some here might be interested in matt zeitlin's post
http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/the-importance-of-bobby-jindal/

(i'm not much into symbolism myself, but from what i hear jindal is likely to be an order of magnitude less corrupt than a typical louisiana pol)

You were in New Orleans and didn't contact me??? I stand aghast.

Jindal is an arrogant and hypocritical man who cares not for New Orleans and cannot be bothered to show up for debates while he panders for the affections of northern Louisiana, the most bigoted portion of this state. Sadly, he will win only because his competition is pathetic.

A Must-Read About Jindal

I have not been a fan of Jindal's personality. But after following the Jena 6 case closely, I have no more patience left for the Democrats in Louisiana, especially the White Democrats. We have already discussed stuff about Jindal and his name and religious changes. I am not going to rehash it again. But I will say this. Despite that, he will be a better governor than Kathleen Blanco. That idiot did nothing for the Jena 6 case. She should have intervened before the tensions came to such a boil that 6 black guys ended up beating up a white guy who taunting them about previous incidents one of which included a black guy getting assaulted. She actually did not even intervene at that point. We all know how Blanco's messups let Bush and FEMA try to weasel out of some blame during Katrina.

At this point, Blanco is one dumbass Democrat I will not feel bad about seeing leave. For all the racial talk, Jindal actually got support from Nagin in the prior election. For Nagin to do that, he had to know Blanco was useless. Even now Blanco and Landrieu or most of the White democrats have done crap with respect to the JEna 6 case or the events that led to the incident. Yes, Jindal did nothing either. He could have made a comment on that DA who was clearly racially biased and a religious nut and overstepped his bounds by threatening black students with ruining their lives if they did not fall in line when the noose controversy was going on. But hey, when it comes to a state like Louisana , let's at least go with competence over ideology. At least, he seems more energetic and smarter than Blanco.

Maitri, thanks for the link. One thing that caught me by surprise was Jindal's ridiculous comment about the marches for Jena 6 and he used a term "outside agitators".

So this guy has no problem with us (who are outsiders to Iraq) reforming Iraq as evidenced by his goofy expression when he displayed his purple laden finger for the country to see when Iraq had one of their elections, but he has problem with people from outside his state helping rectify a situation people in his own state are unwilling to do? If he didnt want outsiders, why the hell did he not go there himself and try to find out what is going on?

But as you can see from that link, the white democrats were pretty much a no show too.

Maitri: do you honestly believe there will be an iota of change in Louisiana with this dude as governor?

Honestly, I am excited for Louisiana if Jindal comes to power, you guys will be a powerhouse in the south if jindal gets to implement his vision.

How sad that so many of the (few) high-placed non-whites in US government are allied with the far right: Jindal, Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzalez, ...

How sad that so many of the (few) high-placed non-whites in US government are allied with the far right:

How sad that so many of the (few) high-placed non-whites in US government are allied with the far right: Jindal, Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzalez, ...

This may be because their views gel with people in power, a minority with a view that reflects a minority's interest cannot get to the position of a jindal, clarence thomas or alberto gonzalez.

How sad that so many of the (few) high-placed non-whites in US government are allied with the far right: Jindal, Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzalez, ...

This may be because their views gel with people in power, a minority with a view that reflects a minority's interest cannot get to the position of a jindal, clarence thomas or alberto gonzalez.

Or maybe they simply believe in issues that shares more ground with the right than left, despite their skin color.

Clarence Thomas was interviewed on 60 minutes and it was pretty interesting (the interview revolved around his recent autobiography). There is a lot more depth to simply being conservative for him than if you're [enter skin color here] you're [enter party here]. It's not that there aren't minorities in power who aren't with the Democratic party either (cough...Obama...cough), it's just that they don't seem to stand out as much or the party hasn't really had that different of a track record than their opponents, because of the perception that the left somehow has ownership of the minority vote, regardless of all the other issues that combine to form more complicated political opinions influenced by religion, economics, or other miscellanous issues.

Clarence Thomas was interviewed on 60 minutes and it was pretty interesting (the interview revolved around his recent autobiography). There is a lot more depth to simply being conservative for him than if you're [enter skin color here] you're [enter party here].

My cat has more depth than Clarance Thomas. The man is a crackpot. To quote WP Robinson, its his mission in life to save all other minorities from the indignities of having a Yale Law degree, heading the EEOC and becoming a Supreme Court Justice.

I dont understand how conservatives actually like this man. Clarence Thomas is obsessed with race and sees everthing through the prism of race. He believes democratic opposition to him was not because of his conservative views but because of his race akin to lynching albeit high tech lynching. I dont think there is a more higher profile racialist than Clarence Thomas.

In fact Clarence Thomas life story in his words is one big struggle against other lighter skinner blacks, liberal women who patronize him because he is black, his white wife and how she deals with him because he his black, all his achievements which he attributes to being black. He needs therapy and a hug.

My cat has more depth than Clarance Thomas. The man is a crackpot. To quote WP Robinson, its his mission in life to save all other minorities from the indignities of having a Yale Law degree, heading the EEOC and becoming a Supreme Court Justice.

Cats are deep creatures, and smart....

He needs therapy and a hug.

He admitted in the interview to everything you just said and called himself 'Radical'. So, it isn't just [enter your race here] therefore you should be [enter party here], right? Just because the dude is angry and paranoid, doesn't disqualify my statement.

I found the 60 minutes piece on Clarence Thomas (now available on youtube) remarkably laudatory, uncritical in the extreme, and lacking even an iota of the investigatory and interrogative zeal usually found in the program. Still, it's worth watching, if only to hear him tell his story in his own words.

BTW, I hope I can say it now - I found my way to the Mutiny while googling for info on Bobby Jindal last January!

I found the 60 minutes piece on Clarence Thomas (now available on youtube) remarkably laudatory, uncritical in the extreme, and lacking even an iota of the investigatory and interrogative zeal usually found in the program. Still, it's worth watching, if only to hear him tell his story in his own words.

Agreed.

Considering the power the Supreme Court Justices weild, they are usually in the shadows compared to their higher profile counterparts in the executive and legislative branches from a media perspective.

Seeing how Jindal is essentially a 'lock' unless he does something really stupid or a strong contender apparates into the race, it'll be fun discussing his acheivements (or lack of) on SM in the future. It's already been a learning experience, particularly with folks who have good insight into Louisiana politics piping in.

