Right on, Anna. I am ashamed of the disrespect that people of my own faith showed to others. It just goes to show once again that Christians need grace just as much as everyone else, and it's important not to forget that. Just as I don't hold Hinduism or my Hindu friends responsible for Graham Staines or my Muslim friends for all those nuns in Pakistan a few summers ago, I hope that my Hindu brothers and sisters will recognize my sadness at this whole incident and not hold all Christians--much less Christianity--to blame.

p.s. There should be no prayer in the Senate, anyway :p

Ha! Kneel before Zed!

"All that is necessary for the triumph of fundamentalism is that good people do nothing."
In total agreement with you, Anna, on this point. And it applies very nicely to the South Asian community in Vancouver. Sadly, there have been several episodes of violence against South Asian women by their husbands and families in the last couple years. Most of the ethnic media (which I work in) spends more time editorializing and complaining about the fact that the mainstream media only focuses on the violent aspects of the South Asian community. This is a very legitimate arguement...but ultimately they are doing their own community a disservice by constantly butting heads with the mainstream.
If the ethnic media halved the amount of time they spent bitching about the 'white' people out the get them, and focused on getting to the cultural root of the violence against SA women, on giving these women a voice, and on undercutting the mysogyny that the violence stems from, I think we'd be in a much more empowered place.
Cultural and ethnic fundamentalism though is what causes our ethnic media in Vancouver to turn a blind eye to our own cultural imperfections and blame the majority.
In my mind, if you really love something - be it a culture or a religion - you do whatever you can to rid it of the scourge of fundamentalism and intolerance, to heal it and make it whole and beautiful again.
Big up to the tolerant Christians.

What kind of a name is "Zed" anyway? or it supposed to be "Jhed" as they say in Bihar and UP?

I hope that my Hindu brothers and sisters will recognize my sadness at this whole incident and not hold all Christians--much less Christianity--to blame.

Who you calling bro, MF? (Imagine a crazy scowl on my face)......

What?

Zed said he had not received a single hate mail “or any kind of nasty mail at all. I have not got any negative mail or correspondence.”

Has he checked his spam folder yet?

Actually, in the couple of days after the incident, I received mails from a couple of on-campus non-desi student organizations who were planning to email congressmen etc to condemn the intolerance shown by those protesters. It was definitely very heartening!

I want to open my browser some day and read a news article that so-and-so chaplain/priest/swami/mulla was invited to pray on the senate floor and refused by saying religion has no business in that room.

If there will be prayer on the senate floor, I want one day a month set aside for no prayer to reflect us atheist americans.

If there will be prayer on the senate floor, I want one day a month set aside for no prayer to reflect us atheist americans.

They are more likely to have a Wiccan moon dance during their next all-night publicity stunt, er, debate.

Anna,

Your writing on this reminded me of the day the Babri masjid fell. That was the first time in my life that I was ashamed of being Hindu and totally saddened at the hijacking of my religion by the lunatic fringe. The second time I felt uncomfortable about my religion was the Staines incident.Till that point of time I thought that being Hindu meant being tolerant.

Fundies of every perusasion- Muslim/Xtian/Jeiwsh/Hindu etc etc - make life difficult for the majority of their own community .Its sad that the fundies are the most vocal and get the most press and are seen as representative of the religion itself instead of as the pathetic, cowardly and evil folks that they are.

SkepMod and other atheists,

I think being atheist is way better than being a religious fundamentalist anyday. I myself am not an atheist but agree that a "no prayer" day is a fine idea in the senate,

in a country where the PM is a sikh, president a Muslim, ruling party president a Christian women, army chief of staff a sikh , chief justice a dalit ,we can confidently say more than a simple majority of people are tolerant.

The problem comes when some Christian organisations target vulnerable communities and do conversions and false propaganda by offering material benefits etc (like recent incidents on the hills of Balaji temple etc) , i am against conversions but I totally condemn any violence in this regard.

The problem comes when some Christian organisations target vulnerable communities and do conversions and false propaganda by offering material benefits etc

Now wait a sec? Whats wrong with offering a little trade-off between the spiritual and material? Many of my beef-eating, balaji-worshipping friends have done it. No different from the accosting-hare-krishnas. They are free to offer Christ and a free college eduction, and you are free to call them idiots.

they should bring zed back to the hill so that he can lead the prayer without any morons this time.

however, like others, i don't really see the reason for govt sanctioned prayer before each session

As long as the majority in any religion controls the crazy lunatic fringe I say the religion is functioning within bounds. It is when the loonies are in charge and the majority does not rein them in either because they are scared or they do not care that trouble starts brewing. Thankfully I have seen a really large vociferous group that stands up everytime the fringe Hindu attempts to say or do something asinine.

As long as the majority in any religion controls the crazy lunatic fringe I say the religion is functioning within bounds. It is when the loonies are in charge and the majority does not rein them in either because they are scared or they do not care that trouble starts brewing. Thankfully I have seen a really large vociferous group that stands up everytime the fringe Hindu attempts to say or do something asinine.

accepting the existance of something without any proof seems like the equivalent of saying a green man or the tooth fairy is standing in front of me when there is none there. i think thats pretty loony. i think a religion by definition is not functioning. not sure whats so functional about baseless faith. but....as long as people dont bother me with this stuff, its all fine by me. why do we have prayer in the government anyways?

I agree with the first part of your comment.

The problem comes when some Christian organisations target vulnerable communities

Why is that anyone's problem, assuming you are not the one 'targeted'?

Why are some communities vulnerable in the first place?

and do conversions and false propaganda by offering material benefits etc

material benefits? i think you are using the term rather loosely here.

i am against conversions but I totally condemn any violence in this regard.

i am personally an aetheist with certian cultural roots (just as an aetheist Jew uses such a label to describe some cultural/ethnic affiliations) but I do not feel threatened, violated, insulted or exasperated when whole sections of people convert for political, economic and social or purely religious reasons to Christianity, Buddhism or Islam or any organized religion that promises their children a way out of the lives and mindsets they were born into.

P.S. to my above post:

And I think even well-meaning, non-violent people should stay away from giving their 'concerned' opinions on conversions.

Runa,

What about demands that the Senate bow before the Ori and submit to the Book of Origin? How about following the commandments from the Cylons' One True God? I think the Senate would pray to the Ori and the Cylon God before they entertain this strange religion called 'atheism' -- which is anyways merely a right-wing fundamentalist spin-off from agnosticism seeking to cash in the lucrative conversion from cheap $1.50 tie-dye t-shirt hippies to $12,000 armani-suit-wearing atheists. Personally, I want to see the senate honor the flying spaghetti monster -- who, if you don't know, is your key to salvation if you wish not to be eternally damned in boiling marinara sauce.

