is a Christian by belief, but did not convert 'officially' becuase he will lose reservation benefits. Sometimes, its good to keep things in perspective.
Being a minority in non Christian majority country is rarely pleasant.

Christians are facing overt, physical intimidation across vast swathes of India and here you have Hindus crowing about tolerance.

That does not justify treating religious minorities in this country badly. That's like saying, "Jews and Christians are persecuted in Muslim countries; therefore, Muslims in America have no right to complain if they're detained, interned, or shipped off to Guantanamo."

Thanks for the info guys. You know, when I lived with a desi family, I didn't really see Hinduism as that much different from my catholic,latino sensibility.

The Cuban and Boriquenno side of my family practice a catholic/west african syncretism not too different than Hinduism. I never felt like they were at odds.

This is the worst form of bigotry, IMO. Wrapped in all the soul saving talk.

Bidi (#37), it doesn't matter whether those trying to sermonise you are "better" on the social ladder than you are. It is disrespectful of the other, plain and simple.

Thank God Satveer Choudhury isn't an atheist!

Desishiksa, Razib, Desitude,
Thanks for pointing out, I stand corrected re: Judaism. But what you say about some christian denominations, is that their official position? That it is ok to not evangelize? My understanding has been that its part of the faith. I KNOW this especially about Catholics, from a father at my missionary school, that to tell others about their lord and savior is a duty of every catholic. Razib your note about the 'out' doesn't really state a more permissive or potentially pluralistic position by the Catholic Church.

IC,
Most of the current rhetoric from all the organizations you cite didn't exist before active even aggressive proselytization efforts by various christian denominations in Indian backwaters. Not condoning their methods. But their behavior is a crude way to shore up defenses against what not only they but most Hindus see as poaching. BTW, most Hindus do not support them, else you'd have seen landslide victory for the BJP or more militant orgs across India.

I don't see how your Dalit friend fits into this discussion. He's basically playing both sides of the fence, and lacks enough conviction to join all other 'un-reserved' so-called upper castes by claiming his faith and losing the reservation. (so-called because in today's India they are turning into the untouchables. If you are poor, and you're 'un-reserved' you're basically screwed and are defaulted to a life of poverty. This includes not just brahmins who seem to be despised these days as desi Nazis, but others like kshatriyas and vaishs).

At any rate, the big deal is that the email was highly inappropriate and off-topic. And she lacked civility and politeness also, otherwise she'd have simply made a phone call and stayed on topic.

But what you say about some christian denominations, is that their official position? That it is ok to not evangelize?

yes. that is what my friends who are congregationalist (united church of christ) were taught in sunday school at least. many of the more liberal mainline churches don't exactly have a fixed catechism :)

Razib your note about the 'out' doesn't really state a more permissive or potentially pluralistic position by the Catholic Church.

if you say so.

there are over 1 billion catholics. there is a lot of diversity in there. after vatican II i am pretty sure it is official church policy that salvation is possible outside of the church (read this).

religions evolve. that is there nature. to say that evangelization is fundamental to x is always debatable. some hindus say it is impossible to convert, while other hindus go out and preach to the world. some christians believe it is their mission to witness to the world, while others now believe that god speaks to all people through the various traditions. the emphases within local religious traditions might differ, but the reality of variation is undeniable. operationally we may speak of generalities in regards to religion, but i think it is important to keep in mind taht fundamentally religion is shaped by the believers.

religions evolve. that is there nature. to say that evangelization is fundamental to x is always debatable. some hindus say it is impossible to convert, while other hindus go out and preach to the world. some christians believe it is their mission to witness to the world, while others now believe that god speaks to all people through the various traditions. the emphases within local religious traditions might differ, but the reality of variation is undeniable.

Absolutely! What I was saying before about my grandma's African/Catholic syncretism is a prime example of religion evolving. I've even seen pictures of Shiva and Krishna on some catholic latino/catholic Haitian home altars.

My personal favorite is my grandma's altar with the statues of Yemoja (the black, Cubana virgin) next to a crucifix attached with dried roses and coins to a 3 foot high poster of Derek Jeter. Gotta love it!

to me the most amusing religious story, when vasco da gama reached kerala he was on the way to meet to the king, but when he saw some brahmins he rushed over to doff his hat, as he assumed they were christian priests from their appearance and he wanted to pay his respects.

Wait, so Catholics AREN'T going to Hell? Whew. That's a relief.

pied piper:

What about the entire, overall context of conceding defeat in an email like that?

you're right, she's being impolite and impolitic. i didn't think of that but i don't think the objections to what she wrote revovles around her lack of grace. it's that she had the audacity to talk religion in the public sphere. If she asked her opponent to embrace some of her political ideas i'm sure it would raise a few eyebrows, but would not get quite this reponse. i think religion should be debated more, especially since more and more any criticism of religion is being labled bigotry...and religion is becoming increasingly racialized.

btw, i don't mind a little imploliteness, i always like nixons's "you won't have richard nixon to kick around anymore" line after he lost the california governers race sometime in the mid-60's.

My personal favorite is my grandma's altar with the statues of Yemoja (the black, Cubana virgin) next to a crucifix attached with dried roses and coins to a 3 foot high poster of Derek Jeter.

Now that's authentic! Nuff respect to Abuela Diesel!

Wait, so Catholics AREN'T going to Hell? Whew. That's a relief.

my old colllege housemate, a southern protestant, thought dead babies go to hell b/c they haven't embraced jesus yet.

Seeker:

Most of the current rhetoric from all the organizations you cite didn't exist before active even aggressive proselytization efforts by various christian denominations in Indian backwaters. Not condoning their methods. But their behavior is a crude way to shore up defenses against what not only they but most Hindus see as poaching. BTW, most Hindus do not support them, else you'd have seen landslide victory for the BJP or more militant orgs across India.

My point is to point out the irony that so many Hindus here whine and complain about the slightest perceived insults but a chose to condone violent acts of rape/murder and physical intimidation conducted in the name of defending 'Hinduism'. It’s all OK if it is in defense of the faith right. Of course, before the missionaries showed up, those people whose souls we are fighting over were outcastes, fair game for the worst form of societal institutionalized discrimination in human history.

All religions have their faults. I responded with some indignation in my previous comments after reading some of the nauseatingly self congratulatory comments here where Hindus claim the moral high ground by pointing out how 'tolerant' the religion is on matters of doctrine. This may be true, but Hinduism is the MOST repressive religion socially.

I don't see how your Dalit friend fits into this discussion. He's basically playing both sides of the fence, and lacks enough conviction to join all other 'un-reserved' so-called upper castes by claiming his faith and losing the reservation. (so-called because in today's India they are turning into the untouchables. If you are poor, and you're 'un-reserved' you're basically screwed and are defaulted to a life of poverty. This includes not just brahmins who seem to be despised these days as desi Nazis, but others like kshatriyas and vaishs).

You are being disingenuous here my friend. If you grew up in India, you know that a Dalit still faces discrimination in a Hindu dominated society, no matter what his religion. Converting to Christianity or Buddhism hardly changes his plight economically. He still needs reservations in education and jobs. Conversion is an act of defiance, symbolically rejecting a religion that justifies institutional discrimination based on birth. It hardly helps a Dalit economically, in fact he is worse off as he is cut off from all reservation.

This may be true, but Hinduism is the MOST repressive religion socially.

I guess you are forgetting the entire history of slavery in Americas, and Africa, and its close link/ relationship to organized Christianity. Wait a minute, the entire colonization of South America. Remember, Afican American slaves were also Christians. How about 1000s of years of Christianity-Judiasm hate on each other.

Do you know the history of Irish conflict? Or Serbia.

Disclaimer: By no means, I am putting Hinduism or any religion on a moral high ground or demeaning them but we need to be fair/ rigorous in a scholarly discourse. Please note that. Sometimes, it is better off to be careful about being factual or just not make bombastic statements. You would have been better off just calling those commenters on their incomplete analysis (or ignornance) rather using words like "MOST repressive" without much thought.

I am very skeptical about the claims of "Hinduism being open to plural opinions." I think people are blurring the lines between what constitutes a "religion" and what constitutes a "civilization." I don't agree that "Hinduism" is a religion the same way we categorize "Islam" or "Christianity" as a religion. I think when most people say "Hinduism" they mean the "various religious cults/beleifs that have developed in the sub-continent over centuries." To take this historical fact and lazily label it "Hinduism" and present it as a "unified whole" is a bit misleading. For example, the evolution of Buddhism although somewhat rooted in Sanatana Dharma, posed a threat religiously and politically to the caste based Hindu system and had to be "Brahmanised" to be accepted again.

I think we also have to consider the contemporary context as well. This "plurality" claim seems to be another example of what some Hindu intellectuals put forth as a "definitive statement" as a sort of "modern apologetic" (I hate this term but can't think of anything better)In the 1800s, many Hindu intellectuals wanted to argue that "Hinduism" was "monotheistic in essence." Now it seems like "plurality" has been the buzzword given the rise of postmodernist critiques of grand narratives in academia. Like I said, that there are various truth claims within the sub-continent of India and that many of them share themes and deities is not questioned by me, but that all these conflicting views form one "religion" is I think not accurate. All these varying views constitute one "civilization" is more accurate. Just because the breadth of religio/philosophical thinking is diverse across a geographic space, doesn't mean they can be all grouped together and presented as one with no problems.

Also, as somebody pointed out Judaism does not proselytise either. However, that lack of proseltyisation doesnt reveal some sort of "inherent liberalism" but really a sense of "elitism." Hinduism is tied up with a specific region of the world, namely India and the people who have spread it from India. That many Hindus have a "racialist" view of themselves with non-Hindus is known and well documented. It makes sense that the far right Hindutva is into race theory and genetic arguments and look up to Hitler.That their language about Muslims and Christians revolve around "purity/impurity." They are just an extreme variation on the racial elitism that has its place in Hindu civilization.

I have a Dalit friend who is a Christian by belief, but did not convert 'officially' becuase he will lose reservation benefits.

Hmmm, so one could argue that the reservation policies serve to keep dalits within the hindu fold. Let all the brahmins whining about reservations ponder over that.

If dalits ever converted en masse to christianity and buddhism their oppression in India would become a case of religious persecution, instead of an internal matter in a hopelessly backward society. That certainly would draw widespread international condemnation of hindus I wager.

Of course, before the missionaries showed up, those people whose souls we are fighting over were outcastes, fair game for the worst form of societal institutionalized discrimination in human history. All religions have their faults......but Hinduism is the MOST repressive religion socially.

No doubt about that. Hinduism is tolerant, perhaps too tolerant, of modes of worship of divinity (think of the aghori cannibals, the child-sacrificing kali worshippers and so on); but its caste system is brutal.

IC:

I responded with some indignation in my previous comments after reading some of the nauseatingly self congratulatory comments here where Hindus claim the moral high ground by pointing out how 'tolerant' the religion is on matters of doctrine.

My point is to point out the irony that so many Hindus here whine and complain about the slightest perceived insults

but a chose to condone violent acts of rape/murder and physical intimidation conducted in the name of defending 'Hinduism'.

And no one here is condoning violent acts committed in the name of defending hinduism. But at the same time remember that this violence is a very recent development in hinduism, and not part of its culture. The christian minority in India has lived and flourished in India for many centuries. The violence you mention started only in the 1980s with the rise of 'hindutva'.

Hinduism is the MOST repressive religion socially.

That many Hindus have a "racialist" view of themselves with non-Hindus is known and well documented. It makes sense that the far right Hindutva is into race theory and genetic arguments and look up to Hitler

Its always amusing to watch dark-skinned desis subscribing to euro-centric racial theories. Sadly amusing actually.

As for christians evangelizing, I always welcome that opportunity to try to free them from their misguided cult. So should you all. Just ask them a few simple, pointed questions and then watch them squirm:

1. Why does your God need blood sacrifice? (This primitive, utterly indefensible belief is the very foundation of christianity.)

2. Why will your God torture for all eternity good, virtuous men like Gandhi, Zoroaster, Confucius, the Greek Philosophers and billions of others? A true, good and loving God would never punish virtuous men would he? (This argument can also be used against muslims, because they subscribe to the same insane belief)

3. Why did Jesus preach the Sermon on the Mount if he was only meant to be a blood sacrifice? Either he was a Teacher or a sacrificial scapegoat for your sins; he cant be both can he?

4. How can the blood of an innocent victim atone for your sins? Isnt that absurd?

5. Why is the Sermon on the Mount so similar to the buddhist Dhammapada? (Christianity as we know it is actually a Pauline perversion and has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, which are actually similar to the teachings of Buddha and advaita vedanta).

6. Why are you foolishly awaiting an external Kingdom of God when Jesus himself taught that the Kingdom of God is within you?

And so on....

Welcome debate, because none of the abrahamic faiths can withstand rational, or even moral, scrutiny.

let's not resort to the same tactics that we are appalled by in this story. state senator chaudhary has responded in a very civil manner, and this will only reflect well on him. jumping on "inconsistencies" in another's religion is not what chaudary would want his supporters to do.

That their language about Muslims and Christians revolve around "purity/impurity."

muslims and christians have their own conceptions (or in the case of christians in the west, had) of purity and impurity. it is simply more explicitly religious rather than racial.

e.g., q: is it permissible to take food from idolaters?

Sadly amusing actually.

aren't you "offended and insulted even"? perhaps you should educate yourself!

It’s all OK if it is in defense of the faith right. Of course, before the missionaries showed up, those people whose souls we are fighting over were outcastes, fair game for the worst form of societal institutionalized discrimination in human history.