This is obviously a vast generalisation as the Indian Catholics I have known personally were very moderate. (plus we got Anna over here who is Christian and not a right wingnut. So I won't mind if no one wants to discuss this further). BTW, I do not equate being conservative with right wingnut. But it confuses me when I see a lot of prominent conservative right wing Indians be Christian when Christians form only a tiny percentage of the Indian population. Jindal, DeSouza, that US Attorney from MN who is in trouble(forget her name), Ramesh Ponnuru(the sometimes reasonable guy with the ridiculous right wingnuttish title on his recent book. Is there something in the combination of Indian upbringing mixed with American churches that makes the more ambitious segment of them lean towards a right wing ideology? Or is it the certainty of the faith's teachings that makes it conducive for such leaders to thrive on the right wing scene and that is why they just seem more visible? The one who sticks out is Govindini Murty, one of the people associated with the Liberty Film Festival. She is half Indian, but claims to be Hindu. So that's one person. I just chose the more visible conservatives because I want to know if something in the faith that drives them harder than others in the conservative sphere and that certainty of belief gives them the natural tools to fit in.

By the way, I am referring to prominent conservative indians being mostly Christian which is not the same as saying most prominent Indian Christians are conservative. It is possible that there could be a large segment of Indian christians on the DEmocratic side too relative to their proportion in the overall Indian community in the US.

Keep in mind, I am just throwing out a thought. I have no desire to make a definitive statement on something this sensitive and not that important in the big picture.

ramesh is a relatively recent convert to catholicism (in his 20s i believe). his father is hindu and his mother is lutheran. jindal is obviously also a catholic, but dinesh d'souza is from a catholic family. so i think you need to make distinctions. for what its worth white catholics have tended to be more democratic leaning than white protestants (by this, i mean that white protestants tend to always vote republican at a higher clip, though even catholics will vote mostly republican in a landslide election). i think there's a simple explanation for why right-wing brownz are devout christians who make their religion an issue: that is a precondition for being a public right-wing figure. heather mac donald of the manhattan institute has discussed this issue at length, see here. the debate about mitt romney's religion shows that for the american right-wing there is a large segment (social conservative) who simply won't accept someone outside particular theological boundaries.

tunku varadarajan is a hindu who writes for the editorial page of the wall street journal. i think that goes to the point that the theological expectations only matter if you need to cater to a specific segment of the right-wing base. most of the people at CATO that i know are atheists or secular (including the VP, david boaz).

But it confuses me when I see a lot of prominent conservative right wing Indians be Christian when Christians form only a tiny percentage of the Indian population.

in india xtians are about 2-3% of the population, right? but it is a lot higher in the USA.

1) a disproportionate number of xtian malayalees emigrated from what i can tell (just like a disproportionate number of gujarati banias did).
2) a large number of the caribbean indians are christian (i'm thinking mostly trinidad here).
3) there are a non-trivial number of converts out there among the youth. when i used to hang out in christian evangelical groups to meet women in colelge (the sex ratio at these things is very good from a straight male perspective) there was always a sprinkling of brown female converts to evangelical christianity. you know, women like mitali perkins who read the bible and started crying or something like that and decided that the hindus gods are demons (i'm paraphrasing, one girl told me her conversion story assuming i too was a brown convert: "i read jubilees and cried and god filled up my spirit and i realized that hindu gods are demons and servants of the lie!").

in india xtians are about 2-3% of the population, right? but it is a lot higher in the USA.

Most likely true. But the Indian Muslims are underrepresented very substantially as well.

you know, women like mitali perkins who read the bible and started crying or something like that and decided that the hindus gods are demons

As in the writer who posts here? She's Hinduphobic?

As in the writer who posts here? She's Hinduphobic?

no, no. i just read her conversion story and it reminded me a lot of what those girls would say about some emotional event. i guess that's true for all religious stuff, right? i wouldn't know....

perkins' conversion http://intervarsity.org/slj/article/4046

I pulled the Bible off my shelf. Flipping the pages, I found the Gospel of Mark and began to read. Suddenly, it seemed like I was hearing the story of Jesus for the first time. I wasn’t considering a Western religion anymore; I was encountering an amazing person with olive-colored skin, black hair, and dark eyes. Why had I waited so long to read this Middle Eastern book? This man had healed and blessed foreign women when others pushed them away; he knew what it was like to feel lonely and rejected because of his race.

I kept reading. When I read about Jesus’ crucifixion, tears filled my eyes. Finally, I understood why he had to die. God himself had entered into the heart of pain and grief and evil. In his resurrection, he had opened the door to freedom from all of it. His followers claimed that he was still alive. They wrote that his Spirit was available to us, full of order, beauty, truth, life, hope, peace. Suddenly I knew I wanted him more than I wanted any answers.

i heard the crying-while-reading thing from a million women while associated with intervarsity. i wonder what illiterate women do? ;-) anyway, perkins isn't a bigot or anything from what i can tell, and i apologize if i implied that.

One good example of a prominent Indian muslim in the U.S. political scene is Fareed Zakaria who used to be conservative, but is now considered moderate. (I am guessing he used to be or may still be more of a Bush 1 republican type and definitely not a BUsh 2 type).

I just want to clarify that I did not limit it to Catholics. And I was just looking at the Indians who made it big in the right wing side and not the other way around meaning I wasnt looking at a breakdown of Indian American Christians and what their political affiliations were.

Among my Hindu family, it seems all over the map though many tend to be Democratic after Bush II. Among the DBDs especially, I see it more of an opportunistic leaning towards one party or the other rather than strict ideology.

zakaria is a funny sort of muslim. he wrote a wine column for slate for a while ;-)
http://www.slate.com/?id=3944&qp=34560

zakaria is a funny sort of muslim. he wrote a wine column for slate for a while

Is alcohol that strictly prohibited in Islam? My Hyd friends say the day after Ramzan, ends all bars in the city are teeming with Muslims.

1) in general it is forbidden.

2) there are a few esoteric sects where it isn't forbidden insofar as it may play a role in ritual worship (example).

3) this is something though which seems widely flouted. a king of saudi arabia had to abdicate in the early 1960s because his alcoholism had gotten so bad that they couldn't cover it up. reading a history of the abbassid caliphs i had to note that consumption was wine was the norm in the court, not the exception.