Runa,

What about demands that the Senate bow before the Ori and submit to the Book of Origin? How about following the commandments from the Cylons' One True God? I think the Senate would pray to the Ori and the Cylon God before they entertain this strange religion called 'atheism' -- which is anyways merely a right-wing fundamentalist spin-off from agnosticism seeking to cash in the lucrative conversion from cheap $1.50 tie-dye t-shirt hippies to $12,000 armani-suit-wearing atheists. Personally, I want to see the senate honor the flying spaghetti monster -- who, if you don't know, is your key to salvation if you wish not to be eternally damned in boiling marinara sauce.

I would love to dress up like a pirate and stand in front of the senate.

SST:

There was an FSM ref in the initial post about this story.

Yes, because the prayer he offered was SO offensive to actual Christians, agnostics or those who have been touched by a noodly appendage:

the beautiful thing is that any crackpot theory about the creation of the universe is as valid in societies eyes as our best physical understanding...seems messed up.

I personally do not think all Christians owe an apology. I think a condemnation of the three morons is good enough by any sane human being. I am sure it makes Zed feel good. But I personally think the only people who should apologize are those who mde those comments and the organizations that incited them.

Now wait a sec? Whats wrong with offering a little trade-off between the spiritual and material? Many of my beef-eating, balaji-worshipping friends have done it. No different from the accosting-hare-krishnas. They are free to offer Christ and a free college eduction, and you are free to call them idiots.

The "wrongness" is in the power-differrential between the missionary and the convert. The wrongness is in the lack of choices available to the convert. Your balaji-worshipping friends have probably started eating beef despite having other choices. Hare Krishnas do not entice converts by waving money in front of them. The farmer is often left with 2 choices, convert to Christianity and get a chance to have his kid educated; or go to sleep hungry. That is not a meaningful choice.

Although, the missionaries haven't created the dearth of choices available to the farmer, they take advantage of it. A Christian would spend his efforts changing the system so that the farmer has more choices available to him(and there are many Christians who do that), and then will allow the farmer to choose his own spirituality.

Anna,

I'm not as inclusive as you are but even I was disappointed at the display of intolerance shown in the Senate. I was actually embarrassed to watch what was happening as the poor guy tried to do his prayer. I won't go as far as you on who salvation is available to but I don't see a problem with a Hindu prayer in the Senate. Those Christians should be more outraged of some of the "abominations" that pass as law in those chambers.

Anil Rao:"
in a country where the PM is a sikh, president a Muslim, ruling party president a Christian women, army chief of staff a sikh , chief justice a dalit ,we can confidently say more than a simple majority of people are tolerant."

I say ::::Tolerance is not enough. The majority, whatever that may be must play an active role in safeguarding mutual liberties.

"The problem comes when some Christian organisations target vulnerable communities and do conversions and false propaganda by offering material benefits etc (like recent incidents on the hills of Balaji temple etc) , i am against conversions but I totally condemn any violence in this regard."

My right to convert is my constitutional right. How does it affect you if someone else converts? By denying them the right to convert you are robbing them of their fundamental human rights. My own tambramness wont let me turn mormon but I wont stop none from following what they like.

I always found Christianity and Islam to be busybody religions with a very negative view of other religions. Hinduism has its problem when it comes to treating its own adherants which makes their lower classes a rich target for religious conversions. If loons like the RSS and Shiv Sena people spent more energy fighting caste related problems and poverty rather than protesting over a fucking kiss, maybe Dalits and others won't even be an easy target for conversions. I have noticed some of my relatives become more religious and less progressive than my grandfather's generation. Talk about generational regression.

I have no respect for Christian organizations that use money to convert poor people in India and are so obssessed with increasing numbers and are so outraged by "pagan" religions and idol worship. What is so offensive about idol worship to many Christians and Muslims? Or even polytheism? But then again, one must ask why Hindus are not doing enough to mke the poor people happy enough that they should not be converting just for material benefit. Some people take the bait easier because upper class Hindus have not given them any reason to stay Hindu. In the big scheme of things, it is better for a poor family to take money and convert rather than live in misery without converting. People who are outraged by such stuff should do something helpful to counter it.

But let's not whitewash one thing. There are quite a few Christians who dont condone the distrurbance who believe agnostics like me or practicing Hindus like my relatives are going to hell. I would rather see an open display of such ignorance so I can laugh at it.

So I don't really want to talk about India and Indian religious politics on this thread, but I do agree with Pravin -- I don't think that Christian organizations need to feel obliged to apologize for the actions of a handful of jerks. I appreciate their apology, but I think a condemnation and statement of sympathy is more than enough. I do think this is a great reminder, though, that there are plenty of non-evangelizing, open-minded, interfaith-oriented Christian organizations, congregations, and denominations out there.

Re: Pagla's response about trading the material for the spiritual...
I totally agree. I have tremendous respect for the good works that faith organizations do, but I have seen horrific and completely amoral things happen as well. I can't help but remember during the tsunami aftermath, a few Christian organizations offering "services" to refugees (i.e. food, rescue) refused to do so until the refugees converted. Or in Indonesia, the mass conversion of Muslim children to Christianity before they would be fed. I was horrified. If this is the "missionary spirit" that some denominations believe in, then I am overwhelmed in my sense of disgust.

They should ask for forgiveness for being obnoxious:

The protestors shouted from the gallery, among other things, ‘Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight.’

I like your comment, Anna. Is there any way to put the punch line AFTER the set-up? It would be more effective.

#29: Is this the MD of old or a new Md?

#29: Is this the MD of old or a new Md?

It is a different or "new" Md; it is not MD.

The "wrongness" is in the power-differrential between the missionary and the convert. The wrongness is in the lack of choices available to the convert. Your balaji-worshipping friends have probably started eating beef despite having other choices. Hare Krishnas do not entice converts by waving money in front of them. The farmer is often left with 2 choices, convert to Christianity and get a chance to have his kid educated; or go to sleep hungry. That is not a meaningful choice.

Although, the missionaries haven't created the dearth of choices available to the farmer, they take advantage of it. A Christian would spend his efforts changing the system so that the farmer has more choices available to him(and there are many Christians who do that), and then will allow the farmer to choose his own spirituality.

Here is where some folks suffer a double standard. Why is religious conversion considered worse than other choices? For example, would it be so abhorable to you if someone offered a poor farmer "two bushels of rice in exchange for each month's military service" or "come be my domestic help, and I will feed you"?