Christianity in India is rife with the most vicious caste discrimination. I would argue that the principal reason it has not done particularly well in India (despite the tall claims) is precisely because Dalits see the hypocrisy for what it is. Its interesting how quickly an Indian Christian like IC decides that we, American Hindus, are really the enemy, and should bear the sins of our forefathers? South Asianism, anyone? :)

Presently in India, more than 70% of Christians are Dalits, but the higher caste Christians (30% by estimates) control 90% of the churches administrative jobs [1]. Out of the 156 bishops, only 6 are from lower castes. [23] [22]

Christian churches in India are largely controlled by upper caste Priests and nuns. Low-caste Dalit Christians are discriminated against by the upper-caste Christians. The extent and practice of untouchability within the Indian Christian community have been researched. Chapels for Dalit Christians are often segregated from Christians of a higher caste. Other churches admit Dalit Christians, but keep separate pews for them. Dalit Christians are buried in separate cemeteries. In addition, Dalit boys are not allowed to be altar boys or lectors.In addition, there are various instances of economic discrimination where Dalit Christians are not allowed to own arable land by upper caste Christian clergy. In many Christian communities in India, bonded labor is still practiced. As a consequence of the discrimination, Dalit Christians tend to be very poor and undernourished. Dalit Christians are denied education by the Upper Caste Priests and nuns. Very few Dalit Christians are involved in administrative services, except for the few who reconverted back to Hinduism [24]. There exists evidence to show that Christian individuals have mobility within their respective castes.[25]

This may be true, but Hinduism is the MOST repressive religion socially.

LOL. If this is not a trollish statement, I don't know what is :-) Some people think Christianity is the greatest abomination the world has known - Voltaire, Nietzche, many Enlightenment thinkers and philosophes and more recently Peter Watson, author of the magisterial Ideas:

On the other hand, not all big ideas are good ideas. In fact, most big ideas are probably terrible ideas. What do you think is the single worst idea in history?

Without question, ethical monotheism. The idea of one true god. The idea that our life and ethical conduct on earth determines how we will go in the next world. This has been responsible for most of the wars and bigotry in history.

yes. that is what my friends who are congregationalist (united church of christ) were taught in sunday school at least. many of the more liberal mainline churches don't exactly have a fixed catechism :)

This is true. A methodist minister friend helped us a few years ago protest the raging insurgency fomented by Baptist ultras in the Northeast of India. He thought some of their activities were unconscionable. I asked him whether he thought I could be saved - he said yes, pick any one Hindu God and worship him/her with devotion, and lead an ethical life, and you too will enjoy heaven. I clicked my heals, doffed my hat, and wished a good day to him.

“To get a sermon is definitely a surprise,” Chaudhary told WCCO. (Perhaps he should write back:

I have been reading Emerson in my Hindu study circle of late. The great sage of Concord (Harold Bloom says Emerson is to America what Dr. Johnson is to England and Goethe is to Germany--the national sage)

In this point of view we become very sensible of the first defect of historical Christianity. Historical Christianity has fallen into the error that corrupts all attempts to communicate religion. As it appears to us, and as it has appeared for ages, it is not the doctrine of the soul, but an exaggeration of the personal, the positive, the ritual. It has dwelt, it dwells, with noxious exaggeration about the person of Jesus. The soul knows no persons. It invites every man to expand to the full circle of the universe, and will have no preferences but those of spontaneous love. Did someone say tat tvam asi?

Incidentally, I think the Emersonian strain informs what is best in the American spiritual sensibility, and is still the great foil to Global Evangelism, Incorporated.

Ghazali:

Like I said, that there are various truth claims within the sub-continent of India and that many of them share themes and deities is not questioned by me, but that all these conflicting views form one "religion" is I think not accurate. All these varying views constitute one "civilization" is more accurate. Just because the breadth of religio/philosophical thinking is diverse across a geographic space, doesn't mean they can be all grouped together and presented as one with no problems.

Sadly amusing actually.

aren't you "offended and insulted even"? perhaps you should educate yourself!

Bingo!

5. has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, which are actually similar to the teachings of Buddha and advaita vedanta).

From a scholarly perspective, its not at all clear that Jesus actually existed. The whole of Jesus's "history" is based on a few tenuous corroborating statements. In my opinion he is a composite figure, with obvious inputs from the Greek mystery religions. There are several mainstream scholars who subscribe to the "No Jesus" school of thought - Robert M. Price is one of them. The problem is that the acadedmy is littered with sentimentalist ex-Christians like most of the characters at the Jesus Seminar who need, probably for deeply held psychological reasons, to assert that he existed, though they obviously deny any claims to his "divinity."

Speaking as an Indian christian (Syro-Malabar), i don't think i've ever noticed any sort of disrimination, overt or otherwise.

Regarding Ms Anderson's comments, they're patronising, though (and this is the sad part) perhaps well-meant, and I'd ignore it. I'd find it rude, simply because I think religion is a private matter, and so I'd resent other people's intrusion on a private part of my life.

That being said - I'd agree with CS that it's not really that big a deal - a low-level annoyance, but one that's to be shrugged off and ignored.

risible, but we'll get into semantic disputes here. for many christians a historical jesus without the divinity is not jesus. personally, i find in quite plausible that a reformist rabbi in the mode of hillel existed in early 1st century palestine around whom a cult following developed and who became transformed into jesus.

none of the abrahamic faiths can withstand rational, or even moral, scrutiny.

Religious faith in general does not withstand rational scrutiny. People are not entirely rational beings, and religious faith, like falling in love, fills an emotional need. I don't think Hinduism withstands scrutiny any better than any other religion. I persist in believing in god despite a lack of any substantive proof of the existence of a divinity. I don't think there is anything to be gained from having a supposed rational argument about someone's religious faith--they believe because they do. When people proselytize, I believe I have the moral high ground when I ignore them or politely ask them to stop, not when I try to talk them out of their faith believing that mine is more "rational".

Do some of you have problems with this kid of comment due to the let's say simple rudeness and the implications of the comment only? Or is that many of you don't hold your own inherited religous beliefs strongly or don't care much about the varied theologies of Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism? (I focus on Hinduism because it seems like most people responding are Hindu)

LOL.. I just watched this video of Zakir Naik.. (a famouls Muslim preacher from Mumbai, India).. It is funny..
Zakir naik on mathematics.. It echoes your statement.. Basically he claims that Saudi arabia preventing non-Muslim worship is right when compared to non-Muslim countries allowing Muslim worship..

Manju --

i don't think the objections to what she wrote revovles around her lack of grace. it's that she had the audacity to talk religion in the public sphere.

Well, my objections do -- I actually view these as interrelated and rather difficult to separate. (And I think that "lack of grace" is putting it too mildly.) Even if it's appropriate in the abstract to discuss religion in the public sphere, there's something that definitely isn't appropriate about what she is doing so here. A private, condescending email in lieu of a private concession phone call is hardly a discussion of religion "in the public sphere." And "appropriateness" aside, the fact that she has the audacity to act -- rather comfortably -- in a way that is "impolite and impolitic," to use your words, says something about her respect for religious traditions other than her own, and perhaps about the place of non-Judeo-Christian traditions in American society more generally. (And as I suggested, my words would be a bit stronger than "impolite and impolitic" -- her email seems to be more about status and social equality than about etiquette.)

I might very well agree with some of where you are coming from at the most general and abstract levels about discussions of religion in the public sphere, but that's not what's going on here. Might your eagerness to be making those general points perhaps be pushing you to be a bit too charitable to Anderson herself? That's a genuine question for you, not a rhetorical one.

Her email was in fact a thinly veiled attempt to minimize and belittle her opponent's win by acting as if there was a larger purpose to life in which the election was insignificant and that he was missing the whole point, which is just plain obnoxious regardless of your religious beliefs or whether you think it's okay to proselytize.

Most Hindu cats I know don't seem to really be concerned with their religion. The only Hindus I knew that consistently went to temple were Guyanese and Trini. Would it be accurate for me to say that most of you range from secular to agnostic to athiest?

A hindu is not required to go to temple or worship images of god . It is only one of the way (Bhakti Yoga) .You may not even believe in God(as defined by Abrahamic religion) and still be Hindu .A person may be a Hindu but still doesn’t believe in God; a person may believe in God, but still not a Hindu and a person may a Hindu and believe in God.At the same time Hinduism is not synonymous with atheism either. If the Abrahamic criterion of belief in a God is used, then many of the popular Hindu personalities like Adi Sankaracharya, Dayananda Saraswati, Vivekananda, Ramana maharshi wont fit that criteria.

Also, most of you don't know the theology of religio/philosophical ideas of Hinduism well enough to debate?

Yes this is true .Most Hindus dont know philosophical ideas of hinduism .But they are not required to know this .Thats why there are different ways of getting liberation in Hinduism . Hinduism reognizes that different people need different way .Only a person who is following Jnana Yoga is required to know about philosphy .

I took an Art In Religion class in college. I once heard from the teaching assistant* that "you have to be born a Hindu and converting is not allowed or accepted." He said some Brahmin told him that. That kinda runs contrary to what my Hindu friends and family say... So wassup with that? Anybody know the truth to it? Or was he just tryin' to holla at yours truly by perpetratin like a mothafucker?

No you dont need to be born hindu . Arya Samajh convert persons of other religion into hinduism .But you are not required to do even that . You dont need to follow any scriptures even (as they only act as quidelines) .

It is very complex to define a Hindu . A true Hindu is that person, who endeavours to know that knowing which everything becomes known!

LOL.. I just watched this video of Zakir Naik.. (a famouls Muslim preacher from Mumbai, India).. It is funny.. Zakir naik on mathematics.. It echoes your statement.. Basically he claims that Saudi arabia preventing non-Muslim worship is right when compared to non-Muslim countries allowing Muslim worship..

Ponniyin Selvan Dont talk about prof Zakir Naik . he has found prophecy about prophet Mohammad (PBUH) even in Bhavisya puran . He also know about allah upnishad which we hindus dont know about . Shame on all hindus ;)

sakshi:
Well, it does make a difference because it is not true, at least not in the way you're describing it.

1. How religion played its part in Hindu civilization is not given any analysis in that broad statement. The fact that Indian religion had a much more monastic/ascetic aspect to it (in some cases, one can only be religous if one was ascetic)is not taken into account. Yes, there were ascetics in Christianity and Islam but it wasn't built into the system much as it was in Indian religous thought.There was space for political centralisation of religion. Any intro to Indian philosophy book talks about the "Ascetic" stage as being the final and(implied) best stage. So in a place where religion is heading for the hills and not in the day to day life (other than rituals)it would make sense that rajas didn't necessarily use religion to conquer other rajas and their lands.It wasn't something people would kill others for largely because it wasnt as centralised as Islam or Christianity politically. Matter of fact, some would argue that the monasticism of Indian religion was in response to the "secular" and "mundane" component of politcal life and the horrific acts of kings vying for more power.
2. That religion didn't cause military wars in India might be true. But that religion did help to justify an oppresive systematic caste system is also true. Matter of fact, many of the diverse opinions that the "plurality" argument prides itself on formed because of and against the caste system. So yes, many beleifs did hold in India but not in some sort of "enlightened" debate manner but as responses to oppressive political circumstances. Adding to the plurality, there wouldnt be a lot of Muslims and Christians if there was no caste system to an extent.

By the way, I'm not here to denigrate Indian religious beleifs. I have been trying to increase my knowledge of them from as far back as I remember. I am simply against some claims that I don't think reflect reality to an extent such as the "plurality" one.

Pied Piper:

Might your eagerness to be making those general points perhaps be pushing you to be a bit too charitable to Anderson herself? That's a genuine question for you, not a rhetorical one.

You're probably right. i oppose her worldview but I do find her to be genuine, refreshing, and consistent. She's taken her beliefs to their rational conclusion and doesn't blabber abount non-sensical things like "religious tolerance" that no true religious person can consistently believe if they take their religion seriously.

She's not machialvellian about her religion like most politicians, like the clintons, who follow machialvelli's dictum that the prince must appear to be religious in order to win the goodwill of the people. i also applaud her de-racialization of religion that her and her contemporary evangelicals practice by trying to convert people of other ethnicities/cultures/race. this puts religion on an equal footing with other philosophies, which is a good thing.

religion has been put behind a protective wall and judging someones religion has become the equivilent of judging the color of someones's skin. at least she dared to judge. she represents the true face of religion, not the watered down version that has allowed it to continue in the modern world.

Yes, there were ascetics in Christianity and Islam but it wasn't built into the system much as it was in Indian religous thought.

christianity is arguably more like hinduism than islam in regards to ascetism. if you are going to lecture people on not understanding their religions you should have more sensitivity for variation within the abrahamic tradition. until the reformation large monastic communities were the norm throughout western christendom, sexual purity and ascetism were virtues, and the prayers of these holy people resulted in salvation for the whole community which was steeped in worldly sins. many christians traditionally abstained from pleasures or indulgences during particular periods for religious reasons (e.g., lent, which was much more intensive in the pre-modern era). in roman catholicism there is still a strong ascetic streak, as evidenced by the members of opus dei who engage in various self-mortifications. and what is ramadan if not an expression of asceticism within islam? though i take your point that asceticism is deemphasized in islam, and unlike christianity, buddhism and hinduism celibate religious devotees are not commonplace in the islamic tradition.