Is alcohol that strictly prohibited in Islam?

I have heard, that unlike the rampant alcoholism in Indian Punjab, there is very little alcohol consumption in Pakistani Punjab. I find that amazing.. that essentially the same people can differ so much in this parameter. Pre-1947, when Muslims lived side by side with Sikhs/Hindus, I would imagine that alcohol consumption among Muslims would have been significant, at least in rural areas. If that's true, and it's been stamped out after Partition, I think that's an incredible social phenomenon. In fact one Pakistani I met once told me that he would occasionally travel close to 25 miles from his village so that he could quietly drink with a few buddies...but it was very much on the down low. That of course is a similar story to the Gujarati (married to my cousin) who told me that they would go far into their fields sometimes and cook meat and drink alcohol.

Isn't it true Jinnah drank alcohol and was not very religious. I think he considered himself muslim from an indentity point of view like secular jewish people considering themselves jewish. I wonder how Jinnah will feel about how some of the later leaders making the country more religious minded. It's a pity they don't teach more about Jinnah in Indian high schools. He was an interesting person.

Amitabh, I was a little skeptical if alcohol could so easily be banned and its use completely curtailed, especially since making tharra is a well-known 'technology'. So I googled a bit. Not only is tharra going strong, people are dying, as expected from badly made tharra, and as can also be expectd, charas and heroin are replacing tharra, and alcohol in general.

A parliamentarian in Pakistan has reportedly called upon the government to relax the ban on alcohol because, according to him, more and more youngsters were getting addicted to drugs like heroin and morphine in the absence of free availability of alcoholic drinks.

'It is a fact that restrictions on liquor have resulted in a surge in the use of deadly drugs in Pakistan. I am not going to mention how many members of this honourable house drink.'

As many as 50 people who consumed toxic liquor on Sept 19 have expired so far, a police official told The News. Not surprisingly, the victims were poor people, including some sanitary workers who usually indulge in drinking after completing their tedious job. Most of the localities where the business of illicit liquor is thriving have pockets of minorities, including Christians and Hindus whose religion does not prohibit drinking but who become victim of cheap varieties due to their weak economic background.

Although the last news item describes happenings in Karachi, the first one definitely has Punjab in mind.

It is interesting to see that desis, for the most part, have to be wingnuts to be able to do well in politics.

Regarding Jindal: I'm sure that he will actually do a great job (when compared to all the other hill-billies out there in Louisiana). He's a very educated and smart guy. He seemed to be everywhere after Katrina - in the meetings and all.

I believe that he's very much an opportunist. Why Catholicism when no pope has ever been a non-white (most Catholics are non-whites living in South America)? Why not Baptist, Lutherans, Jewish, Muslim, etc?

I simply don't buy that he chose "Bobby" after watching the Brady Bunch. We all know that "Bobby" is a very popular name in North India, especially after '74 movie of Bobby. His real name is "piyush".

Also, he staunchly claims that him and his wife didn't have an arranged marriage. He's actually quite hypersensitive that it wasn't arranged. ADMIT it Piyushji - your family introduced you to your lovely wife. Why else are you two in the same community/culture/language?

How much does Piyush know about Indian Christians?

Finally, I commend the Christians in India. They are the second biggest religious minority in India (after the Muslims), and they outnumber the Sikhs. It's much harder (and more sincere) to be a Christian in India than it is in the USA. However, I don't commend Piyush, and I think that he's an opportunist.

Boston Mahesh,
Thanks for the props to the Indian Christians. Most of them are either Orthodox or Catholics and very few Protestants (Anglicans, Baptists or Born Again Evangelicals). Today the recent converts are mostly Evangelicals. Catholicism in India emerged after Vasco landed on Indian shores. If you look at them, the majority live in well adjusted enclaves and have never had a history of aggression against their lords. They also have a deep sense of Indian identity which is seen in the rituals and traditions although their theological aspirations are obviously different. You will find many of them with a high moderate to left leaning tendency.
My curiosity is why would you like to have Bobby Jindal know anything about Indian Christians? What does that have to do with politicking in Louisiana? Also me thinks that his vehement admission that he never had an arranged marriage should be taken on face value and not a factor in his ability to help govern the state? Him being Catholic (Universal) is as much as the same choice he makes everday doing you know what.. left hand or right hand ..ki farak painda yaar?

I have heard, that unlike the rampant alcoholism in Indian Punjab, there is very little alcohol consumption in Pakistani Punjab.

In Lahore alcohol is rampant unlike in Karachi where they take the Islamic proscription on alcohol more seriously. In fact as I understand, alcohol flows rather freely in Lahore.

something that popped into my head... why aren't there as many notable Republican Asian-Americans of other ethnicities? i.e. where's the Korean-American Bobby Jindal? (many Korean-Americans I know are deeply religious Christians) or are there and I just don't know of them? the only high-profile Asian-Am in politics I can think of off the top of my head is Margaret Chao.

ok i tried to look her up and i don't even know if margaret chao is her name. i mean the lady that was the secretary of transportation?

... why aren't there as many notable Republican Asian-Americans of other ethnicities? i.e. where's the Korean-American Bobby Jindal? (many Korean-Americans I know are deeply religious Christians) or are there and I just don't know of them? the only high-profile Asian-Am in politics I can think of off the top of my head is Margaret Chao.
ok i tried to look her up and i don't even know if margaret chao is her name. i mean the lady that was the secretary of transportation?

Man, not a lady and his name is Norman Mineta and he is a Democrat though he was appointed as Secretary of Transportation by Dubya. We also have Elaine Cho, Labor Secretary who is a Republican.

Gary Locke, an Asian American and a Christian was the Governor of Washington though he is a Democrat.

It's much harder (and more sincere) to be a Christian in India than it is in the USA.

Dont know where you get this information but I must disagree. It is very easy to be a xian in India.

Most of them are either Orthodox or Catholics and very few Protestants (Anglicans, Baptists or Born Again Evangelicals).

Do you mean the Syro Malabar or the Syro-Malankara? Orthodox are restricted to Kerala. The Anglicans are split as the CSI and CNI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_India has details.

Pretty sloppy commenting.

But it confuses me when I see a lot of prominent conservative right wing Indians be Christian when Christians form only a tiny percentage of the Indian population.

Do you mean the Indian American population or the population in India.