The converter needs something - another notch on his evangelical pew, if you will; and the poor hindu farmer needs something - food to eat.

The "wrongness" is in the power-differrential between the missionary and the convert.

Despite having argued for the right to convert, I understand your articulation of the power differential between missionary and the vulnerable, be they sweepers, toilet cleaners, leather workers or the slightly more respected group of farmers. But I still see it as an effort at taking some amount of power back into their own hands as opposed to giving it away 100% to their hisotric oppressors.

A better, more visual (although repugnant and troubling) example of the symbiotic exchange of power between the converted and the converter is in the article link posted by louiecypher on the Laramie Redux thread. In the early 90s, just after the fall of the Soviet Union, American Baptist missionaries, Pentecostal missionaries and others poured into the free-for-all environment, tapped into the economic and cultural vacuum left by the fall, and preached and screached to the people by the thousands (the ones who didn't quickly seize the opportunity to emigrate to Israel, Germany, Canada or US). Russian Orthodox church was either not prepared or was not initially concerned. I remember Dynamo Stadium in Kiev being filled with tens of thousands of people, mostly young, and the rich American missionary families standing apart from the rest of the crowd in every which way possible--clothes, shoes, strollers, big apartments downtown, Mary Kay cosmetics, dollar-shop groceries--every which way possible, you name it. Even their sweat smelled better... Now 10 to 15 years later, I read an article that claims that the missionaries were instrumental in helping at least some of those who converted en masse those days to immigrate into the US, and these 'newcomers' are intrumental in fightign their anti-gay crusades. Coincidence? Well-planned organization? Conspiracy? Or mere conspiracy theory on my part?

Anyway, my point is when we use phrasess like 'enticed with material things' they are more appropriate for say, the Russians/Soviets. For the average low-caste Indian who finds a need to convert, it is not just consumer goods or a better lifestyle, but it is truly a shot at a life with dignity. Who are we to judge that?

Time to add some nuance to my point.

I can't help but remember during the tsunami aftermath, a few Christian organizations offering "services" to refugees (i.e. food, rescue) refused to do so until the refugees converted. Or in Indonesia, the mass conversion of Muslim children to Christianity before they would be fed.

Yes, there is a time and a place for evangelism. These examples are deplorable. In such situations, asking for anything in return for food/rescue would be deplorable, much less conversion.

I was talking about situations where the need is not quite that desperate and the effort to evangelize is not quite so exploitative.

I do not feel threatened, violated, insulted or exasperated when whole sections of people convert for political, economic and social or purely religious reasons to Christianity, Buddhism or Islam or any organized religion that promises their children a way out of the lives and mindsets they were born into.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mentioned the first part to show the religious fabric of Indian ruling class and it’s a reflection of the peaceful and tolerant society in general. I don’t know in how many countries that type of combination is possible.

Its not the question of being threatened, it’s a question of maintaining peace harmony in a soceity,

I don’t have a problem with the religious conversions which are genuine. But I believe a lot of religious conversions in India are by fraud or coercion and can be treated as religious violance. It is violence and it breeds violence.Like the incident i mentioned on the hills of Balaji temple and ultimatly it became a big political issue and let to religious unrest.this is unessasy and should be avaoided.

And who told you that these ’whole section' of people are converting because they believe in ‘organized’ religion and what mindsets you are talking about?

malathi on July 19, 2007 03:05 PM · Direct link
P.S. to my above post:

And I think even well-meaning, non-violent people should stay away from giving their 'concerned' opinions on conversions.
----------------------------------------------------------------

i am tolerant and concerned but i did'n say i am not religious.only difference is i don't roam around with lables like i am 'aetheist' or 'religious'.

it’s a question of maintaining peace harmony in a soceity

Whose peace? Whose harmony?

Personally, I want to see the senate honor the flying spaghetti monster

SST,
Sure.
But I do not agree with what you said about atheism
For me tolerance is allowing everyone to beleive in what they want.Atheists are free to beleive there is no God as long as they do not mock the beleifs of those who do. ( Puli : I'm lookin' at you !)

Tolerance cannot merely be founded in coexistence. If we are making claims to Truth, then our tolerance must be founded in intellectual solidarity. We who believe in ideas and philosophies have a responsibility to those ideas, to ourselves, and to others to engage people who think differently. As long as we approach those engagements with an open, respectful mind and as long as those different from us do too--that is, as long as everyone commits to changing their vision of Truth if/when they are convinced otherwise--everyone comes out of the situation better.

As for missionaries giving food and such, I just think that by and large--note that I say "by and large" here--most missionaries are not withholding food from people who refuse to convert. Until someone can show me statistics from a reputable organization that the contrary is the predominant circumstance, I cannot assume otherwise. These people have needs that are not being met, and I would say that food is not necessarily the foremost amongst them. There is a deeper, more gnawing problem that these people face, and that is a system that ignores and marginalizes them. While there are of course misguided individuals who betray this mission, I believe that the Gospel is an empowering message, one that in its most basic form subverts man-made political structures and turns what we believe about power on its head. The missionaries who go about things the right way are testifying to a god who understands and empathizes with the weak--indeed, he is a god who made himself weak to create a more lasting strength. So these missionaries are trying to fulfill more than one need at a time--food, education, and spiritual empowerment.

At least that is my take on it. I of course grant you that religion has been manipulated as a tool by Empire (both national empires as well as religious empires), but I don't necessarily think that that can be held against the faith at its roots. These are people trying to spread an idea, so when we talk about "conversion" we shouldn't look at it any differently than we look at some kind of a grassroots or populist movement that convinces people of a new idea--in this case, that there is a god who redeems us and who believes firmly in humbling the strong and honoring the weak.

Unfortunately sometimes the worst of us serve as the best examples. Fanatics are fanatics, no matter what religion they represent, and they are difficult to reason with, which for better or worse was illustrated by Saladin in Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven.

I don't know about Zed's plans for 2008 but apparently Zod is running in 2008

Clarification - the Kingdom of Heaven reference with regards to fantatics was during one of the deleted seens in where Saladin remarks about reasoning with the Templar Knights after their capture during the Battle of Hattin not Saladin.

We who believe in ideas and philosophies have a responsibility to those ideas, to ourselves, and to others to engage people who think differently

Samir,
That is an interesting thought. I personally do not subscribe to it when it comes to religious beliefs. If someone asks me to engage in a discussion with them on what my belief system is - I would participate. But I do not agree to the idea that I have some kind of responsibility to "save" the non-believers and so- unbidden- pounce upon the unsuspecting masses and begin to try and change their minds. I am sure atheists - for example- have chosen atheism because their unique experiences have given rise to their belief that there is no creator. How can I challenge that experience? I would definitely not like to have an atheist try and convince me that my belief is wrong - because my faith is born out of what I have experienced in my life. I would not expect anyone to understand it or subscribe to it because religon to me is so personal.