(there is some thought that monasticism and what not in the christian tradition might derive from an importation of indian cultural motifs and values to the west during the hellenistic period)

risible:

Christianity in India is rife with the most vicious caste discrimination. I would argue that the principal reason it has not done particularly well in India (despite the tall claims) is precisely because Dalits see the hypocrisy for what it is.

If you guys are so confident that no Dalit or tribal will convert from Hinduism to any other religion, why pass so many of anti-conversion laws, which is a violation of people's fundamental rigths?Why arrange elaborate ghar-vapasi programs. Why have VHP, Bajrang Dal etc terorroize a defenceless minority? This is militant fundamentalism , nothing else. Most of you know that the caste system is rotten to the core and are so insecure about your religion that sanctions it that you have to force and terorrize people not to convert.

Its interesting how quickly an Indian Christian like IC decides that we, American Hindus, are really the enemy, and should bear the sins of our forefathers? South Asianism, anyone? :)

christianity is arguably more like hinduism than islam in regards to ascetism. if you are going to lecture people on not understanding their religions you should have more sensitivity for variation within the abrahamic tradition.

The Roman Catholic faith dictates that all sexual conduct must be within a man/woman marriage. Touching oneself is also haram, uh, I mean forbidden. One is supposed to be celibate (pure) until marriage. Marriage is only dissolved by the chrch. Some churches also say that secular divorce, (unsanctioned by the church anullment) should effectually make you a celibate, as does being widowed. This is what we were tought in Catholic school in NJ 20 years ago. Sounds an awful lot like ascetism to me. I never bought it though, even back then...;)

LOL.. I just watched this video of Zakir Naik.. (a famouls Muslim preacher from Mumbai, India).. It is funny..
Zakir naik on mathematics.. It echoes your statement.. Basically he claims that Saudi arabia preventing non-Muslim worship is right when compared to non-Muslim countries allowing Muslim worship.

Ponniyin Selvan: I dont think the clip is funny. I was actually infuritated by the clip. Here we have this spindly Indian Muslim man from Bombay preaching supremacist nonsense on TV. Has he forgotten the terrible sectarian violence which engulfed Bombay in the early nineties?
Its insane for an Indian Muslim to defend the fact that Saudi Arabia does not allow for Churches, Synagogues to I am sure he wont be happy if India prohibits the construction of new masjids. What a hypocrite!
Btw I dont know if you speak Urdu, but this dude's Urdu diction has jarred my Urdu sensibilities like no one can. His accent is beyond ridiculous.
I really worry about the future of Indian Muslims. Oh well! Allāhu A`alam.

This mas is more vile than I thought. Here is another video of this fool advocating/condoning the death of apostates. I hope he never gets his hands on the levers of power in the US or it will be curtains for me and Chet Snicker.

Just to throw in my $0.02 on a small part of this discussion - the attitude of the Sangh Parivar and of many "proud Hindus" (including MK Gandhi, by the way) towards conversion is an interesting and often contradictory one. On the one hand, they pride themselves on how Hinduism is a tolerant and open and catholic sort of religion that has room for all sorts of beliefs and rejects orthodoxy/textualism, etc etc, but when folks wish to adopt a new set of beliefs, they don't seem to trust in Hinduism's pluralism and resilience quite as much any more, and see this as a mortal insult to the faith or, as Gandhi put it, see conversion as "alienating" Hindus from their "authentic" culture. I always find this somewhat ironic - we are a tolerant, open faith that welcomes critical thinking and new ideas - but you don't have the choice to reject our core set of beliefs.

The idea of "conversion" to Hinduism is also a fairly modern one, that started when community numbers became an important factor of political power in the late 19C/early 20C, and Hindu reformists often found themselves wooing castes/communities that would have been considered outside the caste order altogether earlier, and asking them to define themselves as Hindu.

Touching oneself is also haram, uh, I mean forbidden.

Do not spill thy seed upon the ground dear Onan.

Ponniyin Selvan: I dont think the clip is funny. I was actually infuritated by the clip. Here we have this spindly Indian Muslim man from Bombay preaching supremacist nonsense on TV. Has he forgotten the terrible sectarian violence which engulfed Bombay in the early nineties? Its insane for an Indian Muslim to defend the fact that Saudi Arabia does not allow for Churches, Synagogues to I am sure he wont be happy if India prohibits the construction of new masjids. What a hypocrite!

Al Mujahid,

No, I don't know urdu.. didn't you hear his explanation on how only Islam says 2+2 = 4 , and other religions say 2+2 = 3 or 2+2 = 6.. That's the one I found funny.. It is very simple and stupid.. No, I don't think he fits the dictionary meaning of the hypcorite. If any non-Muslim country does the same thing like preventing Muslims wearing burqa or shouting azaan early mornings, he'd proudly claim Muslims are persecuted and call for 'jihad'.. I have no doubts on that. :-)

Ah yes, I think pretty much every religion believes that "every sperm is sacred"....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

If you guys are so confident that no Dalit or tribal will convert from Hinduism to any other religion, why pass so many of anti-conversion laws, which is a violation of people's fundamental rigths?Why arrange elaborate ghar-vapasi programs.

Some Hindu groups believe they are under seige from organizations with far more money, influence and power than they could ever muster. Christianity Inc studies communities right down to the village level, analyzing vulnerability between castes, the 'weaknesses' of caste leaders and what have you, to effect conversions. Some of us happen to believe that the missionaries are laboring for a non-existent God, which by itself is not bad, but when its coupled with a belief in "rapture" to a Christian Disney Land (as the new Christian groups in India have a tendency to do) or a hatred for the majority of their fellow citizens as heathens, we do get a little concerned ;-)

I don't think there is anything to be gained from having a supposed rational argument about someone's religious faith--they believe because they do.

No one here, as far as I can tell, is condoning violence - so you are shooting at red herrings, and though I support anti-conversion by coercion laws, because I am deeply concerned about tribals being manipulated by these organizations, concerned about insurgencies arising in Christian majority areas, etc. only a fool would think they could stop conversions. Every man has his price.

Besides the hypocrisy of the Churches itself, the second reason why Christianity Inc is not getting a decent ROA is because longstanding untouchable Christians are denied reservation benefits. The Madras High Court upheld this a few days ago, when it sensibly granted reservation benefits to a Dalit Christian who reconverted to Hinduism. The Supreme Court will likely follow suit. We will have to support this because we have been told by Christians that Christianity is an egalitarian religion and caste cannot possibly exist within it. :D

No, American Hindus are not my enemy. Actually, they form the vast majority of my friends in this country .

LOL. Do you even realize how loserish this sounds? Do you know this line is actually employed as a joke?

You are being disingenuous here my friend. If you grew up in India, you know that a Dalit still faces discrimination in a Hindu dominated society, no matter what his religion. Converting to Christianity or Buddhism hardly changes his plight economically. He still needs reservations in education and jobs. Conversion is an act of defiance, symbolically rejecting a religion that justifies institutional discrimination based on birth. It hardly helps a Dalit economically, in fact he is worse off as he is cut off from all reservation.

This looks like a new spin for saving further souls.. If a Dalit embraces other religions he/she basically says screw Hinduism (which is very fair and I completely agree) for treating him/her badly for "supposedly" past wrongs , but he/she can't play both sides by availing of the benefits only available to Dalit Hindus/Buddhists/Sikhs or people whose stories centre around India and not whose stories centre around Arabia/Middle east.. :-) Reservations are basically schemes to keep the Dalits in Hindu fold to save the political unity.. I see this Dalit / minorities solidariy talks in Pakistani websites.

No, I don't know urdu.. didn't you hear his explanation on how only Islam says 2+2 = 4 , and other religions say 2+2 = 3 or 2+2 = 6.. That's the one I found funny.. It is very simple and stupid..

Yes and that was beyond stupid. I saw other videos of this fool on youtube and I cant decide whether he is more stupid or vile.
My sources tell me that he has quite a following in India and is considered an 'intellectual giant'.

Yes and that was beyond stupid. I saw other videos of this fool on youtube and I cant decide whether he is more stupid or vile. My sources tell me that he has quite a following in India and is considered an 'intellectual giant'.

I heard the same too. looks like there is definitely a dearth of 'intellectuals'.. Well, in matters of religion, anything goes I think..You just have to quote from some obscure texts a thousand years back.. :-)

I wonder what Anna thinks about this.

I have read many of her comments complaingin about how her religious affiliation is not respected by many Indians. It would be interesting to read what she feels about this situation objectively.

Truly curious.

Re conversion - This is a political matter even more than it is a religious one. Christianity believes that it is a xtian's duty to show others the only true way. Since Hindusim holds no such belief, this naturally makes for a skewed playing field where one side can only lose ground. Under the circumstances there is nothing wrong in objecting to aggressive conversion attempts.

Secondly, Christianity is *founded* on anti-paganism. A study of the spiritual history of Christianity brings out this point in full force. Every important spiritual shift *within* Christianity was essentially based on accusing the other side of paganism. Now, Hindus are the quintessential pagans so it is out of the question that Hinduism can be respected by Christianity. Notice the use of the word "tolerance" in the common discourse instead of "respect". Much thought and much politics has gone into the choice of the word "tolerance" since the very foundations of xtianty will begin to crumble if they admit to "respecting" other paths. I think it's about time anti-paganism be recognized as a form of hate speech. Such talk is decidedly intolerant - and tolerance of such intolerance is about as muddled as it gets.

No, I don't know urdu.. didn't you hear his explanation on how only Islam says 2+2 = 4 , and other religions say 2+2 = 3 or 2+2 = 6.. That's the one I found funny.. It is very simple and stupid..

Naik's argument is not logically flawed. He did not say that other religions say 2+2=3. What he said is "It's OK that Saudi and some other Muslim countries don't allow other religions to preach because they are SURE that Islam is correct." He said that there is no equivalence between that and the UK/US allowing the propagation of Islam because he says "They allow it because they are not sure that their religion is right. We know so we do not allow.." He uses the math analogy to justify why such sureness would lead to such drastic action. "If it were a matter of math, would the US/UK allow people to propagate 2+2=3? No, because they are SURE of this."

No need to twist it into something even dumber so that you can attack his point of view even more easily. It's eminently attackable on other grounds.

It doesn't bother him that by his taking stances like this, he presents an extreme view that endangers Muslims everywhere. The fact that "Islam is right" is only his opinion and others don't share it doesn't bother him. My guess is that he is totally fine with non-Muslim nations not allowing Islam to be practiced. All prospects of peaceful coexistence be damned. He'll probably respect their religions more because they are sure. He's not the kind of person who believes in everyone benefitting from exchange and interaction. He'd be fine if everyone just retreated into their respective enclaves in the world and practiced their own religions with great fervor.

1. How religion played its part in Hindu civilization is not given any analysis in that broad statement. The fact that Indian religion had a much more monastic/ascetic aspect to it (in some cases, one can only be religous if one was ascetic)is not taken into account. Yes, there were ascetics in Christianity and Islam but it wasn't built into the system much as it was in Indian religous thought.There was space for political centralisation of religion. Any intro to Indian philosophy book talks about the "Ascetic" stage as being the final and(implied) best stage.

At the same time, you are de-emphasizing what you yourself noted in #38, that hindus 'don't hold your own inherited religous beliefs strongly or don't care much about the varied theologies'. Essentially, hinduism has never been particular about doctrine, and hindus don't see any point in debating it. Just talking to twenty hindus at random will tell you that. And the polytheistic aspect of hinduism ensures there is always space for one more god.

So in a place where religion is heading for the hills and not in the day to day life (other than rituals)it would make sense that rajas didn't necessarily use religion to conquer other rajas and their lands.

It wasn't something people would kill others for largely because it wasnt as centralised as Islam or Christianity politically.

Matter of fact, some would argue that the monasticism of Indian religion was in response to the "secular" and "mundane" component of politcal life and the horrific acts of kings vying for more power.

2. That religion didn't cause military wars in India might be true. But that religion did help to justify an oppresive systematic caste system is also true.

Matter of fact, many of the diverse opinions that the "plurality" argument prides itself on formed because of and against the caste system.

So yes, many beleifs did hold in India but not in some sort of "enlightened" debate manner but as responses to oppressive political circumstances.

He said that there is no equivalence between that and the UK/US allowing the propagation of Islam because he says "They allow it because they are not sure that their religion is right. We know so we do not allow.."

I dont believe he claims that the others allow propogation of Islam because they are not sure about whether their religion is right. He asserts that it doesnt matter what the others think because only Muslims have the truth aka Islam.

Anna:

I second Post 113. Let us know your views too.

Pooniyan-I'm sorry, I'm not understanding what I said has to do with what Zakir Naik said.If you could elaborate please.

mastervk-Well it seems like youre saying two things.

1. Hinduism is more an ethnicity, than a religion similar to Judaism's relationship to Jews. Many Jews say you could be athiest and be a Jew. There are some religous Jews who contest this claim. I'm sure there are Hindus who contest this claim as well. Also, any attempt at defining Hinduism become pointless. Since even your claim is but one of many claims it has no definitive power over other claims.

2. Also, if Hinduism can be everything, then at the same time its nothing. Can you understand why someone could see it like that?

Razib:
I take your argument and agree. But remember sakshi mentioned Inquisition which was not done by ascetics but by an centralised organized bureacratic religous power:The Catholic Church. An organization that involved itself heavily with politics for centuries. There was no equivalent of that India. All rulers had to do was promise to uphold the caste system and establish temples and alms. The religion in India didnt have that mobilizing force in warfare because of a lack of centralised political structure. So asceticism was prominent yes but there was a reason the Reformation happened right? Pope is the Anti-Christ and all that.