The Republican right wing is Christian so it is logical that the only desis who would rise to prominence in Rep Party would be radical Christians.

I have no desire to make a definitive statement on something this sensitive

Dont know where you get this information but I must disagree. It is very easy to be a xian in India.

Unless you are being hunted down and your houses/churches/schools burnt by mobs of crazed Hinduvta nuts.

or laws are being a la Saudi Arabia to stop you from proselytizing.

*or laws are being passed a la Saudi Arabia to stop you from proselytizing.

Dont know where you get this information but I must disagree. It is very easy to be a xian in India.

Unless you are being hunted down and your houses/churches/schools burnt by mobs of crazed Hinduvta nuts.

I think he means on a day to day basis and is not including isolated incidents of right wing Hindus reacting in a wretched manner to some evangelical Christians regardless of the intent of these evangelicals/missionaries. I am sure one can bring up anecdotes in most countries to find persecution of a minority at some point. And I think most backlash in recent years has been restricted to conversions. Now I feel that Hindus should not whine because they have an opportunity to prevent conversion through positive contributions and not preventing someone else. But that's a different issue. I think we are talking about day to day life.

When I was in India, I noticed the same kind of evangelical gatherings that you would see over here in the US by some obnoxious white guy who would come to save the masses from paganism. As obnoxious as they were, they used to have no local backlash. THey had no problems booking large venues. They used to put posters around the cities without hassle. Quite a few Catholic educational institutions have received generous land grants from rich Hindu families(I should know, my grandfather and his network are some of them).

SChools get Christmas off. The Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh is openly Christian. I really do not see a problem at all for a Christian who does not try to convert others in India. And even those who seek to convert others, the incidents are isolated.

nala, I think you're thinking of Elaine Cho (as was mentioned above). The head of the EEOC is also Asian-American (although a Dem, I think). If you come out to CA there are a number of relatively high profile Asian-American Dems in positions of authority or political influence.

I've already stated that I don't like Jindal's politics, but what's depressing is that someone can win simply because the corrupt, crack-headed machine that is the Louisiana Democratic Party has consistently shot itself in the face.

I think the race politics within the Democratic Party make it even harder for people of color to rise to positions of power relative to the Republicans. And by the way, I don't think you can count Obama -- he is more an exception than a rule for the Dems. How long has it been since we've had a black Senator? Oh that's right, since Reconstruction. That said, the Bush administration has been way more enthusiastic in appointing "swing minorities" (e.g. Latino-Americans, Asian-Americans) than communities that they see as "beyond saving" because they vote overwhelmingly Democrat (i.e. African Americans). I don't buy Thomas's "play both sides" argument, but I do think that the Dems take "minority votes" for granted and fail to prioritize outreach to these communities at the macro-level [of course it's much different for mayoral elections and the like]. And in Louisiana, Dems are actively pandering to the racist David-Duke style vote, not to the "poverty" vote or the "people of color" vote.

Yabadaba: Maitri: do you honestly believe there will be an iota of change in Louisiana with this dude as governor?

As I stated above, "Sadly, [Jindal] will win only because his competition is pathetic."

Guys, one more for your reading pleasure, a fine editorial from our local alternate newsweekly, the Gambit:

Blame the Frontrunner - Five reasons why Bobby Jindal has done more than any other candidate this election cycle to discourage voter participation.

Incidentally, the Gambit supports Jindal for governor for exactly the same reason I mentioned: the other candidates are dismal. Voter participation has to start way before elections, i.e. in candidate selection and vetting. Seriously, America's Next Top Model is more thorough.

No matter what one thinks of his politics, his beliefs, his desiness (or lack thereof), or the road that has brought him to this point (including lack of viable alternatives), I still think it's still a matter of great pride that an Indian American may very likely become GOVERNOR of a U.S. state. It boggles my mind. It would be a huge milestone for our community.

Chachaji (#28), thanks.

In Lahore alcohol is rampant unlike in Karachi where they take the Islamic proscription on alcohol more seriously. In fact as I understand, alcohol flows rather freely in Lahore.

At some point before I die (or get too old), I HAVE to attend a private party in Lahore. The things I've heard!

#38 Melbourne desi..

Do you mean the Syro Malabar or the Syro-Malankara? Orthodox are restricted to Kerala. The Anglicans are split as the CSI and CNI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_India has details.
Pretty sloppy commenting.

At some point before I die (or get too old), I HAVE to attend a private party in Lahore. The things I've heard!

No need to wait that long, Amitabh! I want to go too, and I'm sure Camille will come along. :)

I wonder how Jews view prominent converts to Christianity. Do they view them as race traitors as Hindus generally do? I know in Israel, evangelism is despised by all but the loony left in the country.

Unless you are being hunted down and your houses/churches/schools burnt by mobs of crazed Hinduvta nuts.

The occasional isolate incident occurs but Xians dont feel threatened in India - at least not a vast majority. Hindutva nuts need to pick on someone all the time - sometimes it is christians sometimes, it is women in skirts.

SChools get Christmas off. The Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh is openly Christian. I really do not see a problem at all for a Christian who does not try to convert others in India.

The passion and aggression of the newly converted is annoying and scary. I am all for anti-conversion laws. Fundamentalist christian missionaries are a real nuisance.

I am all for anti-conversion laws. Fundamentalist christian missionaries are a real nuisance.

Nuisance to freedom of religion?

How long has it been since we've had a black Senator? Oh that's right, since Reconstruction.

no. brooks (mass.) and mosely-braun (illinois).

I believe that he's very much an opportunist. Why Catholicism when no pope has ever been a non-white (most Catholics are non-whites living in South America)? Why not Baptist, Lutherans, Jewish, Muslim, etc?

depends on how you define white. on SM many have lumped middle eastern people as brown (which i am skeptical of because they are a diverse group, but so be it), and some popes were middle eastern. the last i can remember is sergius I around 700, syrian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sergius_I

the tendency for popes being european is a function of history. most of the christian lands of the middle east came under muslim rule and, and most of those churches were either independent of rome (jacobites, copts, etc.) or aligned with constantinople (anticohene orthodox). for a long time the papacy was just a vehicle for the italian nobility, only (ironically) with the destruction of its temporal power by italy has it truly regained its world-historical spiritual power i think (remember that the medecis were popes when the reformation broke out). it seems likely that we will have a black people soon (a disproportionate number of the latin american hierarchy are white, not mestizo or indigenous, so don't look there).