Any mission to "convert" is by definition obnoxious and smacks of arrogance. It would be perfectly reasonable if the mission is to explain and propagate about one's own religion/ideology/whatever..

It'd be a big surprise if people are NOT offended by such activities!

Has he checked his spam folder yet?

I dunno. I bet the westboro baptist crowd are a couple chromosomes short of being able to figure out the internet--that might explain it.

Samir, you are comparing apples with oranges here - unfortunate aspects of the existing societal system which is associated with Hinduism against the basic message of Christianity ("the faith at its roots").

Most or all religions, in their ideal, philosophical form, are beautiful and uplifting. All religions, as they play out in society, have ugly aspects. It would make more sense for you to compare the philosophies of Hinduism and Christianity, or the societies associated with Hinduism vs. Christianity (although looking at history there is not a lot to choose, if anything, between such societies).

If the missionaries really are attracting people with the root ideals of Christianity, that says nothing about how the converts' existences will actually play out in human society. Could just as well attract these people with root ideals of Hindu philosophy, with the same effect or lack thereof.

Finally, a "grassroots" movement comes from the people themselves, not from outsiders (of any religious persuasion) who are trying to spread their ideas among the people - with the added attraction of food.

(However, I have nothing to say against the fact that these people are ultimately getting help with food and education.)

In the early 90s, just after the fall of the Soviet Union, American Baptist missionaries, Pentecostal missionaries and others poured into the free-for-all environment,

Clarification/correction:
The American in my sentence above refers to the national affiliation, NOT name of the church, i.e., not the American Baptist church. I meant the Southern Baptists. American Baptists and Southern Baptists represent two different establishments.

Jujung, I am an indiviudal who is truly NOT offended by conversion attempts--irritated sometimes, yes, but not offended. As an aetheist--yes, Mr. Rao, I like my labels and identities--I find that everybody tries to 'convert' me at some level or the other: not just Christians or Muslims, but also Hindus, Deepak Chopras and those who believe in the power of prayers, etc. So I believe most attempts to convert are actually peaceful and not violent and not acts of bribery. However, it is mostly the latter that hit the headlines and news.

malathi,
I should have probably said - "offended/irritated"..
offended - if you don't know much about the converter's system and feel defensive of your own (mostly the case in India)
irritated - if you knew where the converter is coming from and feel confident about your own ideas/beliefs

And on another note, three guys shouting against another guy wherever that might be, is I think, a non-issue!

And on another note, three guys shouting against another guy wherever that might be, is I think, a non-issue!

I think a few hundred other comments disagree with you.

Malathi: I find that everybody tries to 'convert' me at some level or the other: not just Christians or Muslims, but also Hindus, Deepak Chopras

Hindus trying to convert you? to what? hinduism? Going by your name I assume you are a hindu although you don't wish to be called one and if they are trying to convert you to hinduism, be wary of them.....coz there is no such thing in MY religion. And how many deepak chopra followers have come to you asking you to believe in his power of prayers?

M: So I believe most attempts to convert are actually peaceful and not violent and not acts of bribery. However, it is mostly the latter that hit the headlines and news.

Obviously, If someone is voluntarily by his own free will converting to another religion.....who cares? right? we want to know only if its done forcibly.

#29: Is this the MD of old or a new Md?

This person is far too calm.

Ah...patience always pays. I did not respond to the earlier thread on this because I knew where the discussion was going, and I wanted to wait for the right time.

But before, I would like to say that none of my comments below are directed towards Anna personally. It's nice that she blogged about this and I am thankful to her for that.

>> eagerly await irrational and inapposite comments which ask, “But…where are the apologetic emails to Graham Staines’
>>the day the Babri masjid fell. ...was the first time in my life that I was ashamed of being Hindu

What was it they say about initial conditions that set off a chain of events which take a life of their own? It's pointless to take brownie points for judging the later events sympathetically, but at the same time detest the intial conditions that are the root cause.

Imagine an India where the Babri masjid agitation did not take place. No BJP/RSS/VHP. Rajiv Gandhi would win re-election in 1989. But he would still be assasinated (LTTE is unrelated to the Hindu right) in 1991. Sonia would become the first Christian PM (due to complete lack of resistance from the Hindu right). Congress would continue to rule with a license raj. No Narasimha Rao's liberalisation. No Manmohanemics. Continued abject poverty and non-participation in the globalised world. No IT/BPO revolution. No nuclear tests by India. No mass migration of (largely Hindu) Indians to the US. No consistent 9% rate of growth in India for 15 years. Graham Staines would probably be leading a secessionist movement in a Christianised eastern Orissa.

In this parallel universe would the image of Hindu/India in the US be any different from what it was in the 80's? Do you think a Hindu priest would be invited to the Senate under those conditions? Do you think (even if SM and Anna coexisted as they do today), this would be blogged sympathetically?

If you do, then I suggest watching "The butterfly effect", "Lost in space" and the "Back to the future" series. Get lots of pop corn. Brush up on the Space Time continnium as well. And see if you can watch a particular Worff episode of multiple probabilities converging.

The guarded acceptance of Hindus and Hinduism in the world is due to two reasons:

1. Hindus have recently started showing that they can be as violent(if not more) and aggressive than anyone else
2. This re-discovered trait has permeated into confidence and translated into increased economic strength.

If you want to hate the initial conditions, hate them. But then hate all the subsequent consequences as well. You cannot have the cake and eat it too. Physics does not allow for that. Neither does mother Nature.

M. Nam

the return of...Naaaaaaaaaam.

i remember the old exercise: a student will ask the professor, "what would happen, if I removed this one variable?"

professor replies, "Would you not barf if it was liqour before beer? Would you not cause a noisome wind to blow if you ate beano before beans? Would there not be laughter if Russel Peters mocked the hearing impaired before skewering a stereotype? History is not a game of Jenga."

"Imagine an America where the acculturation to high-fructose corn syrup did not occur. Where nobody became addicted to sugary tastes in everything from pizza to plum pudding. Where then, I ask you, would my economic advantage as a relatively svelte person be? Who then, pray tell, would laboriously wash my car or sweat into my morning Starbucks? I shiver at the thought."