Also, could you link me the website or wherever you got that question about "eating food from a non-Muslim." I tried doing some research but couldnt find anything.

I dont believe he claims that the others allow propogation of Islam because they are not sure about whether their religion is right. He asserts that it doesnt matter what the others think because only Muslims have the truth aka Islam.

Al Mujahid, I watched the "math" video again. I never heard him say that it doesn't matter what non-Muslims think and he does talk about being 100% "confirmed that our religion is right". He also explicitly says that if the Western countries/religions were sure, they WOULD take similarly harsh stances.

But of course, it is implied that it doesn't matter that others don't agree. But that's the next level in the chain of logic - one based on practicality. Otherwise, isn't that a "principled" stance to take - once you have removed absolutely all traces of doubt from your mind, you could follow your way regardless of what others think. i.e. in his distorted view of reality, this is not a silly argument. IMO, it is this lack of concern for the practical difficulties arising from different people having different "truths" that makes him a loon, not his little 2+2 argument.

Could someone clarify this for me - Are there Muslim countries other than Saudi where construction of places of worship by other religions is totally prohibited?

Also, could you link me the website or wherever you got that question about "eating food from a non-Muslim." I tried doing some research but couldnt find anything.

e.g., bohra dawadi ismailis can't take food from idolaters (xtians & jews are ok). personal communication.

Al_Mujahid_for_debauchery,

i takfir your ass. you've got 3 months to repent for your ridda before some righteous believer puts a cap in your ass!

ALM and Ponniyin,

Last night Ponniyin's link to Doctor Shahib's youtube led to me an hour of "bahut khub" (excellent) viewing of similar youtubes.

Today, I am sounding like one of them.

Gazali's tone is so supremist that it freightens me.
On another note, the link Siddhartha put had
Glenn Beck asking Rep. Keith Ellison, "[W]hat I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies' "

Is is just me or this Glenn Beck guy extremely creepy looking. I get totally creeped out just looking at him. Now I find out that he is a nut too. Not to mention how offensive it is to ask an elected rep this question?
In the Daily show tradition ... I would ask him : "Glenn prove to me that you are not a creepy child molester".
:-))

Sakshi:

Tolerance of Jews, Parsis, christians in the midst of hindus had nothing to do with the caste system. \

I disagree. Jews in other non-Abrahamic cultures, viz. China, assimilated out of existence. The caste system allowed them to maintain a distinct communal identity of their own. Those here so enamored of Indian philosphy and consider its schools superior to Christianity should keep in mind that caste - despite all its shortcomings as a social system in this egalitarian zeitgeist - played a part in preventing a large scale conversion of the subcontinent. There is a reason India is not Persia or Indonesia - and why Prester John remained in the realm of myth.

Zakir Naik sounds marathi in his Urdu accent. But If you ask him he would be offended if you said that you sound "marathi" :-) I dont have to mention how stupid he sounds.

Kush,
That link of Dr. Israr Ahmed was good too. But that guy was preety blunt. ( "Din hamara hoga, nahi to talvar le lo aur faisla kar dete hai maidan-e-jung me".)

It would be very interesting to know how many people actually subscribe to this type of views? Anyone??

sakshi:

I feel that you are not understanding me and we are simpy talking past each other. I am simply making the statement, that you agreed with, that what people call "Hinduism" is not really a "religion" but a "civilization." So therefore, the "tolerance" of diverse religious beleifs in "Hindu civilization" should be compared to the tolerance of "Western civilization" for example, not with "Christianity" which is a contending truth claim within Western civilization.

Also, the alienation/seperation of dharma from secular political power in India was more pronounced than in Europe or the Middle East. However, this is not necessarily tolerance but the fact that religius groups were scattered and could not pose a strong political movement. Also, all rajas had to do was uphold the caste system to keep the Brahmins and entrenched interests happy and give money for temples and alms. This is not a VALUE-STATMENT. I'm not saying this is good o bad, Im saying this is what happened and it accounts for certain differences, not something inherent in "Hinduism" or "Christianity" .

Basically, when it came to warfare, people in India historically rallied around their kingdom, their ethnicity and not their religion. It doesnt make it that religion was more tolerant, it just wasnt central to day to day life other than rituals. In the Christian and Muslim worlds religion was a bigger part of identity and provided a framework for politics that was lacking in India. That is all. No one was better or worse. Like my man said way at the beginning "Comprehendo?"

Razib- Okay, thanks. But your statement then seems a bit disengenous. To take the statement from a subsect within a sect within a sect and then to take it from a personal communication from one person within this whole thing,and then generalise it upon Muslims altogether don't seem right to me. If I were to make the claim "Yes Muslims also beleive that the white race was created by a big headed scientist named Yaqoub" simply because one person whose a 5 Percenter, an offshoot of Nation of Islam which is itself an offshoot of Islam told me so, wouldnt you find that a bit inaccurate?

ghazali,

i come from a long line of ulams who work within the hanafi framework. the same concerns about purity re: idolaters has cropped up in conversation (who of my uncles is a tableeghi who never tires of discussing the finer points of such things with the ulams in my family). i have heard muslims express attitudes about 'cleanliness' of non-muslims which are remiscient of hindus many times. i think the sentiment is the same as hindus, only the demarcation point is between believers and non-believers, instead of caste. go to islamonline and enter 'kuffar food' into the search box. though the responses tend to assert it is OK to take food from kuffars/unbelievers so long as it is halal, it is clear that many muslims are unaware of this and live under the impression it is not.

The caste system allowed them to maintain a distinct communal identity of their own.

re: jews in india, it is more complex than that. the jews of kaifeng in india were far away from connections with the rest of the diaspora. though they started as rabbnical jews (perhaps derived from the persian community via the silk road) they simply lost their rabbis and a slow but inexorable process of attrition occurred as promising young men entered the mandarinate instead of the rabbinical profession. the situation in india is very different because the jewish community in kerala remained in contact with the middle eastern communities, and there were even german jews who fled pogroms in the rhineland who eventually made the journey to india and replenished the local community. the idea that caste helped the jews maintain continuity is correct in my opinion, but it was not sufficient, as the taboos between jews and non-jews mixing were strong in china because of the dietary differences (pork). muslims in china persevered in part because a constant number of immigrants replenished the community (there are parts of south china where muslims have clearly been totally assimilated into the native substrate). in any case, the jews of india, excluding the recent baghdadi jewish communities, have intermarried, which would add a twist into the 'caste preserves' narrative (for the record, the jewish communities the world over show the genetic signature of native women marrying in).

Razib- I've heard Muslims call Hindus "kaffirs" which is a very strong (and has certain conditions for use) word but unfortunately is very common. But the term doesnt imply any "physical inherent impurity" upon the Hindu.Muslims don't walk the other way when a Hindu comes in Bangladesh for example. I guess what Im comparing it to is that Hindus have a "ritual impurity" aspect where lower castes or non-Hindus physical contact could be labeled as "defilement." For example, during my grandfathers time pre-partition Bengal, one complaint that Muslims would level at their Hindu neighbors was that whenever a Muslim stepped foot in a Hindu home, a Hindu would smear cow dung over the ground the Muslim stepped on to mark it as defiled. This has no paralell in any ritual sense with Muslims.Yes, Muslims look down on Hindus, for worshiping idols and for being "pagans" in general, but Hindus do look down on Muslims as lower on the cultural scale and as almost physically corrupting. Think about it, them Hindutva cats always concerned with Muslim dudes allegedly raping and defiling their "pure" maidens. There is a difference that is not being accounted for in your analogy.

Also, the Muslims that you;ve encountered that think that Hindus are dirty I'm willing to bet were desi Muslims. You would have take into culture.My black muslim friends have never heard of such an idea. Maybe they are simply emulating a cultural model of looking at the "other"that is prominent in South Asia. I mean there is no official caste system in Bangladesh today, but it doesnt stop Muslims from looking down at other people for being so and so profession. The Prophet shared food and ate with his servants. Imagine doing that in Bangladesh. (I did when I was younger, it was a scene). So theres alot to say for culture.

ghazali, a few points

1) i don't deny that hindus have issues with purity. a branch of my own family are recent converts from hinduism. when my father was young and he visited friends of the family who were traditionally socially close to the hindu side of my family and remained he resented the purity obsessions they had. in fact, my grandmother who was born a hindu (though her father converted when she was a toddler, so he does not remember being hindu) unconsciously perpetuates caste "cleanliness" behaviors. my father and his siblings picked up on these habits from their mother, and so even though they are all muslims of genuine piety they preserve hindu customs (my grandfather was an ulam, and unlike most bengali muslims none of his children had bengali 'dhak' names, only 'muslim' ones).

2) i have observed the same fixations with purity from saudi students that i have met here in the united states in their attitudes toward non-muslims. a muslim of turkish ethnicity who grew up in germany commented that germans were 'unclean, because they are what they eat' (i.e., pork). so i don't think it is just limited to brown muslims, though these issues of purity and status are accentuated among brownz because of their cultural background.

3) i can believe that recent converts have none of these hang ups. religion is not derived, in my opinion, from just a set of axioms or a text, it is a living thing that emerges from a cultural matrix.

4) Think about it, them Hindutva cats always concerned with Muslim dudes allegedly raping and defiling their "pure" maidens. and yet customary muslim law does not allow muslim women to marry non-muslim men. why? because religion is assumed to pass through the patriline. in contrast, muslim males may marry non-muslim females. certainly hindutva have issues with muslim males marrying hindu women, but i dare to contend that muslims would not object to hindu males marrying muslim females (the cases i know where this has occured tends to elicit negative comment and concern).

5) my point is not that hindus or muslims have more or less of a fixation on purity. i think it is plausible to say that hindus have a fixation on caste purity and ritual cleanliness and uncleanliness, but this is not a hindu monopoly. jewish obsession with kosher is pretty analogous, and also interpersonal contact with gentiles. there was a 19th century mockery of religious jews by secular jews which lampooned how religious jews behaved which went like so: the cossacks pillage jewish villages and rape the women. the first thing that the jewish men of the village do is go to the rabbi and ask, "rabbi, my wife, permissible or impermissible?" (in regards to whether the marriage was still viable or not) the issue here is that rape made the women unclean, at least in perception. my own contention is that some muslims have the same attitudes toward non-muslims. this is not something that is necessarily a function of religious indoctrination, i think it is a function of psychological hardwiring which becomes manifest within a cultural matrix. e.g., see paul bloom's idea of "innnate dualism" and "theory of contagion." medieval christian statutes show the same tendency toward perceiving muslims and jews as "unclean."

I am simply making the statement, that you agreed with, that what people call "Hinduism" is not really a "religion" but a "civilization." So therefore, the "tolerance" of diverse religious beleifs in "Hindu civilization" should be compared to the tolerance of "Western civilization" for example, not with "Christianity" which is a contending truth claim within Western civilization.

Also, the alienation/seperation of dharma from secular political power in India was more pronounced than in Europe or the Middle East. However, this is not necessarily tolerance but the fact that religius groups were scattered and could not pose a strong political movement. Basically, when it came to warfare, people in India historically rallied around their kingdom, their ethnicity and not their religion. It doesnt make it that religion was more tolerant, it just wasnt central to day to day life other than rituals. In the Christian and Muslim worlds religion was a bigger part of identity and provided a framework for politics that was lacking in India.

It doesnt make it that religion was more tolerant, it just wasnt central to day to day life other than rituals. In the Christian and Muslim worlds religion was a bigger part of identity and provided a framework for politics that was lacking in India.

there are lots of problems with these assertions. many of your comments are difficult to parse, how do you determine how "central" religion is to someone's life? did medieval christians spend a lot more time thinking about god than medieval hindus? your initial comment was problematic in my opinion. my experience is that many muslims are not particularly steeped in the theology and doctrine of their own religion, they can repeat the basic mantras, so to speak. same with hindus. the main difference seems to be that american hindus tend to be a generally secular lot vis-a-vis american muslims (the jewish analogy). you say you are exploring indian religion and hinduism, and i would just suggest that you do more exploring before engaging in broad stroke generalizations since you admit to knowing more about islam than hinduism.

Razib: But the Jews in Kerala are just one part of the Jewish diaspora which includes Bene Israel Jews, Bhagdad Jews, etc., so the record shows multiple Jewish communities emerging in the modern period disctinct. Yes I agree, caste is not the whole story, but you seem to agree that it was contributory,, which is more beneficience than would be allowed by most.

Ghazali:

Also, the alienation/seperation of dharma from secular political power in India was more pronounced than in Europe or the Middle East. However, this is not necessarily tolerance but the fact that religius groups were scattered and could not pose a strong political movement.

Yes the Brahmin and the Ksatriya occupations were always distinct; there were no "God-kings" etc. But this division springs from the Vedic view itself; from the various dharmashastras that are puported to follow the Vedas and from general practice.

Basically, when it came to warfare, people in India historically rallied around their kingdom, their ethnicity and not their religion. It doesnt make it that religion was more tolerant, it just wasnt central to day to day life other than rituals.

This makes no sense. If religious identity wasn't central (in the sense that people would not go out and kill for religion), then the dharmic framework WOULD be tolerant, now wouldn't it?! You say this is civilizational, but would it hold up individually, among the competing schools? Can you name a particular sect within the dharma framework - Shaiva, Vaishnava, Bauddha, Jaina, Lokayata - that has a long and sustained history of killing for Truth?

Take a look at Gupta archaeological remains. In the allegedly classical "Hindu" resurgence, you have Buddhist viharas and Jain temples side by side with Vaishnava and Shaiva temples. Hindu rajas in Kerala donated land and space to Churches in the 7th century, as the Kotayyam plates demonstrate; there are hundreds of examples.