That said, the Bush administration has been way more enthusiastic in appointing "swing minorities" (e.g. Latino-Americans, Asian-Americans) than communities that they see as "beyond saving" because they vote overwhelmingly Democrat (i.e. African Americans).

the two most powerful non-whites though have been black. powell and rice.

I wonder how Jews view prominent converts to Christianity. Do they view them as race traitors as Hindus generally do? I know in Israel, evangelism is despised by all but the loony left in the country.

in general yes, they do view them that way (a jew who is non-religious is not as bad as a jew who converts to another religion, especially xtianity). that being said, jews have a long history where they've had to accept the fact that people can convert out of their religion. so it doesn't seem like their heads explode as much as hindus at the thought.

jews have a long history where they've had to accept the fact that people can convert out of their religion. so it doesn't seem like their heads explode as much as hindus at the thought.

what do you mean? there's been a long history of conversion (both forced and voluntary) to other religions among hindus in india. do you just mean that the hindu identity and hindu nationalism is relatively more recent?

there's been a long history of conversion (both forced and voluntary) to other religions among hindus in india. do you just mean that the hindu identity and hindu nationalism is relatively more recent?

i think the second part is correct. 99% of non-hindus in india are descended from hindus, so obviously conversion happens. but by "head exploding," i'm talking about a visceral aversion to the idea that people can choose for themselves what religion they should belong to. there's a common refrain on SM from some that conversion is "not right," that to convert form one religion to another is just abhorrent (muslims have a similar view, except that they only include their own religion as being bound by this dictum). of course this is in stark contrast to the norm within american protestantism, where religious choice is theoretically* very personal. this attitude that people are what they are born and you can't change it is widely internalized among american hindus, i've had to correct friends who refer to me as a "muslim atheist." there's nothing that's muslim about me aside from my ancestors.

* i say theoretically because these sorts of "choices" are strongly weighted by parameters outside of an individual's control, like what denomination they were born into.

well I have extended family in rural andhra pradesh that have recently converted to christianity, and I also have family members in the U.S. who endorse hindu nationalist views. i don't think the 'heads exploding' at people converting is due so much to resistance toward the idea that people can change how they born so much as feeling like their religion/culture/way of life is under attack. of course this 'indian way of life' isn't necessarily how it actually is in india anymore (or ever), but i think desis abroad feel like they have to stick to whatever remnants of the motherland culture they can, and for hindus, hinduism is part of that. so they may feel that hindus who convert to monotheistic religions are a personal affront to hinduism, especially if they go on to proselytize or talk about how evil idolatry is (as in the example of that crying girl you talked about). obviously this is coming from a hindu perspective, but i think it's also because hindu idolatry is something that is not understood or accepted for the most part in the west (even among catholics); it's usually just ridiculed, and i think that's where part of the defensiveness is coming from.

personally, i have family members who talk about how hinduism is 'dying out,' and list examples of how rajasekhar reddy is tearing down temples and building churches in tirupati, etc. although i'm agnostic (religion doesn't matter much to me to either way), i still consider myself hindu and on a purely visceral level, hearing about the extent of missionary work in andhra pradesh gets me sort of worked up all politically-incorrectly. while i would like to say that i'm glad that these missionaries are providing education, health care, etc., i really want there to be as many secular or even hindu groups who do so. so i guess you're right about internalized attitudes to some extent.

oh yeah, forgot to add- i think there's also some hubris among hindus, a sense that most of the converts in india wouldn't convert if the christian missionaries weren't providing education, hospitals, money, etc.

while i would like to say that i'm glad that these missionaries are providing education, health care, etc., i really want there to be as many secular or even hindu groups who do so. so i guess you're right about internalized attitudes to some extent.

sure. the main issue seems to be that hindus seem averse to fighting fire with fire. some hindu groups had taken up the challenge to witness for their religion by doing good in the world and aiding those who aren't of their own kith & kin (caste?), but far too often the anger just seems to be channeled into things like passing anti-conversion laws. the fact is we all know that laws aren't really doing to do anything if you've lost hearts & minds, you're only delaying the inevitable. india could go the islamic route and make it so dangerous to convert to another religion that hinduism is safe...but for what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

oh yeah, forgot to add- i think there's also some hubris among hindus, a sense that most of the converts in india wouldn't convert if the christian missionaries weren't providing education, hospitals, money, etc.

there are two issues. most obviously this is clear, these sorts of parameters matter. but why do & did tribal groups join the hindu dharma in the first place? for many of the same reasons, and entrance into a wider civilization and the benefits which shall accrue. the difference here is one of degree and familiarity, hinduism itself benefited from the glamor that aryavarta exuded in the eyes of the people of the forest. but the second issue is that this a classic problem of looking at the class as half-empty: if hindus funneled money into education, hospitals and what not toward the less fortunate and lower caste there wouldn't be as much of an issue now, would there?

but the second issue is that this a classic problem of looking at the class as half-empty: if hindus funneled money into education, hospitals and what not toward the less fortunate and lower caste there wouldn't be as much of an issue now, would there?

true. even aforementioned hindu nationalist family members aren't very religious, & think caste (which isn't that big of a deal in andhra except for the ridiculous kamma-reddy rivalry, based on what i've seen) is bs. that's why they regularly donate to secular NGOs meant to educate tribal children.

and by caste not being that big of a deal in AP, i mean politically. while different subcastes may align along political lines, there's nothing like the dravidian movement in TN.

Well, whatever the case, the Hindu-American reaction is much less than what would be the Muslim-American reaction. Nala you should get worked up. The people who are converting in Andhra are not just Dalits (who may have some legitimate reasons) but CASTE Hindus who cannot complain about social discrimination nearly as much. Its culture destroying. Razib, not believing doesn't mean much to Hindus, there is much liberality in Hindu thinking on theology from monoist to theist to atheist.. When someone converts its considered an assault on a Hindu identity. Compare this with China where a Han will be a Han whether Christian or Buddhist or Taoist.

even aforementioned hindu nationalist family members aren't very religious

well, it is hindu nationalism. i think it is fallacious to analogous hindutva to christian or muslim fundamentalism because of the strong ethnic element (though some hindutva groups do veer into religious fundamentalism similar to what christians and muslims engage in, but it seems more a manifestation of dayananda than sarvakar).