1. What exactly do Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh have to do with the Hindu right?

2. We can all agree that Al Qaeda is pretty good at the violence thing. So what's holding up the Arab economic renaissance?

MoorNam: I am completely for a nuclear, assertive India that engages in the realpolitik. However, Babri Masjid/post-Godhra riots/anti-conversion laws from my perspective, as someone who is a "non-Gandhian" Hindu and deeply concerned about our community, all show a lack of confidence amongst Hindus. India has been incapable of dealing with Pakistan to avenge the deaths of Hindus in Kashmir and Indian Muslims are made the whipping boys. A train is burnt, and instead of having confidence in the justice system (before bringing up the communal issue, ask yourself has it been known to work even when both parties are Hindu?) innocent Muslims are killed. Indic religions are thriving amongst some of the most influential sections of Western society, but Indian Hindus feel incapable of addressing the spiritual & material needs of SCT/Dalits and push for anti-conversion laws. These are self destructive tendencies, India is progressing in spite of them

I can't help but remember during the tsunami aftermath, a few Christian organizations offering "services" to refugees (i.e. food, rescue) refused to do so until the refugees converted.

I don't know who was worse, the Christians who wanted tsunami victims to convert before giving them aid or the Hindus who told Muslim victims of the Gujarat earthquake "if they recite Hindu scriptures then they can have some food."

Either way it's rotten.

56 · iABD on July 20, 2007 06:16 AM · Direct link
Either way it's rotten.
----------------------------------------------

Its high time the central government should promulgate an ordinance banning religious conversions which are either by ‘‘force, allurement or fraudulent means’’. Who has problem with this? No other religious organistaions except these Christian missionaries. That explains their mission!!

I am someone who has no problem with people converting from one religion to another on their own, though I wonder why any grownup would adhere strictly to a new organized religion. At least with one's own, there is culture, tradition and habit comfort factors.

But I do get annoyed by Christian and Islamic people(not the vast majority, of course, but still significant numbers seem to exist) who think of other people as people they must convert to their religion since those people are going to hell. I remember a Christian website where the world was color coded according to diffculty of conversions and future potential for increasing converts. It was like a war map made up by the miitary who was presenting the President with a strategy. These guys use that approach. And we know how Islam has been making inroads into Africa adding religious strife to the preexisting tribal strife.

Hindus, do not rejoice by my post yet. These RSS guys who seem to be Naam's heroes whine about conversions, but have they done anything great for the downtrodden lower castes in India for the last 60 years? While Hindus dont seek out strife in new lands, they are perfectly capable of brutality in their own areas within their own religion and with others. What happened in Gujarat with the Muslims and with the Sikhs in Delhi has no justification at all. Hindus acted like barbarians and many Hindus who condoned them(and believe me, a lot have, especially the heinous Gujarat riots; the one sidedness of the Sikh massacres are way too obvious to try to justify).

Why are people like the lataest troll mad that Sonia Gandhi could have been the first Christian PM. THe main problem was she was an unqualified Italian dimwit who didn't want to even be an Indian citizen for a long time. It had nothing to do with her religion.

And do any people have real proof that Christian missionaries were actually withholding food unless the people converted other than rumors? Why doesn't some Hindu guy take a documentary if this really exists. I doubt it. It could be an isolated case.

I remember a Christian website where the world was color coded according to diffculty of conversions and future potential for increasing converts. It was like a war map made up by the miitary who was presenting the President with a strategy.

http://www.win1040.com/

India has been incapable of dealing with Pakistan to avenge the deaths of Hindus in Kashmir and Indian Muslims are made the whipping boys. A train is burnt, and instead of having confidence in the justice system (before bringing up the communal issue, ask yourself has it been known to work even when both parties are Hindu?) innocent Muslims are killed.

Well put.

There are many well documented records for these forced conversions and their effects on Indian society. One of them is a book,
"Changing Gods: Rethinking Conversion in India" by sociologist Rudolf C. Heredia highlights how mass conversions have alienated people from their past traditions and "lived beliefs".

His book portrays how forced conversions have weakened Indian society by dissociating people from their traditions and beliefs. In most cases, he says, conversions fail to alter people's devotion to so-called pagan gods and goddesses but involves them instead in the "politics of hate".

Mr.Rudolf C. Heredia says that he remains anchored firmly to his Catholic faith.

He is also a Catholic Jesuit priest in India.

The two issues of Christians converting because it's in their nature, their religion dictates it, etc.. etc.. and it's up to Hindus to make sure we don't make Christianity/Islam/whatever such an easy sell for those who feel disenfranchised by a Hindu social heirarchy are two different points, that are absolutely uncorrelated.

The "easy sell" component only exists from the Hindu point of view. No matter if every caste/communal violence issue is solved, from a missionaries perspective, conversion to Christianity will always be an easy sell. "Not going to hell" will always be the main selling point, and always be convincing in their minds.

Mr.Rudolf C. Heredia says that he remains anchored firmly to his Catholic faith.

He is also a Catholic Jesuit priest in India.

A Catholic who thinks what Evangelicals is doing is WRONG?? Shocking! Methinks you don't realize how different the various strains of Christianity are.

How did Kerala survive for two millenia with those nasty Christians all over the place? Easy. Syrian/Malankara Orthodox people do not do what the people whom you have a problem with do. There are still strong elements of Hindu culture incorporated within that church. They don't denigrate their neighbors' faith because once upon a time, it was their own. You think Christians have a monopoly on the "politics of hate"? Hindus and Muslims are just as guilty. Every religion is flawed and those who pretend otherwise are not wise.

You think Christians have a monopoly on the "politics of hate"? Hindus and Muslims are just as guilty. Every religion is flawed and those who pretend otherwise are not wise.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

What are the flaws in each faith, well its upto the followers of that faith to decide.
My problem is not with any particular faith.Problems are always created by these so called ‘religious bureaucrats’ and missionaries who are in between the faith and the faithful.

In this case, all i am saying is these force conversions by Christian missions are a form of 'religious violence' and should be equated with any other religious violence, provocation of the majority religion in India’s case. Violence breeds violence, no point in not condemning these forced conversions and only complaining about religious intolerance etc.

There are many well documented records for these forced conversions and their effects on Indian society. One of them is a book, "Changing Gods: Rethinking Conversion in India" by sociologist Rudolf C. Heredia highlights how mass conversions have alienated people from their past traditions and "lived beliefs".

...dissociating people from their traditions and beliefs. In most cases, he says, conversions fail to alter people's devotion to so-called pagan gods and goddesses but involves them instead in the "politics of hate".