You claim that Christianity is only "one of the competing truth claims" in Western civilization. I agree with you, if your time frame is post 16th century. But you have a difficult time recognizing the possibility that plurality might be a truth claim in itself, and dismiss it as "postmodernism" :-)

Naik's argument is not logically flawed. He did not say that other religions say 2+2=3. What he said is "It's OK that Saudi and some other Muslim countries don't allow other religions to preach because they are SURE that Islam is correct." He said that there is no equivalence between that and the UK/US allowing the propagation of Islam because he says "They allow it because they are not sure that their religion is right. We know so we do not allow.." He uses the math analogy to justify why such sureness would lead to such drastic action. "If it were a matter of math, would the US/UK allow people to propagate 2+2=3? No, because they are SURE of this."

You actually find his equating muslims faith in Islam with mathematical certainty, logical???

It doesn't bother him that by his taking stances like this, he presents an extreme view that endangers Muslims everywhere.

Why should it bother him to say what he "knows" is as true as 2+2=4? The "extreme" view of Islam that these dangerous fundamentalists preach is the Islam as practiced by Mohammad and his companions. In other words, this is the true, pure Islam. If you reject this Islam you are in effect rejecting Mohammad's claim to be the "last prophet".

Pooniyan-I'm sorry, I'm not understanding what I said has to do with what Zakir Naik said.If you could elaborate please.

I found both your and Zakir Naik's tones the same.. the 2+2=4 logic.. that's it..

Kush, thanks for the link.. I'd bookmark it and see whenever I need bouts of laughter.. :-)

Little bit more on caste and Jews, from a review of KASHRUT, CASTE AND KABBALAH — The Religious Life of the Jews of Cochin, which I have not read, but would like to:

The authors maintain that in every culture the Jewish worship resembles the host country. They believe that Hindu symbols and behaviours of priestly purity were adapted in Cochin Pesach and minhang. The important question at this level raised by them is that of Jewish observances of the Cochin Jews and the caste status established by them through their rituals. They further opine that one of the most important ways in which they emulated the caste behaviour is by proliferating into endogamous sub-groups. This separation was maintained through dietary restrictions. Their endogamy and Kashruth set them apart from each other.

Ghazali:

Also, the Muslims that you;ve encountered that think that Hindus are dirty I'm willing to bet were desi Muslims. You would have take into culture.My black muslim friends have never heard of such an idea. Maybe they are simply emulating a cultural model of looking at the "other"that is prominent in South Asia. I mean there is no official caste system in Bangladesh today, but it doesnt stop Muslims from looking down at other people for being so and so profession.

Oh come Gazali, Brown islam was rife with caste. Looking out to an allegedly purer form of Islam among "Black Muslims" is culturally defeating.

There were Sunni and Shia castes of professions - weavers, scribes, butchers, slaves; and 'racial' categorizations, turks, persians, mixed race, tribal etc. Even within locality, they were internally segregated by caste divion; caste loyalty could transcend religious loyalty. To allege that Hindus and Muslims did not share the same worldview (of which caste was central)until the colonial period would be a reengineering of history.

BTW the Bangladeshi scholar Rafiuddin Ahmed is one of the leading defenders of Brown Islam vis a vis Arab "purity."

Well done, pantheist. Well done. My bigotry and extremism can surely not be hidden from you for long.
Now, go and read my post #115.

No need to twist it into something even dumber so that you can attack his point of view even more easily. It's eminently attackable on other grounds.

I think it's about time anti-paganism be recognized as a form of hate speech.

"Pagans/kafirs/heathens" need to grow a spine and confront these asinine abrahamists head on. Besides buddhism, hinduism, taoism, confucianism, sikhism, jainism, shamanism etc, greek philosophy too is pagan. The very foundation of modernity, Reason and Science, is pagan.

Christianity was kicked off its pedestal by the rational Enlightenment philosophers and kings who much preferred the pagan Greek Philosophers (and Confucius) over the Church and its prophets. The shamanic/pagan Mongol warriors came pretty close to wiping out Islam in the 13th century. Similar drastic actions will eventually have to be taken against this current abrahamic menace.

kurma, educate yourself! pantheist is offended, insulted even. that's who patheist is :)

if Hinduism can be everything, then at the same time its nothing. Can you understand why someone could see it like that?

Anyone who thinks that everything=nothing needs his head examined.

Anyone who thinks that everything=nothing needs his head examined.

i suppose that's why the hindus put a tilak on their forehed - it's the representation of the dirac delta function. oy vey! apu's really smart.

caste is not the whole story, but you seem to agree that it was contributory,, which is more beneficience than would be allowed by most.

Looks like we have an apologist for the caste system here. Apologists for slavery, nazism etc, manage to find plenty of "beneficence" in their own particular ideologies as well.

uh, not to go off topic, seeming that this comment thread has turned into religion 101, but here's an article from today's star trib that gives more insight into chaudary's good natured response to the "congratulation" email letter:

http://www.startribune.com/357/story/820037.html

it's the representation of the dirac delta function

A dirac delta function (a spontaneous response for just an instance) in one domain is white noise (covers the entire the width) in another domain. That is one of the most profound thought by Paul Dirac of 20th century, and even includes Heisenberg Uncertainty principle (fineness in one domain becomes extremely crude in another). Therefore, everything clear in one domain = nothing resolvable in another domain.

Maybe, Hindu thinkers were on something. I thought the concept of shuniya touches that.

This means that a hair splitting discussion on comment board like SM means nothing to masses.

Edumacated! Hairy_D, are you a physicist/Engineer by training? My top guess would be physicist/chemist.

Looks like we have an apologist for the caste system here.

Oh you nailed me macacaroach. BTW everyone who has married within caste, is, in a sense, an apologist for the caste system. I would much prefer to be a caste apologist than a banned troll who resurfaces under a different identity.

Apologists for slavery, nazism etc, manage to find plenty of "beneficence" in their own particular ideologies as well.

LOL :) Godwin's Law Alert.

in measure theory the notion you mock isnt far fetched. The impulse is measurably non-zero on a support of measure zero. i'll present this another way. a layperson interprets the impulse as having a magnitude of infinity at a single point on R - but with measure 1. the single point of course is the support with measure 0. g'nite........i suppose that's why the hindus put a tilak on their forehed - it's the representation of the dirac delta function. oy vey! apu's really smart.

LOL. Talk about far-fetched. How can a mathematical function that involves infinitesimal narrowness be everything? Methinks Apu isnt nearly as smart as he thinks he is:

http://cnx.org/content/m10059/latest/

"The Dirac Delta function, often referred to as the unit impulse or delta function, is the function that defines the idea of a unit impulse. This function is one that is infinitesimally narrow, infinitely tall, yet integrates to unity"

Kush, Hairy,

Dil khush kar diya yaar! Measure theory, Fourier transform - this is headed in the right direction :-)

LOL. Talk about far-fetched. How can a mathematical function that involves infinitesimal narrowness be everything

just take a fourier transform of dirac delta function, and see what happens. hairy_d is not talking nonsense. Dirac bhai, that definition means more than you and I can even understand.

please read white noise, and its relationship to dirac delta function.

hairy_d is not talking nonsense

Of course he is. A mathematical concept that involves infinitesimal width, infinite height and unit area is neither nothing, nor everything. Get it?

If you two think that the Dirac Delta Function means nothing can be everything then you have not understood it at all.

...brown...nerdz.

Looks like we have an apologist for the caste system here.

Oh you nailed me macacaroach. BTW everyone who has married within caste, is, in a sense, an apologist for the caste system. I would much prefer to be a caste apologist than a banned troll who resurfaces under a different identity.

ad hominem?

"uh, not to go off topic, seeming that this comment thread has turned into religion 101, but here's an article from today's star trib that gives more insight into chaudary's good natured response to the "congratulation" email letter:

http://www.startribune.com/357/story/820037.html"

Thanks whatevs :)

Seems like Satveer Chaudhary has handled himself pretty well in response to the email. From the article:

There was more, including a suggestion that Jesus can forgive Chaudhary's sins. This stuff is fine in Sunday school but out of line in politics, where we are supposed to debate not how many angels dance on pinheads, but how many poor kids we can put on health care.

"I have no problem with people wearing their religion on their sleeve," Chaudhary says. "That's their choice. But before they lecture me, they should think of a Bible verse: 'Judge not, lest ye be judged.' When I got her letter, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. This is exactly the type of politics the voters have rejected."

Chaudhary has faced death threats, hate mail and ignorance so deep it almost seems funny. Last spring, when he wore traditional Indian dress to the Senate, including a formal Nehru jacket, a Republican senator wearing a hideous hick tie asked that Chaudhary be ejected for not wearing a tie.

"HE was wearing a tie, but whether he was following any sense of decorum was debatable," Chaudhary jokes.

Chaudhary, you see, has a sense of humor. He needs one.

Indeed he does.

He was born in Minneapolis to parents from India. His mother was a lab worker, his father a veterinarian. He is a graduate of St. Olaf College and got a law degree from the University of Minnesota. If you judge by his hobbies, he's Minnesotan to the core: fisherman, hunter, cabin owner.

This fall, he bagged a whitetail deer near his cabin, and also shot a redhead duck, which he plans to display in his office at the Capitol.

"I like to be called 'Swede,' " he jokes. "But if there's one place I find my soul, it's at my cabin on the lake. That's where I find my clarity."

Sounds like Swede to me.

Still, he empathizes with other minorities, and with Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, who was asked by a cable-TV moron last week to "prove" he isn't "working with our enemies."

Chaudhary blames "culture warriors," red-blooded American Christians who think they can defend their culture by slamming everyone else's.

"That's a PC [politically correct] term, 'culture warriors,' " Chaudhary says. "I think it's just another term for racism. Fortunately, Minnesotans have caught on to that and are more interested in the things elections are supposed to be about -- education and health care and the outdoors. The bottom line is: I won."

Maybe, in the end, Rae Hart Anderson and other culture warriors should take comfort from Chaudhary's religion:

"We accept her and others like her into the family of God," Chaudhary says. "It is the Hindu way to seek understanding and to do it with respect and kindness."

We'll know they are Hindus by their love! I wish I could say the same for my religion.

Hehe... nice one :)

Oh, and this...

hairy_d:

i've only read your statement and do not know the full context in theological terms - however just for the sake of completion - in measure theory the notion you mock isnt far fetched. The impulse is measurably non-zero on a support of measure zero. i'll present this another way. a layperson interprets the impulse as having a magnitude of infinity at a single point on R - but with measure 1. the single point of course is the support with measure 0. g'nite.

I love when he talks dirty.

Not necessarily. Judaism, the original Abrahamic faith, does not require evangelizing.

We actually discourage it pretty actively.

Becuase if we converted more people to Judaism, we'd have to sell to them at wholesale prices too. It would cut into our profit margins, nu?

Wonkette cites Siddharta's story :

First, let’s mention that Chaudhary is a second-generation American and a practicing Hindu whose ancestors come from Uttar Pradesh, India. In other words, George Allen would not want this guy at a Confederate Reenactment! Chaudhary was one of nine Indian Americans who won midterm races in state and national races last week. And he was re-elected with 63% of the vote.

One commenter writes:

Dear Defunct Candidate Anderson,

After taking a suitable period to digest your previous missive I have decided to reply. I appreciate your interest in my well-being, now and in the afterlife. I haveo nly one question for you? Have you accepted Kali as your personal lady and savior? Judging by the fine work the people in your party and of your faith have been doing in Asia the past 3 year, I suspect you may know her all too well, whether you realize it or not! Just knowq, for her every hand, there is a 1-fingered salute for you and those like you!

May Kali keep you warm in her embrace!Satveer

Senator Chaudhary is not squeaky clean in this. WCCO-TV is a very liberal cheerleader media outlet and Senator Chaudhary has a history of playing the media like a fine violin. The man goes out of his way to be offended and gets quite sanctimonious about it.

See the summary of the situation at http://bootson.blogspot.com

Wah wah, that's super-refined super-synthetic top-notch trollish!! I'm sure he set up his machiavellian play so that he'd obtain an offending letter by trickery, so he could be offended, so he could continue to play the media like a violin!!!

WTH/F??

I read some of the comments and had to have a lot of patience with the language mistakes. Most do not seem to take any trouble to correct their language mistakes. This makes reading painful and understanding very difficult. I am of Indian origin and Christian. Taught many non-Christian children in school without attempting to convert anyone. If the Europeans had forced Christianity on Indians, I am sure there would have been more than a mere 2% Christians today. So that proves it was never pushed down one's throat in India.

Having now lived in the US for 19 years, in my Senior years I have taken to trying to understand different faiths. I often wonder if my faith is wholly true. The one God, three persons ( Trinity), Jesus Eternal presence among us. Our receiving Him in the Blessed Sacraments etc. Just now, I am reading a book titled Mysteries, Marvels and Miracles in the lives of Catholic Saints. There are innumerabe instances of bilocation ( being present in two places at the same time), Levitation ( being raised off the floor when in ecstacy), Incurruptible bodies after death. Some saints have been dead for centuries and their bodies are fresh to date. Actually the body of St. Francis Xavier is still in India in Goa. He died in the 1600s. He was one of the earliest missionariesfrom Europe. This helps me believe my faith and accept it as true.

Many more miracles have been described cures from illness. Blindness and deafness cured. Jesus, Mary, Angels and saints have appeared to many people telling them about the after life. Some have actually been shown a vision of hell.