Well, whatever the case, the Hindu-American reaction is much less than what would be the Muslim-American reaction.

muslim american reaction to what? you're talking about someone from a muslim family who becomes christian and runs for political office? that is likely. that being said, muslims are also converting to christianity in the USA, though it tends to be the highly educated/assimilated segment from what i can tell. i met persian christians, their families were nominally muslim and they converted to christianity in their teenage years (here in the USA obviously).

Its culture destroying...When someone converts its considered an assault on a Hindu identity.

yes, true. and in fact, the arguments for killing apostates for islam is based on analogies with nationalism, the execution is rationalized as one due to treason. any muslim society which lets muslims opt out of islam is going to collapse because of defection from within.* of course it is an assault on hindu identity. but is the solution to pass laws that you can't opt out of hindu identity? perhaps for some people, but any culture that does that is dead in the long run unless it wants to shut itself off into the cocoon of north korean or saudi primitivism.

the solution to the conversion problem is simple: hindus need to produce religious texts which make women cry. it isn't that hard, trust me, i've read the gospels multiple times and it isn't a once in a million years piece of prose ;-) (perhaps it is diff. in the original greek, i don't know)

* just a note for SM readers, since 1965 a substantial number of nominal muslims in east java have converted to hinduism. probably on the order of at least hundreds of thousands and more like millions.

I do want to add that I think a backlash is growing because the type of christian missionaries who come to India lately are more focused on conversions. I do agree Hindu fundamentalists need to focus on education of the lower castes too instead of spending all their energy on their overreactions to anything non traditional and conversion attempts.

But people need to know that a lot of Hindus have donated freely to Catholic institutions in the past. A lot of the Catholic schools have had land donated by Hindus. My mom's family takes Christmas cakes every Christmas to all the prominent Catholic institutions in the city. But I noticed a more US style more obnoxious form of Christian targeting India in recent years. There seems to be more of a concern with idolatory and saving Indians. The earlier missionaries were more inclusive and tried to fit in better. I am just giving my opinion based on anecdotal info. I could be offbase on this trend.

while i would like to say that i'm glad that these missionaries are providing education, health care, etc., i really want there to be as many secular or even hindu groups who do so. so i guess you're right about internalized attitudes to some extent.

Many Hindu groups are trying, but there is massive assymetry because Christians have firstworld money. Hindus have their wealthy diaspora, but its a pittance in the face of millions of Southern Churches throwin in a penny for the starvin marvin Hindoo. When Hindus do try, they are labelled Hindu fundamentalists by Indian secularists. Google "IDRF" and follow the whole story. Also, a Congress run state, Himachal Pradesh, has banned forcible conversions; its not just BJP states. That should tell you something.

even aforementioned hindu nationalist family members aren't very religious

You don't have to be a "Hindu nationalist" to morally oppose conversions. Who said this?:

"It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world's progress toward peace. Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man?"

Savarkar? Gowalkar? Nope. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Assasinated by a Hindu bigot---and, not uninterestingly, considered to be the 20th century's best embodiment of the Sermon on the Mount.

and by caste not being that big of a deal in AP, i mean politically. while different subcastes may align along political lines, there's nothing like the dravidian movement in TN.

"Lower caste revolt" in Andhra manifested in naxalism (though its complicated, many of the progenitors were from landed castes).

Many Hindu groups are trying, but there is massive assymetry because Christians have firstworld money. Hindus have their wealthy diaspora, but its a pittance in the face of millions of Southern Churches throwin in a penny for the starvin marvin Hindoo.

this is certainly true, but the asymmetry in basal money could be balanced out by the fact that while southern american xtians send their money all over hindus can concentrate on traditional hindu populations. additionally, there is of course imbalances in savings rates. that can close the gap some.

"It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world's progress toward peace. Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man?"

that's an ontological gap which most hindus will never be able to close with a subset of christians and muslims. for a subset of american xtians and most muslims the raison d'etre of religion is of course to convert everyone to their bronze age myths! in any case, being opposed to conversions on principle doesn't imply violent repression of conversions. gandhi didn't disown his son when he temporarily converted to islam, did he? (i recall reading he was not pleased of course).

p.s. the hindu religion didn't always exist as it is in india. the process of the spread of a dharmic system of belief south and east across south asia, and modern day sanskritization, does show that change and cultural evolution occurs. most indo-aryan speakers' ancestors spoke different languages and worshiped different gods. my hindu ancestors no doubt were 'civilized' by brahmins spreading the hindu dharma before they accepted the islamic religion. one could argue that hinduism is a continuity and extension of indigenous belief systems; but some xtians make the same argument as well (though with more sophistic intent from what i can tell).

Don't also forget Catholic schools and charities have gotten large donation from other faiths in India. My family and their friends have no more land to donate to non Christian schools. The land they donated to Catholic schools is worth millions of DOLLARS now. So some Hindu families have tried to help other Indians, but via Catholic schools and charities. A lot of the Catholic missionaries did excellent work in education at one time though they do not seem to be maintaining the same excellence lately in Andhra Pradesh.

Why is razib the jerk's offensive remarks about Christianity and Islam not deleted? The pompous fool's opinions are shallow and tedious.

I still think it's still a matter of great pride that an Indian American may very likely become GOVERNOR of a U.S. state. It boggles my mind.

Your mind must get boggled too easily. America has already had governors who were of african, arab, hispanic, chinese, japanese, filipino, polynesian origins.

some point before I die (or get too old), I HAVE to attend a private party in Lahore. The things I've heard!

Your mind got boggled too easily again :)

especially if they go on to proselytize or talk about how evil idolatry is (as in the example of that crying girl you talked about). obviously this is coming from a hindu perspective, but i think it's also because hindu idolatry is something that is not understood or accepted for the most part in the west (even among catholics); it's usually just ridiculed, and i think that's where part of the defensiveness is coming from

When non-hindus look at pictures of Kali idols, naked with her tongue hanging out, fierce expression, severed heads in her hands, blood dripping etc and read that children used to be regularly sacrificed to her in some hindu temples (until the british colonials outlawed the barbarism) its easy to see why they would conclude that there is something evil/demonic going on there.

why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man?"

You obviously havent studied christianity. Even the best and saintliest of men and women are tainted by original sin. This sin can only be washed away by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, the only son of God. Those who dont have faith in the efficacy of this sacrifice are doomed to eternal torture in Hell at the hands of the "loving" God of the Bible, regardless of how righteous they may have been.