So why don't the poor Hindu people just pretend to convert like the captured soldiers in Iraq pretended to convert to Islam? Why not just create a show in front of the missionaries just to scam them? Obviously, they are not that attached to Hinduism if they can easily just switch for food even though they could still get the food by pretending to be devout coverts.

The opportunity exists because Hindus give Christian missionaries that opportunity.

The opportunity exists because Hindus give Christian missionaries that opportunity.

The opportunity exists because it's inherent to their religion. Don't get me wrong, I think Hindus should take steps make every Hindu feel equal, and not feel disenfranchised. But don't act like that will all of a sudden make evangelical Christians go away, or change their line of thinking. Sure they may have a more difficult job - but they'll still consider it their job.

Going by your name I assume you are a hindu

Now why would you assume that, Arya? Presumptions and assumptions are dangerous. Not to mention embarrassing. Thanks to the accident of my full name, I have been privy to casteist and religious slurs and smirks that I was not meant to hear had I been called Mary Pichai. (I am not saying you did that). I know Christians with names such as Manimekalai, Krishnaswamy, and Arumugam.

Now don't get defensive. Hear me out.
I grew up in a multi-religious environment--where individuals from at least 3 religions moulded and shaped my understanding of and responsibilities towards the world. Then add to that my own exploration, as a teen, of Marx chacha (although he is not considered cool anymore and any insights he gave me into understanding my world are not considered kosher by the world), the rationalists, and J. Krishnamurti*, and what you get is, a wonderful avial. I bring all this into my marriage with someone who is not dogmatic about his own background, and thus my kids will be raised in this 'multi-awareness' environment**. So, I will not be restricted to the label of a Hindu, however expansive and accomodating it is said to be.

Hindus trying to convert you?...and if they are trying to convert you to hinduism, be wary of them.....coz there is no such thing in MY religion.

Conversion does not always mean having your head ducked in water, given a new name and a crucifix and given a baptism certificate for proof. Gentle persuasion, benign introductions to one's way of thinking happen everyday. "Come to Thursday's Sai bhajans, OK?" is one way, although yes, extremely mild and hardly inseparable from the mere cultural role the gathering may be fulfilling. (And I am not offended by that; if I like the person who is inviting, I may even go.) I engage in mild persuasions all the time--evrytime I finish a good book I want the next person I meet to know about it and I try to get them to read that book.

I know firsthand that religiously, philosophically speaking, and as a way of life Hinduism is pluralistic. But politically speaking in the present day there is only one Hindu identity. I cannot separate my political awareness from my religious journeys. I know that several of you are able to do that but given my background and origins, I cannot.

And how many deepak chopra followers have come to you asking you to believe in his power of prayers?

In my previous post, I separated the Deepak Chopras of the world from the people who pray in the world (although, they overlap). You have combined them.

Anyway, prayerful people are everywhere. As in my dear friend across the big pond who will write to me, 'I will keep you in my prayers.' I am truly NOT offended by that. I have come to understand it as an euphemism for 'I love you; I care about you very much; I want you to be happy; I am showing it by keeping you in my prayers.' It is also a rhetoric of mild persuasion to one's way of thinking, but that's OK, I will let that pass. Where I seriously have a problem is when all the shoddy, so-called scientific studies come out claiming prayer cures the 3rd person or prayer alone achieves the inachievable. Again, I am able to see the power of prayers to the self, just as meditation may have certain tangible, measurable benefits to the self and create ripple effects, but I am wary of it beign peddled as a major weapon of choice to fight all the 'unfairness' of the world.

we want to know only if its done forcibly

* Several Hindus tend to absorb J.Krishnamurti into their fold; as one of their sons. My reading of his thought processes sees him as unique.
** I am practicing what I preach. I am not threatened by religions and I don't fear losing them to other philosophies/cultures/religious traditions. I want them to explore as much as possible. And as long as my husband and I remain their loving, non-judgemental parents, they will come back to us, one way or the other.

Sorry about the length of the post, mutineers

But don't act like that will all of a sudden make evangelical Christians go away, or change their line of thinking. Sure they may have a more difficult job - but they'll still consider it their job.

The MO of missionaries on the ground is not primarily "escape fromn caste oppression" - that's an ex post facto rationalization for elite consumption. It serves to neutralize protest against broadbased and extremely well-funded conversion activities, and sort of elides the very real problems of caste within the Christian community. At one time the Christian MO was upper caste emulation --acting like Brahmins, practicing untouchability. But that approach didn't work very well.

The primary approach now is "my God has power, your gods don't," so they conjure up "faith healings," provide "miracle wish boxes" where everything inserted comes true; secondly, allurements - money, education, etc; third, charismatic gatherings.

The Hindu response has been (1) take them on on the ground, a la the VHP "reconversion" drives, or (2) claim that Christianity is corrupt and hypocritical, e.g., how dare you act sanctimonious about Dalits when your whole history is tainted by bloodshed, hate-acts and the sanctioning of slavery?. The first approach has led to some unfortunate millitancy; the second one is silly from a Christian perspective, because they know, according to their mythology, that everyone is born a sinner, so having a history of sin in Christianity is no big deal. In fact, they will readily admit it. A third approach is to claim the superiority of Hindu philsophy, particularly Advaita Vedanata, to Christian dualism, since Hindus believe that their spirtual approach resonates more closely with modern science; and of Hindu acceptance of multiple apporaches to God and its conflict resolution mechanism which allowed for the co-existence of radically different spiritual visions.. The problem with this apporach is that its happened before. The Roman pagans were accepting of mnultiple approaches, and the elites were monists, schooled in very sophisticated Neoplatonism - not to far from Hindu non-dualism, right on the verge of the victory of Christianity in the West.

Bring me the statistics that shows this is the biggest, most urgent problem in India today and then I will see past my suspicion that all such concerns, such outrage, are only politically motivated.
-------------------------------------------------
An intense movement of conversion towards Christianity has taken place over the years in North-East India; indeed, in several of these nort eastern states, entire populations have been converted. The percentage of the Christian population in these states in 1901, 1951 (after independence) and 1991 is as follows:

State 1901 1951 1991
Arunachal Pradesh NA * NA * 10.29
Assam 0.4 2.00 3.32
Manipur 0.016 11.84 34.12
Meghalaya 6.16 24.66 64.58
Mizoram 0.05 90.52 85.73
Nagaland 0.59 46.05 87.47
Tripura 0.08 0.82 1.69

how they did this,methods like 'miracle box'conversions are carried out by placing “miracle boxes” in local churches. The gullible villager writes out a request – a loan, a pucca house, fees for the son’s schooling. A few weeks later, the miracle happens. And the whole family converts,making others in the village follow suit.

many of these 'majority converted' states are facing Separatist movements by terrorists.