I would like to know if these sort of miraculous things happen in Hinduism and Islam. Then we could compare and contrast and see where the TRUTH lies. But if people want to keep their truth to themselves, then that would be a very selfish thing to do. This is what I see in almost all the letters. To keep controversial subjects to themselves alone is no way to learn the truth .I am sure Jesus would like to be known, so one has to speak up for Him. In fact, he Commanded that and we will be failing in our duty if we remain silent. Accepting or rejecting is the choice given to us by God. We Christians cannot stand before Jesus on Judgment Day and say we never bothered to tell everybody else about Him. So there is nothing wrong in being told what one believes. We need to talk about death and the after life as Jesus told us about it. Hindus believe in reincarnation and we believe in Heaven, Hell and Purgatory. Both beliefs cannot be true. One has to be wrong or both wrong.

I dare not say Jesus is wrong when I believe He is God . I believe He is God because He said so and proved it. I am ever ready to learn and exchange views and ideas without running anyone or any religion down. I respect human intelligence and we all have to be humble enough to admit we can be wrong and misunderstand scripture.

Noela Noronha opined,

If the Europeans had forced Christianity on Indians, I am sure there would have been more than a mere 2% Christians today. So that proves it was never pushed down one's throat in India.

Well, a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition would tell you that it wasn't for want of trying. So, it doesn't really prove much. And I don't know whether you tried to convert your students or not, but I do know that there are such attempts by religiously motivated teachers (christians _and_ others). (In fact, a friend of mine from a catholic run school in Calcutta was telling me how speaking any language other than English on school premises is punishable by caning).

Either way, I think its the Noela Noronha/Rae Anderson types amongst christians that really get on our nerves - the whole, I'm convinced my "faith" is "true" (talk about an oxymoron!!), therefore I'm really helping you when I keep telling you to convert. Whatever happened to religion being a personal experience ?

Ghazali

1. Hinduism is more an ethnicity, than a religion similar to Judaism's relationship to Jews. Many Jews say you could be athiest and be a Jew. There are some religous Jews who contest this claim. I'm sure there are Hindus who contest this claim as well. Also, any attempt at defining Hinduism become pointless. Since even your claim is but one of many claims it has no definitive power over other claims.

A Hindu can be athiest in sense that he dont need to believe that there is a god up there who has created this world and who is watching us . "Believe in god " is not required to be a Hindu . It is liberation that is more important . N
in general various darshans in Hinduism differs in nature of atama( soul) and its relation with Brahman (god) .

2. Also, if Hinduism can be everything, then at the same time its nothing. Can you understand why someone could see it like that?

Yes many people who dont understand Hinduism may get confused about it . Like it is very common to hear from a Hindu that there is only one god while discussing adwaita(no-duality). Though actually it says that only god exist.

also you dont get anything by just becoming Hindu. If you belive in jesus you are no longer a sinner .But even after you become a Hindu nothing changes.So nobody has ever tried to define who is a Hindu but focused on how to get liberation.

Christian: Born Again type... Jesus said, "No man comes to God the Father, but by ME...I am the way, the truth and the life...ask Me and see if I won't give you LIVING WATER...AND YOU WON'T THIRST AGAIN". I'm SATISFIED...BUT THERE'S A DESERT OUT THERE....I exist in the Oasis of Jesus. You can't evaluate what you don't know exists...but I can, because I have met the Man, and He tells me more about me than I ever knew to ask or consider. I admire His work in me...and we do relate like family. This is better than anything earth offers...money, position, earthbound intellect, subterranean options....I found Jesus, and He was looking for me. WE met...all to my advantage...and He says He wanted to include me...if I would. I said, YES. He respected the godlikeness in me, and never forced anything on me....just invited me to a new dimension of myself, with untarnished options...going from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Resurrected Jesus. Power to love exists, but in a different dimension of unconditional love...called salvation. Many are called...few are chosen...perhaps because few want to be chosen to new hope, honest love and genuine faith in more reality than they can currently imagine. God's life is beyond us until we participate in more than we know...by faith of course. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things that are unseen.

Say that you met Jesus, in the world today, and He said He was God in a body...say that He said He entered time as a Baby, but previously existed and created all things that are in existence--material and spiritual and that He planned your life before He created the worlds....and then what if [consider] that He said after being killed by sinners, without tolerance for His position as God and Servant [this didn't compute]He said He did this for you...greater love has no man than this that a man lay down his life to save another. Then what if He said I left and sent my Spirit, but, "I'll be back myself..." or what if he reminded you, "Or you'll be coming to be judged by Me-- if you die unforgiven it will be TOO LATE--and I don't want that to happen so pay attention NOW BECAUSE I'M HERE FOR YOU...I LOVE YOU MORE THAN I LOVE MY SELF..."...and say that you have a personal conversation with God and find out He is VERY alive and talks BACK and breathes LIFE INTO YOUR OWN SPIRIT and that He has being--and that you're created in His very image--at least short term with choices for more. What if He has counted the seconds of your life and the hair on your head...and knows your heritage, thoughts and actions without you telling Him anything about yourself. What if this makes your hair stand on end, and you find God to be inexplicable, and your own reactions and small understanding of Him inexplicable also. What if He says He created you to be more than you are currently aware that you could be, and you're wasting your potential and the time of your life. Say that He indicates you're known totally, yet you are totally and unconditionally loved by God as is, right now, with Him knowing you have not even sufficiently respected your own purpose [not even adding the idiocy and stupidity of ignoring your Creator since you're obviously intelligent to know you didn't create you and can't make more of you and you can't create anyone in your own image -- and what if He states that you could be forgiven for ignoring your badly nourished human spirit and that He cares, and wants to help now by giving you LIVING BREAD COMING FROM HEAVEN, AND SPRINGS OF LIVING WATER that you can't bottle up and consume. IF YOU MET such A MAN THAT TOLD YOU MORE ABOUT YOURSELF THAN YOU KNEW SO FAR...WOULD YOU BELIEVE IN YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE? Or would you continue to pretend you understood--and retain the little you could grip in your smallish, grasping palm?

Can the bowl say to the Potter...why have you made me thus? The bowl doesn't have a heart or a mind or an education...just a purpose known to the Creator. Until the bowl becomes a living creature with will and ability for self-evaluation, the bowl is just inanimate, although somewhat useful by someone until broken into dust. But what if the Potter breaks the unawareish bowl, and makes room for more, even giving the bowl insight into itself to know it is now useless and fragmented? Would the bowl think it could become more and have hope to get itself remade, or even ask the Potter for a better design to hold more than it previously could hold...

Eggs are fragile creations, and a broken Humpty Dumpty hard to glue...but the Creator of all things takes an egg, and breaks it with superior life from the inside out...lets life form inside, and peck its way out and twin chicks set foot on earth with voices and purpose--with bodies and smallish minds that grasp little. Some fractured human ideas lead to more of life and more knowledge of the lack of knowledge, even in the talking heads found everywhere--that fragment into even less so easily.

I suppose tin men have a purpose, but they can't change the world or themselves until they come alive and ARE GIVEN a heart beat from a SUPERIOR SOURCE--- ER AH FROM THE CREATOR. ETERNAL LIFE is a gift that must be requested and then bestowed.... and before you have it you really have no way to evaluate it...

So here's to life in Christ...stepping into transformation and having life by asking for more than you now know.

Reviewing these comments lets me know there is much lacking...thus deeper discussion is impossible.

People perish for lack of knowledge and look inside the same mind that keeps coming up with nothing...agnostic or aetheist...many are satisfied with nothing more, nothing more. Or...could there be more beyond the pale of this current discussion...?

There is more...God with us. Getting acquainted is possible for all...if not probable for all.

rae, we are HEATHENS. you are right, deeper discussion is indeed impossible.

Quite amazing that people are so sensitive to their religions. Thank God, I am an atheist :-). It's so much more fun to sit back and enjoy the rif-raffs on fairy tales..LOL..

One thing about religion is that 99% are born into a religion and thus by the "luck of birth" are bestowed with some sort of beliefs. Now, once that happens, it automatically becomes some sort of a requirement to defend that religion. I find it quite funny, it's all an act of retro-fitting. To cite an example, an Hindu, now that he is born Hindu, has to defend the caste system ("caste system was originally good"), a Muslim was to defend his faith as well ("Islam is a religion of peace and blah"), even though tons of evidence would point otherwise.

Quite amazing that people are so sensitive to their religions. Thank God, I am an atheist :-). It's so much more fun to sit back and enjoy the rif-raffs on fairy tales..LOL..

Yeah, isn't it cool??.. LOL.. an atheist / agnostic has to defend nothing.. just sit back and watch the fun of seeing people fight/argue/kill each other in the name of their respective stories/fairy tales.. :-) Sorry if people think it is rude.. But hey we tried to instill some sense into the fairytale believing folks.. but what else we can do..

Yeah, isn't it cool??.. LOL.. an atheist / agnostic has to defend nothing.. just sit back and watch the fun of seeing people fight/argue/kill each other in the name of their respective stories/fairy tales.. :-)

Unless you happened to be killed in the friendly or unfriendly fire ;-) Atlantic Books is preparing a series of commentaries on what it alleges are the 100 most influential books of all time. You have the usual suspects: Plato's Republic, Das Kapital, etc.

But John Gray, the British philospoher, thought the list a farce:

The return of religion as a pivotal factor in politics and war is one of the defining features of the age, and it is time Paine, Marx and other secular prophets were gently shelved in the stacks. The writings of these Enlightenment savants have stirred events for a very brief period in history, now clearly coming to an end. Against this background it is good to have Bruce Lawrence's admirably balanced and informative volume on the Qur'an, and to look forward to Karen Armstrong's volume on the Bible appearing in the Atlantic series next spring. A few great books of science have altered history, as have some works of clairvoyant speculation, such as Freud's Interpretation of Dreams. But the books that have most formed the past, and which are sure also to shape the future, are the central texts of the world religions. Future volumes in the series must surely include Confucius's Analects and the Tao Te Ching, the Bhagavadgita and the Buddha's Fire Sermon - texts that have never ceased to shake the world and, as far as anyone can tell, always will. [Link]

I read some of the comments and had to have a lot of patience with the language mistakes. Most do not seem to take any trouble to correct their language mistakes. This makes reading painful and understanding very difficult. I am of Indian origin and Christian. Taught many non-Christian children in school without attempting to convert anyone. If the Europeans had forced Christianity on Indians, I am sure there would have been more than a mere 2% Christians today. So that proves it was never pushed down one's throat in India.

Noela Noronha,
Maybe folks here have language issues, but you really ought to give better thought instead to the faulty logic that you employ. Note for example your use of "I am sure" with "So that proves" in the above para. So whatever you're personally sure of, is sufficient in and of itself to prove anything? I'll cite one more example - you want to compare miracles across faiths. If for you miracles = "Correct" claims to God-truth, you'll actually never find the TRUTH as you put it. No one can vouch for anyone else. All miracles you've described are not universally witnessed and so cannot be discussed objectively in order to arrive at the conclusion you're seeking. And ironically those phenomena that are universal cease to be miracles in daily life - e.g. Sun, Moon...

But if people want to keep their truth to themselves, then that would be a very selfish thing to do...To keep controversial subjects to themselves alone is no way to learn the truth . I am sure Jesus would like to be known, so one has to speak up for Him. Accepting or rejecting is the choice given to us by God...So there is nothing wrong in being told what one believes...Hindus believe in reincarnation and we believe in Heaven, Hell and Purgatory. Both beliefs cannot be true. One has to be wrong or both wrong.

No one is keeping any truths to themselves. You know already there is a thing called Hinduism and others etc. If you want to find it, go seek it, don't judge stuff...I am sure YOU ARE SURE Jesus would like to be known! You can sing it to the stars all you want, just leave me out of it. In fact I wish there was a "Do not tell me about _____ and let me live in peace" list! And please, don't give me this - we have a choice - crap. By your own admission, there will be a Judgement Day, so you better believe whatever. There are consequences for not believing. As for hell/heaven/reincarnation, don't worry buddy, we each will find the truth when our time comes. No need to turn the current life into hell in the meanwhile.

OH SNAP! I was about to think I missed my chance to join this discussion--that's what I get for leaving work early on Friday--until I saw that Ms. Rae had stopped by!

Um, what can one say to a really long essay devoid of proper paragraphs? It doesn't really invite discussion. So Rae sweety, while I have no doubt that you love Jesus with all your heart, I have to ask, "Do you normally bombard people with univited one sided-discussions on other topics or just when it comes to Christ?" When you drop an atom bomb, even for all "the right reasons," there are very rarely any survivors.

I am a Christian moreso by choice than birth. But God help us, Mahatma Gandhi's words still ring true: I consider Western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ’s Christianity.

SERVE still comes before SHARE in the dictionary. So should it in our lives.

Yo Razib - the bit about Bohras not taking food from Hindus doesn't ring true with my experience. We had several Bohra friends growing up and I found them to be among the more open, liberal Muslims I knew...and there was lots of food back and forth. There's lots of them in Bombay and even Karachi bohras have strong ties to Bombay (probably because the Syedna lives there). They came to our weddings and ate our food, and vice versa.

Yo Razib - the bit about Bohras not taking food from Hindus doesn't ring true with my experience. We had several Bohra friends growing up and I found them to be among the more open, liberal Muslims I knew...and there was lots of food back and forth. There's lots of them in Bombay and even Karachi bohras have strong ties to Bombay (probably because the Syedna lives there). They came to our weddings and ate our food, and vice versa.