Similarly, in Islam all non-believers will be burned and tortured in Hell for rejecting the Quran, Allah's final message to mankind via Mohammad his last prophet. Regardless of how good and saintly they may have been.

So their rationale for religious conversion is that they are saving you from eternal Hell.

no. brooks (mass.) and mosely-braun (illinois).

Razib, I am not ignoring that the Bush administration has appointed African Americans to high/powerful positions (although there does seem to be a bit of a "no more than one black Secretary in the cabinet at a time" rule). That does not take away from my point that they have appointed Asian Americans and Latino Americans in MUCH HIGHER numbers within their private staff, within presidential nominations, and within (cabinet) leadership positions.

::

I think there are two factors for non-"nationalist" types who find conversions troublesome. The first is that Hinduism, Sikhi, Buddhism, are all religions that (theoretically) are non-prosletyzing. I know I feel uncomfortable with prosletization in large part because I think it's inappropriate. Why not let someone stick with their faith, and if they care to convert they can/will? The second reason is not so much that Christian charities give out aid/support... it's when those charities withhold aid/support unless a person converts. I think of the tsunami survivors (in which at least some missionary aid workers denied villagers food/medicine unless they converted, or the ceremony where they baptised a bunch of small Indonesian Muslim boys into Christianity because their parents weren't there). In my opinion, this is nearly equivalent (morally, in my head) to forced conversion. I think it's fine to take issue with that.

::

Ok, so now can we get back on Bobby Jindal or desis/ABDs in U.S. politics?

Amitabh, I just don't feel the same. I don't think it's worth taking pride in someone being in office by virtue of their skin color; I'm going to reserve judgment for their politics as well. I don't find it a "source of great pride" that Clarence Thomas is a SCJ, but I do find a source of great pride that Thurgood Marshall was one. I just think that the feelings of "one of our own is in power!" ought to be tempered by common sense and whether or not that person reflects the political system or policies that we subscribe to. That said, Jindal absolutely reflects the views of a PORTION of desis in the U.S. I just don't think the rest of us have to be lumped into one desi-uber-alles supporting enclave.

there does seem to be a bit of a "no more than one black Secretary in the cabinet at a time" rule

Wrong:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_16_105/ai_n6006803

"the U.S. Senate finally confirmed President Bush's nomination of Dallas public housing specialist Alphonso Jackson as the new Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)......He became the third Black member of the Cabinet, succeeding former Secretary Mel Martinez. Other Blacks are Secretary of State Colin Powell and Education Secretary Roderick Paige. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice is a White House exec, but attends Cabinet meetings as a presidential staffer."

Hinduism, Sikhi, Buddhism, are all religions that (theoretically) are non-prosletyzing.

Wrong again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary#Buddhist_missions

"The first missions in history were sent by the Indian religions, in particular, Buddhism...........The first Buddhist missionaries were called "Dharma Bhanaks". The Emperor Ashoka was a significant early Buddhist missioner. In the 3rd century BCE, Dharmaraksita - among others - was sent out by emperor Ashoka to proselytize the Buddhist tradition through the Indian Maurya Empire, but also into the Mediterranean as far as Greece. Buddhism was spread among the Turkic people during the 2nd and 3rd centuries B.C. into modern-day Pakistan, Kashmir, Afghanistan, eastern and coastal Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. It was also taken into China brought by An Shigao in the 2nd century BCE.

The use of missions, formation of councils and monastic institutions influenced the emergence of Christian missions and organizations which had similar structures formed in places which were formerly Buddhist missions."

That does not take away from my point that they have appointed Asian Americans and Latino Americans in MUCH HIGHER numbers within their private staff, within presidential nominations, and within (cabinet) leadership positions

Bush has appointed 3 hispanic cabinet members and 2 asian ones (both east asian: a chinese and a japanese). How is that "MUCH HIGHER" than the 4 african-americans he has appointed to his cabinet?

The highest cabinet position is the Secretary of State, who is fourth in line to the Presidency. Both of Bush's Secrataries of State have been african-americans: Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice.

Below the cabinet level the proportion of african-americans does decrease significantly, to something like 7%. Where is your evidence that hispanic and asian representation is"MUCH HIGHER" than that?

Dhoni,

I didn't realize there were widespread Buddhist missionaries who sought to actively convert individuals in the same way that Christian missions do. Is missionary work, with respect to conversion, a core component of the religious doctrines of Buddhism? I ask, because I stated that, at least in theory, the three religions I mentioned specifically do NOT ask their adherents to prosletyze. I could be wrong, I'm just curious. Perhaps Judaism could also be added to that list.

With respect to my comment regarding "much higher" appointment levels, I am speaking about a larger swathe of the executive branch than the cabinet secretaries. If you include political appointees within the executive branch (i.e. White House staff and cabinet staff, but excluding US Attorneys), there have been (to date) at least 33 Latino/Latino-Americans, 18 Asian/Asian Americans (including several desis), 20 African Americans, and 3 people of Middle Eastern descent. This count is not exhaustive and does not include "support staff", but it summarizes information publicly accessible here and here. There have only been three African Americans appointed to the cabinet -- Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Alphonso Jackson. Are you counting Condi twice because she was NSA Director? Also, Norm Mineta is a holdover from the Clinton administration (albeit at the very end of the Clinton Administration), so I don't know to what extent it's fair to qualify him as a "new" appointee under Bush despite him being reappointed to a different cabinet position.

The difference with the Buddhist and Hindu missionaries is that they did not try to convince the locals of foreign locales that they were going to hell if they continued on their own way. I believe in quite a number of cases, even now, a lot of non Asians who convert to Buddhism still like to hang on to their own faith too.