Once India and Hindus have been beaten black and blue, we will start getting Achebe-like sentiments from the chatterati.

how they did this,methods like 'miracle box'conversions are carried out by placing “miracle boxes” in local churches. The gullible villager writes out a request – a loan, a pucca house, fees for the son’s schooling. A few weeks later, the miracle happens. And the whole family converts,making others in the village follow suit.

They paid for his son's schooling? The fiends!

"They paid for his son's schooling? The fiends!"

it's actually possible to pay for someone's schooling without passing it off as a "miracle." there's such a thing as sheer altruism, without expecting payment in kind or someone's eternal soul in return. and this applies to anyone.

it's actually possible to pay for someone's schooling without passing it off as a "miracle." there's such a thing as sheer altruism, without expecting payment in kind or someone's eternal soul in return. and this applies to anyone.

I'm sure there's a lot of "sheer altruism" going on. I'm sure not many people are converting because they have guns to their heads.

AR, it's easy to call all these people "gullible." I suppose you could call anyone who believes in any religion "gullible."

"I'm sure not many people are converting because they have guns to their heads."

well there are different triggers one can pull, if you will. by all means pay for someone's schooling - but why disguise such a good deed in the form of a cheap stunt? insecure about the efficacy or persuasiveness of the message itself? insecurity seems to run deep in all religions - whether it's insecurity about survival and maintenance of status quo in the face of attempts to convert you or insecurity that not everyone in the world has heard about a particular god and believes in him (or chooses to hear or believe in him).

what's funny is that some companies can be prosecuted for attaching false claims and unproven benefits to their products but religions (all of them) are given a free pass.

re VHP: The VHP was actually founded not to beat down Muslims, but as a response to Christian conversions. Millitant modes feed off of each other. But fundamentalist Christians have a massive financial advantage over Hindu groups. There are groups working to create the perception that Christians are mercilessly marginalized in India - as an example, a number of news outlets (Christian owned and run, like Journal Chretien, from France) daily publicize anti-Hindu 'atrocities' against Christians, when the truth is that the vast, vast, vast majority of Christians get on fine in India. In Kerala, they are arguably the hegemonic community.

This type of publicity undoubetedly helps their western fundraising efforts.

In the pagan world, Christians were succesful in creting a victim narrative. One should read pagan authors who opposed Christianity to see that things haven't changed all that much.

Also, the western "rights" discourse frames religion as a "personal matter," which is simply the secular codification of protestant theology. Other sociological viewpoints are not considered, for example, the harm proselytization does to communities, and the tension it creates within longstanding cultural ecosystems.

In general, some sections among several generations of Indian middle class went through convent/Jesuit/any Christian denomination schooling in India and learnt what was needed to be upwardly mobile and left the rest. Today, their identity is not at all threatened. So why is it difficult for us to trust those who are below us in the social pecking order to pick and choose, try out several caps, even go full circles, in their spiritual and material journeys? We just don't think they are capable of intelligent thought processes, is that it? We treat them like 'little children' who need to be told what is best for them.

But sometimes, our children are more perceptive than us self-absorbed adults who are supposedly 'responsible' for them. Every parent here knows that.

I find it hard to understand how you can raise kids without practicing a particular religion? Sure you can teach them to respect all, but you cant practice all? You can practice one or none at all! We have enuf confused kids in the world trying to find themselves!! Religion to me is a way of life. It shapes my whole identity and it is very important to have a firm identity in place especially as a mother in order to have firm answers and actions without any confusion in my mind. It boosts their confidence in a way that is undescribable.

Having said that, let me get back on track to malathi's point- I am practicing what I preach. I am not threatened by religions and I don't fear losing them to other philosophies/cultures/religious traditions. I want them to explore as much as possible. And as long as my husband and I remain their loving, non-judgemental parents, they will come back to us, one way or the other.

----So if you teach one thing to your kids and somebody else goes ahead and takes the liberty to teach them something else-something thats entirely against your wishes, you would'nt mind? Was'nt there an article on sm, about how religious groups on college campuses are trying to mould youths in to their way of life and finally into accepting their religion?
Somebody at some point is going to influence our kids, why can't it be the parents themselves!
Exploring is one thing-it is something you do voluntarily on your own - but if somebody else is going to tell them how to explore, i would rather it's me and not THEM. And that does not make me any less of a loving parent than atheists.
If you don't stand up for something-you will fall for anything!!

i would rather it's me and not THEM

I wouldnt want this person teaching my kids.

Arya asks:

find it hard to understand how you can raise kids without practicing a particular religion? Sure you can teach them to respect all, but you cant practice all?

It's not hard. One can take the best parts of a few religions and follow them as one package with a primary adherance to one of them. Hell, religions can evolve. Hinduism has changed over time. Why can't a Hindu change more? There is nothing magical about the first version of scripture.

Personally, I am agnostic. But it is fun to follow religions. Kind of like philosophy to me. That is why I hate it when Hinduism seems to be taken more and more literally these days. The nice thing about it used to be it wasn't so simplistic in the past compared to some other religions about how these are the ways things should be. At least according to my interpretation.

Analyzing the Evangelical MO does not make one "insecure." Surely if a western country was being steadily proselytized by groups with very large financial resources many organizations would study the issue, its impact on the nation, communities and the political order, irresepective of "rights" discourse?

Evangelical Christian groups spend millions of dollars on surveilance of Hindus, right down to the village level - examining insecurities and possible fault lines. They do this globally as well, eg, the Joshua Project.

Western scholarship has analzyed Hinduism from every disciplinary perspective imaginable, whereas the middle-class Hindu understanding of Christianity is that Christ was a Yogi, and that in any case all religions are the same.

Are the Christian truth claims open to analysis in India? Or would that be considered a fascistic act?

Or would that be considered a fascistic act?

by whom?

It's not hard. One can take the best parts of a few religions and follow them as one package with a primary adherance to one of them.

Reminds me of a friend of mine Eric, who said he followed "Ericism" I think inherent to a religious following is the idea of adhering to certain practices that are above and beyond you. It's almost a kind of NLP - engage in some kind of phsyical act to bring about a state. Yes Hinduism has changed, but those changes have taken 1000's of years.

I used to attend a few SRF (self realization fellowship) events in the pacific palisades, they do precisely what you talk about, they take the christian approach (services, with singing, donation boxes, very little Hindu ritual) but give sermons on predominantly Hindu philosophical points of view. yes, its fusion, yes its great, but I knew what a traditional Hindu religious ceremony looked like, and I knew what a traditional Christian ceremony looked like, so I could say to myself, "this is a combo of the two"

Bruce Lee was over 10 years established in Yip Man Wing Chun before formulating JKD.