1) there are different strands of bohra thought.

2) even 'conservative' religious observant bohras are quite 'liberal' in their attitude toward political issues

3) i heard this from aziz poonawalla. perhaps he isn't typical?

4) back to #2, bohras are hard to pin down. see mullahs on the mainframe.

Please know that I am a Minnesotan and Ms. Anderson does not speak for me or anyone I know. Senator Chaudhary is a well-respected member of the Minnesota State Senate and has been re-elected numerous times. With his fellow DFLers (Democrats), he has worked to support working people, the poor, healtcare and education. Ms. Anderson's party cannot claim that (unless you consider slashing funding a means of "support"). In my view, if anyone needs to find the true meaning of Jesus, it's Ms. Anderson.

Well yeah, I'm aware that there are different strands of Bohra thought, seeing as the Syedna was a neighbour and I am very familiar with Asghar Ali Engineer's work, on the other end of the spectrum. I was talking about the Bohras I knew and grew up with. Some of them made their daughters wear salwars and not talk to boys in school, but I hadn't come across any that maintained food distinctions. Even those that really looked up to the Syedna.

Welcome Wonkette readers.

but I hadn't come across any that maintained food distinctions

yeah, that doesn't surprise me. i was simply referring to what should be done (or so aziz said).

Ms. Rae,

With due respect, your comment is totally insane.

-desitude (A born and raised Hindu American who intends to stay that way.)

I will now offer a sacrifice in my backyard temple to insure that you are not reborn as a tulip. See? We heathens can be compassionate too.

I gotta tell ya, adults with imaginary friends scare the heck outta me!

This is to thank post 161 for responding to my comment 160. I searched the web site that was recommended about Goa and I read about the Inquisition which happened 8 years after the death of St. Francis. So he was not responsible for the inquisition. I am aware of many bad things that have happened through the hands of Christians in many parts of the world over the ages. Greater the reason why we need Christ to save us from damnation. I am sorry and ashamed of these actions.

St. Peter cut the ear of one of the soldiers who came to arrest Christ and Jesus reprimanded him and stuck the ear back. He has asked us not to be violent, as violence begets more violence. Instead he asked us to love our enemies and pray for them. Are you going to find fault with this ? I think it is almost impossible and do so, we sin by doing injustices and bringing more pain into the world. It is OK if you do not like what his followers do. We are all not saints. Just for this reason, we need Him as our Saviour. He got us forgiveness of our sins by paying the price by shedding His blood. Do you know of anyone else who did that ?

Hindus and Buddhists believe they do not need anyone to save them .They can do it on their own attaining Nirvana or Moksha. This is great. I do not think I would ever succeed in becoming perfect. So I need Christ and the miracles He has worked in the lives of Saints. My article was mainly to get information of Supernatural Phenomenon in other religions not to criticize anyone. I know so little about other relgions, so there is nothing to compare with. If you enlighten me I will be grateful.

Attacking Christ and belittling Christainity will not help. That has gone on for 2000 years and Jesus knew that. He knew He would be rejected by His own people, by the Romans and by the world .It is discouraging for us who are only human and do not have His strength but we believe He will send help through His angels and saints.

what I am interested is in Supernatural Occurances in your respective religions. Proof of reincarnation to show the world it is true. Ofcourse I woud like innumerable chances to get to heaven. We poor Christians have only this one life to make it or blow it. That is why we believe He had to come on earth to tell us about the next world and how to get there. I AM THE LIFE, THE WAY AND THE TRUTH. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY tO THE FATHER. These are not my words but His. So you may contest it with Him. I am nobody or nothing without Him. I am willing to learn from all of you who are good .I know a lot of Non- Christias who are wonderful people and would love for them to know about Jesus and why He died such a cruel death. That would be a waste if it did not help every human being.

"I read about the Inquisition which happened 8 years after the death of St. Francis. So he was not responsible for the inquisition."

if i'm not mistaken, francis was the one who first formally requested or suggested an inquisition in goa, or was one of the prime supporters of one. he just wasn't alive to see the fruits of what was in his heart and head.

Noela,
Great if Christianity works for you. Try to look past the religious structure of Christianity if you really wish to understand divinity professed by other religions. I can point you to a bunch of miracles in Hinduism, but that exercise is pointless. What is that going to tell you? More miracles = what? And how can you simply claim Francis had nothing to do with massacres and terrible oppression inflicted in Goa in the name of Christianity for 250 years?

I can also point you to reports of little kids with inexplicable knowledge of specific geographic locales, and languages and people and relationships, where everything seems to add up when you look at circumstances of death of one individual and timefrom of birth of another...all of which is explainable by the doctrine of reincarnation. Here's one book on the subject. But like I said before, its still a matter of faith. If you're looking for a clean equivalency between aspects that form part of Christianity to those in other faiths to compare, you're likely to fail. Vice versa is also true.

to all the religious fanatics.

you lose. we have fossils. call us when you have something signed by god himself (jesus will do in a jam)

signed,

science

I am of Indian origin and Christian......I would like to know if these sort of miraculous things happen in Hinduism and Islam. Then we could compare and contrast and see where the TRUTH lies.

You are of indian origin and yet claim to be ignorant of any miracles in hinduism! How is that possible? Clearly you are lying.

Hindus believe in reincarnation and we believe in Heaven, Hell and Purgatory. Both beliefs cannot be true. One has to be wrong or both wrong.

Thats right. The utterly indefensible notion of an eternal Hell cannot be reconciled with belief in reincarnation. But you seem to be ignorant of the fact that its not just christians who believe in this patent nonsense. So do muslims. And long before christians and muslims, the ancient Egyptians and persian Zoroastrians also believed in eternal Hell and Heaven. Christianity borrowed this absurd idea from middle-eastern pagans. Ditto for its belief in a Messiah, Son of God and so on.

I dare not say Jesus is wrong when I believe He is God . I believe He is God because He said so and proved it.

Jesus did not write the Bible. Didnt you know that? How do you know what he actually said? Nor did the writers of the New Testament "prove" anything. The muslims too claim they have "proof" that Islam is as true as 2+2=4. Obviously neither of you have a clue about what proof actually means. Those who know what it means, the scientists and philosophers for example, overwhelmingly reject christianity and islam. What does that tell you?

I respect human intelligence and we all have to be humble enough to admit we can be wrong and misunderstand scripture.

Christianity is an insult to human intelligence. Which means that you dont respect human intelligence, doesnt it? How can you justify believing that God requires the blood sacrifice of an innocent victim to appease his anger? Or that he will torture virtuous humans forever in Hell?

He got us forgiveness of our sins by paying the price by shedding His blood. Do you know of anyone else who did that ?

Primitive humans, including the Old Testament hebrews from whom Paul the ex-Pharisee got the idea, regularly sacrificed animals (and even humans) to their gods to atone for their sins. If you actually "respect human intelligence" as you claim, you would give up this absurd, primitive belief that an innocent scapegoat can "wash away your sins".

Hindus and Buddhists believe they do not need anyone to save them .They can do it on their own attaining Nirvana or Moksha. This is great.

What do you think Jesus meant when he said; "Seek and you shall find....the Kingdom of God (that)is within you"?? What hindus call Moksha and the buddhists call Nirvana is finding this immanent, eternal truth. The seeking is the sadhana and the finding is the Nirvana.

I AM THE LIFE, THE WAY AND THE TRUTH. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY tO THE FATHER. These are not my words but His.

Those are words put in his mouth by the fallible, human writers of the New Testament. It contradicts the rest of the teachings of Jesus, such as of God being immanent within us all. Which should tell you that he couldnt have made such a claim.

k

now about Jesus and why He died such a cruel death. That would be a waste if it did not help every human being

Millions have died far crueler deaths. Including many saintly people. Mansur Hallaj, a sufi martyr, was tortured and beheaded in Baghdad over a millenium ago by muslims for also claiming he was God.

We poor Christians have only this one life to make it or blow it.

In your totally unfair and unjust religion, you had the immense advantage of being born in a christian family. The poor ones are those born in heathen families who your "loving God" will torture forever in Hell, regardless of how virtuous they may have been. And this actually makes sense to you! Yet you have the gall to claim that you "respect human intelligence"....

I often wonder if my faith is wholly true.

A God that requires blood sacrifices, who will torture virtuous men forever, cannot possible be the true God. Pauline Christianity completely disregards the life and message of Jesus and focuses only on his death. It has made a bloody scapegoat out of the Teacher. This is not just my opinion, but also the opinion of well-known "christians" such as Albert Schweitzer, Soren Kierkegaard etc. Once you reject Paul's twist and go back to the teachings of Jesus you will find that the you are on the same path as buddhists and hindu advaitins.

I can't even read Rae Andersen's comment. That shit just hurts my eyes, man. It doesn't even make sense. Some random gibberish about bowls and potters and eggs. WTF?

Instead, I turn to:
noela nawrongya.

The one God, three persons ( Trinity), Jesus Eternal presence among us.

Aha, so you really are a Hindu! See, Christians don't really think of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three separate entities. The Holy Ghost is the "manifestation of Christ's love," and the Father is God. What you said is pretty good Hindu doctrine, though.

He got us forgiveness of our sins by paying the price by shedding His blood. Do you know of anyone else who did that?

I got a papercut this morning while sealing my expenses in an envelope. And I've decided it's...FOR ALL MANKIND. So there you go.

Hindus believe in reincarnation and we believe in Heaven, Hell and Purgatory. Both beliefs cannot be true. One has to be wrong or both wrong.

Let's go with, they're BOTH wrong. That one fits reality pretty well, actually.

Christianity is an insult to human intelligence.

Play nice, please or I'll pull this car over RIGHT NOW. Threads close (and die) when the contention-slinging gets too nasty. Only you can prevent dead threads. Only you.

Play nice, please or I'll pull this car over RIGHT NOW. Threads close (and die) when the contention-slinging gets too nasty. Only you can prevent dead threads. Only you.

Can I get a halleleujah? Target the idiot, not the religion of the idiot!

In response to #7 and #169, the version of that Gandhi quote I heard was "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians; because your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ."

I agree with most of the comments made by some of you. Christianity and especially Catholicism is hard to understand or believe. St. Paul himself said, it was foolishness to the world. The world will jeer and laugh and people will carry on trusting their own reason. It is hard to believe in a Trinity. The closest I could get to understand this mystery was like Water is ONE and we experience it in three forms - solid, liquid and gas which have very different qualities God must be having three forms.

It is also hard to accept that a small piece of bread becomes the body of Christ at Holy mass. I am sure you will say it is rediculous. They said so, in Christ's time itself and He did not call them back to reassure them. It was Peter who accepted ,as he said, " To whom shall we go, Lord". So it goes on and on. It is as one of you has said, "Christianity is an insult to human intelligence ". I'll go with that. By the way, because of Mass they do not offer the blood of animals any more. So Jesus satisfied that sacrifice that the Jews used to make saving a lot of animals. I am sure the Hindu vegetarian would approve of that.

It is exactly for this reason that I asked for supernatural proof which the Catholics have in plenty. Apparitions, bilocation, levitation, incorrupt bodies of saints, miraculous cures, etc. Jesus performed miracles and so did his apostles. Inspite of this 10 of them were martyred and so have many after them. Why this hatred ?

Talking about apparitions, we had one of Mary appearing to a boy taking milk for sale in Vailankanni in Tamilnadu. I think the boy was Hindu, I am not very sure. It is a famous place of pilgrimage in India. In the Americas Mary appeared in Gualadalupe Mexico over 400 years ago and 3000 Indians ( American) got converted to Catholicism.

So let me conclude that without Supernatural help we cannot accept Christianity. We pray for faith, hope and charity on a daily basis. Mother Teresa was a true Christian and she did not try to convert anyone. She just lived life like Christ wanted us to. I cannot do what she did. God gave me a computer and the abilty to use the internet and plenty of time at my disposal. I felt sorry for Rae Hart who ventured out to convert Chaudary. I do not expect to convert anybody by this debate. That has to come from Jesus Himself. He picks and chooses the ones he wants. Perhaps I have been chosen to get to those of you who have the patience to read what I write. I'll be satisfied if it just makes you curious to know more about Christ and what he wants of us for salvation.

I thank all those who read and respond truthfully. I have read about reincarnation and the origin of Hinduism, the Vedas and Upanishads. I thought they were much older but I found these too go back to about the time of Abraham and after. There is nothing before.

I AM THE LIFE, THE WAY AND THE TRUTH. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY tO THE FATHER. These are not my words but His.

Those are words put in his mouth by the fallible, human writers of the New Testament. It contradicts the rest of the teachings of Jesus, such as of God being immanent within us all. Which should tell you that he couldnt have made such a claim.

not only that, there are other interpretations for those words, even if you accept that jesus said it. for example, Paramahamsa Yogananda says -"Theologians have misinterpreted Christ's words in such passages as, 'I am the way the truth and the life no man cometh unto the Father but by me.' Jesus meant, never that He was the sole son of God, but that no man can attain to the unqualified Absolute, the transcendent Father beyond creation, until he has first manifested the 'Son' or activated Christ Consciousness within creation. Jesus, who had achieved entire oneness with that Christ Consciousness, identified himself with it in as much as his own ego had long since been dissolved." ( Autobiography of a Yogi , p. 198)

In simpler words, "i am the way" = reaching the state which Jesus had reached, an individual becomes "a Jesus", hence, that is the way to God. This is the close to lots of eastern religions' concept of nirvana etc.