That is why I hate it when Hinduism seems to be taken more and more literally these days. The nice thing about it used to be it wasn't so simplistic in the past compared to some other religions about how these are the ways things should be. At least according to my interpretation.

Pravin,
I feel exactly the same way.I used to believe that Hinduism = tolerance and took the Gita literally when it said that all prayers go to one God regardless of what anyone called that God :Jesus/Allah/Ram/Ganesh etc.I truly believed that I could be a Hindu and not have to wear tilak, go to a temple regularly , perform elaborate poojas etc. But lately it seems that you need to wear your religious beliefs ostentatiously to be accepted as a true beleiver -which I will never subscribe to.

Tread very carefully here, Arya, because if I am in an irritable mood, I might take this as a criticism of our (my husband's and mine) parenting style, and our value systems.

We have enough identities that ground us. We are not wandering aimlessly through the darkness, we are contributing, tax-paying members of the society. We have our careers, our hobbies, our pet issues and causes.

It is difficult for most people whose identity is tied to a single religion to understand. It is also difficult for people who equate atheism to immorality, lack of values to understand. Not many people recognize my state of being or add any value to my abstract intellectual and emotional confidence and security (there is definitely no market value to it; especially in the marriage market). It is a very personal thing, in fact something that perhaps only my husband can recognize or appreciate. However, it is true that I took my time arriving here and it was not an easy journey. That actually made me understand why all the social forces in the world steer you towards the herd mentality. The tradeoff when you follow the 'leader' is you don't have to make all decisions by yourself or live your own lonely life at times. There are several perks when you are comfortably in the system.

So I don't expect my kids' journies to be easy. It will take them a lot longer to figure out who they are and what they stand for than their average peers, maybe. In the process they will even come to hate me at times. And if one of them decides to run for the American presidency maybe they will have to be really good at what they do, because I will be their weak point (note how Obama's mother's ideas on religion were brought in early to discredit him). So what? Whoever said life is easy?

An English, feminist, atheist professor in NH once said that her kids were in the Catholic school because she wanted them to rebel against the church, not against her. I totally understand her words.

I am not outsourcing my job as a parent. In fact, I spend every waking, non-working hour with them doing things with them; sharing all the things I love about this world with them. But now is not the time to teach them why I am an atheist. There will come a time when they will ask me questions. Until then they can learn about the concept of God that is so important for the majority of the world from precisely that outside world (with me listening nearby; yes, I take them to church and sunday school and the Hindu temple and so on...no abode is off-limits). And just as I have to gently tell them that there is no Santa Claus or tooth fairy, there will come a time when they will hear my thoughts on the (existence/non-existence of) God. I am not going to ram that down their throats, but they will listen to my words carefully, and decide what is best for them as adults.

It is also difficult for people who equate atheism to immorality, lack of values to understand.

Word!

As an unbeliever, I frankly find some of this discussion about missionaries luring people under false pretenses ludicrous. Club A offers me guaranteed poverty in this life, and intangible promises of moksha in the next or some subsequent life. Club B offers me food for the next month, or clothing or schooling for my children, or a way out of my oppressive penury. I know which one I'd join. Maybe club A needs to figure out a new recruitment strategy, now that the passive-aggressive technique of coopting everybody into the fold independent of their beliefs is not working.

(My statement is provoked by some of the comments here. I am actually uncomfortable with the hectoring, "holier-than-thou" atheism model of Dawkins and Hitchens, although that behavior is mostly harmless in a world dominated by religion, and might serve as an important pushback.)

And if one of them decides to run for the American presidency maybe they will have to be really good at what they do, because I will be their weak point

malathi, be careful. They might not love you anymore if you do that. Even if they still eat samosas for lunch.

I feel exactly the same way.I used to believe that Hinduism = tolerance and took the Gita literally when it said that all prayers go to one God regardless of what anyone called that God :Jesus/Allah/Ram/Ganesh etc.

This is an illogical position to take, is it not? Jesus claims to be the only Son of God. Allah doesn't have any sons! The genericization is frankly a modern Hindu overlay on Abrahamic positions.

My statement is provoked by some of the comments here. I am actually uncomfortable with the hectoring, "holier-than-thou" atheism model of Dawkins and Hitchens, although that behavior is mostly harmless in a world dominated by religion, and might serve as an important pushback

But "atheism" has longstanding roots within India. They were never burnt at the stake. Most Hindu's would probably give a rat's ass if you said you believed in nothing, including the millitants, so who exactly are you pushing back?

But "atheism" has longstanding roots within India. They were never burnt at the stake. Most Hindu's would probably give a rat's ass if you said you believed in nothing, including the millitants, so who exactly are you pushing back?

a lot of desi hindus assume your a loony if you dont believe in god. maybe in some holy book they dont give a rats as, but in reality a lot of people do.

But "atheism" has longstanding roots within India. They were never burnt at the stake. Most Hindu's would probably give a rat's ass if you said you believed in nothing, including the millitants, so who exactly are you pushing back?

You're right. "Atheism" (with quotes) has a longstanding tradition with the advaita/dvaita/vishishtadvaita/brahman inside/all-pervasive brahman etc. stuff (I'm not an expert). Most desi Hindus like to consider my atheism "atheism". As PindaUSA says, in practice, people give more than a rat's ass. I speak from personal experience.

Yes, life is hard for the young ones! Why make it even harder?

I am certainly not teaching my little girl to wear tilak everyday or go to temple but hinduism is something that will shape her individuality and her future. I want to make sure she has a place to turn to when she is lost or confused, something that will guide her in the right direction when her mind is overwhelmed, something where she will feel at home and close too because that is what her parents/grandparents/great grandparents used to do. And we as adults know that there is something very peaceful and very comforting about that.

This is an illogical position to take, is it not?

For me it is like languages .A mother is called Ma, madre, maman, mamacita etc etc but a mother is a mother the world over.My interpretation - which I do not claim is correct or the only one- is that there is nothing in Hinduism that prevents me from co-opting other gods

In any case, I would hesitate to bring logic into a discussion on faith because there is an inherent contradiction. What makes a piece of stone a deity to me and a rock to another is faith, not logic.

Jesus claims to be the only Son of God

But now is not the time to teach them why I am an atheist.

But they might already hear "oh science, oh science, oh science" coming from your bedroom.

Alright, that was over the line, e