Noella:

Hinduism is overloaded with Babas who perform (as far as their devotees are concerned) supernatural events. If you compare Puranic supernaturalism to Biblical supernaturalism. The Puranic would be like "S'all you got, yo? Check it!" Miracles tend to confirm what people believe already. There was a massive, international, Ganesha milk miracle a few years ago which Shashi Tharoor wrote about here. The 'rationalists' debunked it; for the believer, the proof was in the milk.

Seeker:

I can also point you to reports of little kids with inexplicable knowledge of specific geographic locales, and languages and people and relationships, where everything seems to add up when you look at circumstances of death of one individual and timefrom of birth of another...all of which is explainable by the doctrine of reincarnation.

I would argue that in 'Absolutistic' Hinduism, reincarnation is inessential. If all is One, realized, as the Upanishads say, in a flash of insight; if our sense of individuality is really a phantom self, then what exactly reincarnates? Sankara talks of the jiva bonded to the psycho-physical apparatus, which is a concession, imo, to orthodoxy. But even with Sankara, reincarnation is in the realm of Maya, and no firm and fast ontological chains attach to it.

For the average Hindu, reincarnation is tied to the moral order, and to questions of what happens hereafter, and is a source of comfort because all jivas ultimately attain moksha, there is no eternal Hell, There are modern Advaita gurus who reject it (Nisargadatta Maharaj) or deemphasize it (Ramana Maharshi). Also, there is no mention of rebirth in the RG Veda (though some have argued that certain hymns point in that direction). The Vedics travelled on to other realms, where one met one's family again, etc.

Desitude,
But even 'absolutistic' hinduism is just one stream amongst many that flow in Hinduism. At any rate, not arguing with you about it. Since Noela asked, I was providing documented examples suggesting it, and also making the point that even so, its a belief system and hence can't be simply compared to other beliefs rationally, as Noela indicated he wished to do.

Hindus and Buddhists are assured of reincarnation and Christians are assured of Heaven/Hell. The only way these two can be reconciled is that when the former die, they will come back as Christians/Jews/Muslims and then they will finally go to heaven or hell. This is my thinking. I have not seen it anywhere. So there is no authority behind this thought. It should satisfy all of us.

As for Jesus and Heaven, he spoke often of the Kingdom of God. About mansions prepared for those who are to be with Him, so beautiful the eye has not seen and it was beyond human imagination. He also spoke of the unquenchable fire prepared for those who did not accept Him. The prodigal son is admitted to his father's house once he was forgiven when he came back. Jesus spoke of His Kingdom often. Not once did He mention that we would come back to another life in this world. He spoke of being reborn but that was in spirit, not that we would take birth again.

He said, he would come back at the end of time to judge the whole world. He forgave sinners, prostitutes, tax collectors etc. In fact, he said he came for sinners, saying the sick needed a physician. He told a story of people who were invited to a wedding feast, but those invited refused to come. Then he invited the poor and all in the street .They were expected to wear special clothes given by the host but one man arrived without these special clothes and he was bound hand and foot and ejected into the eternal fire ( which we call hell).

So Jesus surely mentioned both Heaven and Hell .He did not say who was going to each place. In fact, we know some of whom made it to heaven and we really do not know who went to hell. There is a hope that even very bad people might have asked for forgiveness at the last moment of their lives and so went to heaven.

When Mary appeared in Fatima, Portugal in 1917 she taught those kids a prayer " Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, take all souls to paradise especially those who are to die this day." We say this often on behalf of all humanity. So you are in our prayers and we believe Jesus will save good souls who for no fault of theirs are not his followers. But we Christians who know about Him have no excuse and so we have to follow in his footsteps and teach all of mankind about what he told us in the gospels.

So please do not take it out on Rae Hart Anderson. She is doing what Jesus expects of her. I am sure she meant to congratulate Mr. Chaudary. No doubt she would be disappointed over her defeat but this need not be taken as the reason for her sending that email to him. Take it in the best sense that she wished him well with final goal of getting to heaven in mind. Why does Christianity bug some of you ? All it teaches is there is a heaven and Jesus helps you to get there. The devil is powerful and deceives people by lying to us and he came to defeat the devil. Heaven was closed to all human beings before the death of Christ.

I cannot arugue with people who think Christ lied and that people put words into His mouth. They are welcome to their way of thinking. I am interested in those who would take a little more trouble to learn what he taught for our benefit.

I am interested in those who would take a little more trouble to learn what he taught for our benefit.

It would help if Rae Anderson had a similar viewpoint, and restricted her attentions to those who would take "a little more trouble". Satveer clearly does not want to take more trouble, and FYI neither do most non-christians you meet.

Regarding your thanks to my comment 161, you're welcome. It was interesting to see how you said St. Francis was "clearly" not responsible for the inquisition and its effects, when infact (as the article says) he was the one who asked that it be instituted. What positive motive could you possibly ascribe to his request ? And let us assume that his body is indeed "still fresh" as you said in an earlier comment, and that this is a miracle, and a super-natural sign confirming the [resemce christian god - what does this then tell you about your god, and the kind of people he likes ?

There is nothing wrong with the christian faith, well, atleast in comparison to other faiths (all pale before atheism, naturally). But, the arrogance that certain followers seem to exude - I believe in the actual god, you don't, i'm really here to help you clear your head of all the silly BS that you call your religion so that you don't go to hell and can join me in heaven - is what's annoying. I associate this arrogance not with Christianity itself, but rather the society that many christians inhabit.

Hi Noela,

In response to:

"Hindus and Buddhists are assured of reincarnation and Christians are assured of Heaven/Hell."

A philosophy within Hinduism, known as Dvaita philosophy, founded by Madhva, says that not ALL Hindus re-incarnate. Indeed, it classifies the souls into three types, the lowest of which never attains moksha, and goes into eternal hell. For more information, please refer to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhvacharya#Three_Classes_of_Souls_and_Eternal_Damnation

Thank you Prassana for giving me a real name, at least I feel you are a real person. Those funny names some people give makes me feel they are unwilling to even to identify themselves. It becomes impossible to remember them too. I am looking into the web site you have given me. I know bits and pieces of the Ramayana and Mahabharata as Ilearnt Hindi in school and we had some lessons in that. I hope this exchange of information will help us find what is true in all this confusing stuff passed down to us. Much of it is difficult to believe but I would say that of the Bible too. I do not think much of the Old Testament can be taken literally. So let us leave those texts as good reading material .No one can prove what is true and what is not.

But after Christ there is recorded history, real people and real incidents and even in today's modern world there are miraculous things happening and I am keen to learn what is happening in other religions as well. Reference Mary's apparitions in Lourdes, France 1858; Fatima, Portugal 1917. One of those visionaries died in 2005. At present there are apparitions in Medjugore, Yugoslavia. There are many conversions to Cathoicism because of these apparitions and the miracles that take place in these places. I do not know of web sites. I am sure there are some but I do not know of any.

Thank you once again for your reply.

Since receiving responses to my requests, I have read a few of the recommended sites. Re. St Francis (addressed to Sequia Mutiny), if he were so bad to Hindus of Goa as to instigate the inquisition, why would he be blessed with the incorruptibility of his body? We believe God did this for our sakes. Perhaps it is to convince Catholics of the truth of our faith and to convince the unconvinced Hindus that what he did was pleasing to God. It is OK if you disagree with me but if I can add to faith in the supernatural is some small way,I will be very happy about inadvertantly getting involved in this controversy. I have a family to convince as they tend to be agnostic because of modern secular attitudes. I am really hoping to get through to them someday. I am 74 and grandmother and worry about my young grandsons who have no faith in the supernatural- Catholic or otherwise.

I read about Brahman and understood he/she/it is the eqivalent of Our God who is a Spirit- with no form, no body and we are forbidden by the first Commandment to give God a form. Then you have some sort of a Trinity - Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva not exactly God the father, the son Jesus and the Holy Spirit of Christianity. Then come all the devas and devis and these to me felt the equivalent of angels. We do not worship angels but we do ask for their help and I have experienced their help in my life. Not miracles as such but I have received the help I needed at the time. Many people experience this.

Then you do have demons ( bad spirits). Here there seems no difference. So that proves there must be hell from where they come or may be they are on earth in some horrible form taking possession of some human beings. Take your pick.

So there are commonalities but all that does not explain the truth about reincarnation. Mary ( the Mother of Jesus) showed a vision of hell to those three children in Fatima (1917)and told them many people go there and that our prayers could help these poor souls. So we pray for everyone without exception, no matter what faith you belong to. So if you are not reincarnated, I hope our prayers will help to keep people out of hell.

I read about Ganesha and the disappearing milk. Well I do not know what to make of it .If no one speaks or says anything of the truth about Ganesha and the stories relating to him . Is he some sort of saviour who will help you get out of the cycle of births and deaths? He did not die when his head was cut off, so you believe he became a god ( I guess in my terminology a saint). May be.

I do not know if this is going anywhere but it is interesting for me and May God help us all get to the truth. God bless all of us and bring us peace on earth and heaven at the end. We in the USA have a lot to thank God for. I am sure we all did so in a special way yesterday Thanksgiving Day.

well if st francis was fresh, so was mao ze dong and lenin and some baby in a church in france in 1900s if i remember right.
the thing is that wax arsenic etc have been used to preserve bodies.
can u certify that his body is naturally preserver or do u know for certain that a a doctor or expert embalmer did not work on him
abt hindu mythology etc u r far too ignorant and forget u i am too as it is far too complex and multi layered that u think.
just bcause texts exhist one cannot say that they have not changed over time to convenience someone or have been interpreted or translated with the same intent of their makers

Noela dear, I can see how you're "trying" to understand and discuss issues about relegion and god, but at the same time, it's clear that you strongly believe and have ignorant prejudices and misconceptions about not just other relegions but christianity itself. The apparitions, everything in the bible etc. you consider all of this to be un questionably true.
Why does one have to believe in Jesus in order to go to "heaven"? what is Gods intention behind this strict request? Isn't it possible that people can be good and moral without relegion?
So you're telling me that someone who's been extremely kind and good throughout their life, will go to hell if they do not believe that Jesus was the son of god? Why would God want to do that?
It's not Gods (I guess if there is one) word, but people who decided to make it his.

I was just watching the "dragon triangle in the Pacific Ocean" where many ships and planes have disappeared for no good reason. The Japanese put it down to some sort of a dragon swallowing ships and planes. So I agree man cannot always know the reason for many strange occurances. Earlier I have seen some programs on the Bermuda Triangle.

netsuffering. I am certainly very ignorant of other religions besides my own but I am trying to find out from those of you who are knowledgible some authentic information. What I find in our dialogue is some of you just put down Jesus and Christianity. I see no good reason for that. Jesus was not a criminal, for us to be ashamed of him and although he was put to a death meant for criminals. In the modern world, even some Christians do not want to believe in Him. It is Christmas time now. How much of Jesus is shown to people ? It is Santa, Rudolph, Snowman etc. It appears for some reason people do not want to accept Christ.

He was rejected 2000 years ago right from birth to death. It took 300 or more years, for Constantine the Roman Emperor to accept Him and stop persecuting Christians.It is only after a terrible 325 years of persecution that Christianity took on in Europe and the Mediterranean Countries ( the Roman World ). Much of that area was taken over by Islam after 625 A.D. most probably by the sword.

So I know Jesus will not be accepted by most people in the world. His life was full of suffering and what he asked of us was to carry our cross and follow him. This is what those early Christians did and true Christians continue to do to this day. Very few people are willing to make the sacrifices needed. I am sure Jesus knows that. So for ordinary folk like most of us His mercy and forgiveness is our only way to heaven.

As for Hinduism, Buddhism and other Eastern religions, I am sure there is a lot to learn from each of them. If they were good enough for humanity to save ourselves and go to God there was no need for Christ to come down to earth and preach a religion. I wonder why he came, saying he had to die a terrible death. He could have a had a quick death under Herod as a a baby. So He had reason to live for 33 years, suffer and die, AND THEN RISE FROM THE TOMB ON THE THIRD DAY.

We would reincarante over and over again until we became "perfect" and reached God. I wish believers in Reincarantion all the best and hope they will someday find themselves in a heaven where there is no Jesus.

I am glad I have the advantge of knowing about Saints who followed in Christ's steps showing the world that their lives were not in vain. They were all humble to know that we are all sinners, need forgiveness from Jesus and depend on Him and Him alone to reach that beautiful place called heaven.

It would be wonderful to believe that all of us are right no matter what we believe. Some suffer so much, some are greedy and take more than their share of earth's bounty, starve and exploit the poor and lower classes of society . When is all this to change ? By now, I am sure we would have gone through enough lifetimes to see some visible changes of perfection and goodness.

As for St. Francis, he is only one of many incorrupt saints. The one I am most impressed with is St Bernadette of Lourdes, France. The Virgin Mary appeared to her 18 times in 1858, when she was only 14 . Thousands of people saw her in ectasy on each occasion. The Lourdes water have cured many people miraculously. Bernadette died of tuberculosis at age 35, in 1879. Her body was interred three times and on each occasion was found fresh and incorrupt. I have a picture of her taken in 1995. No embalming was ever done. I am not here to convince anyone of my faith. You will believe only if you wish to. That is a choice we all have and perhaps our salvation depends on that choice. God/Jesus has given me this opportunity to let you know of His wonderworks through his followers.

You will believe only if you wish to. That is a choice we all have and perhaps our salvation depends on that choice. God/Jesus has given me this opportunity to let you know of His wonderworks through his followers.

Paying attention, Satveer?