The difference with the Buddhist and Hindu missionaries is that they did not try to convince the locals of foreign locales that they were going to hell if they continued on their own way.

buddhism spread in east asia through elite emulation. e.g., in the 4th century it became the religion of barbarian warlords in north china. in the 7th century it became the religion of a particular party in the imperial court. in southeast asia the burmans who arrived in myanmar were already familiar with a mahayana form of the religion but the court and king converted to the therevada form. that being said, we have multiple repeated instances where indigenous religious traditions persist or were slotted within the buddhist system. e.g., in tibet bon, in china taoism and in japan shinto all persist as alternative traditions (and bon now has a relatively close relationship to tibetan buddhism). in places like myanmar or thailand there is still an 'animist' substratum in the religion as well...though one can say that about christian and even islam in many places. the key though seems to be that buddhism is not normally as exclusivistic. that being said, there are buddhist sects which are exclusive in their orientation. there are several in japan, e.g., nichiren

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichiren_Buddhism

and of course, buddhism has hells

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell#Buddhism

Is missionary work, with respect to conversion, a core component of the religious doctrines of Buddhism? I ask, because I stated that, at least in theory, the three religions I mentioned specifically do NOT ask their adherents to prosletyze. I could be wrong, I'm just curious. Perhaps Judaism could also be added to that list.

generalizations about any religion are problematic. for example, soka gakkai international
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokka_Gakkai

exhibits many of the characteristics of evangelical christianity in its attitude toward outgroups and missionary activity (it is a branch of nichiren). religious "theory" is always fluid and open-ended. many christian denominations in the USA now reject the idea that only christians go to heaven (i have quoted the current leader of the episcopal church in the USA to that effect). the mormon church, if you consider it christian, rejects hell altogether because it was influenced by universalism in the 19th century.

judaism is today not generally a missionary religion, but do note that for most of the past 2,000 years judaism existed under christian and muslim domination, under which attempts to convert individuals to judaism would result in group retribution. but the maccabbees, the last major jewish dynasty in palestine, is attested to have forcibly converted many peoples to the jewish religion as they expanded their kingdom.

of course, the generalizations do capture the overall distribution of trends. ISKON is exceptional in its evangelistic fervor within the hindu tradition. in a muslim tradition it would be far more typical. but the variation within all traditions seems to imply that the distribution might be less dictated by theory than it would be by circumstance. i.e., judaism developed into an inward looking religion in large part because that was a condition of its survival in the dar al islam and christendom. similarly, hinduism experienced nearly 1,000 years of muslim domination, and some of the inward looking tendencies like emerged from that period. after all, there were strictures against brahmins leaving india and crossing the water, but i am sure this would have been an alien sentiment to the brahmins and hindus of all sorts who traveled to southeast asian before 1000 AD and spread their religion and culture.

i have to study but i was skimming and i just had to respond to this...

When non-hindus look at pictures of Kali idols, naked with her tongue hanging out, fierce expression, severed heads in her hands, blood dripping etc and read that children used to be regularly sacrificed to her in some hindu temples (until the british colonials outlawed the barbarism) its easy to see why they would conclude that there is something evil/demonic going on there.

it may be 'easy' for people to conclude this based on one aspect of hinduism, a complex tradition with around a billion followers and thousands of years of history, but that doesn't make it the logical conclusion either. leaving aside the fact that you obviously don't know much about kali, let alone hinduism, if that's the first image of kali that pops into your head, by ridiculing hindu idolatry, i mean stuff like, 'you pray to an elephant! LOL!' from a purely logical, agnostic/atheist point of view, there is no reason for involving a ganesh idol in prayer is any more ridiculous than involving rosary beads, a cross, etc. (btw i am SO glad that those british folks civilized all us heathens!)

* there is no reason that involving a ganesh idol in prayer...

Nuisance to freedom of religion?

ok school is kind of dull so i was looking over my comment again, and Dhoni, I see that you may be just trying to explain the mindset that comes to the conclusion that hindu deities are 'evil/demonic' rather than endorsing it. so i apologize if my tone was too sarcastic/harsh. and obviously human sacrifice is terrible. but that is just one (rarely practiced, outlawed) aspect of hinduism/kali worship (e.g. some representation of 'kali maa' is very different from the representation of kali that you so generously described).

And I agree with you, Camille, re: being 'proud' of bobby jindal.

dhoni is a troll.

70 · Camille That said, Jindal absolutely reflects the views of a PORTION of desis in the U.S. I just don't think the rest of us have to be lumped into one desi-uber-alles supporting enclave.

Fair point--I think it's really healthy that desis are involved politically here on both the left & the right.
I do think it's awesome that Jindal's going to win, though!

I didn't realize there were widespread Buddhist missionaries who sought to actively convert individuals in the same way that Christian missions do. Is missionary work, with respect to conversion, a core component of the religious doctrines of Buddhism? I ask, because I stated that, at least in theory, the three religions I mentioned specifically do NOT ask their adherents to prosletyze. I could be wrong, I'm just curious. Perhaps Judaism could also be added to that list.

Let's remember that a portion of mainstream impressions of the breadth and scope of Christian proselytizing efforts has much to do with their apparent success--every time someone reads about the numbers of xtian missionaries going about their business abroad, and the amounts of converts who then go into proselytizing themselves, there is an irrational link made between volume, efficiency and what particular religions allow for with respect to propagation of said religion. It's understandable that the mainstream impression of proselytizing does not take into consideration the past efforts of Hindu and Buddhist missionaries.

exhibits many of the characteristics of evangelical christianity in its attitude toward outgroups and missionary activity (it is a branch of nichiren). religious "theory" is always fluid and open-ended. many christian denominations in the USA now reject the idea that only christians go to heaven

razib,

Isn't it more that most christian denominations do not utilize the 'god's private torture chamber' rhetoric in describing hell? From anecdotal experience, I have gathered that "Hell," to more and more 'reborn' denominations, is described as just a state of being 'separated from God'--far more benign than any rhetoric about 'burning in hell.'

also, wouldn't you agree that modern Hindu and Buddhist missionary work (in the pursuit of gaining converts) pales in comparison to Xtian efforts with respect to results?

Isn't it more that most christian denominations do not utilize the 'god's private torture chamber' rhetoric in describing hell? From anecdotal experience, I have gathered that "Hell," to more and more 'reborn' denominations, is described as just a state of being 'separated from God'--far more benign than any rhetoric about 'burning in hell.'

that's the billy grahman view. but no, what i'm saying is that the liberal mainline protestant views have come to accept a very 'hindu' perspective that all religions are manifestations of the same truth. though a much smaller minority, there are even muslims who hold to this view (their argument is that the only reason hinduism, buddhism, taoism, weren't mentioned in the koran is that it wouldn't have meant anything to the arab people to whom the koran was revealed). a good survey of modern xtian re: hell and non-christians:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savh.htm

also, wouldn't you agree that modern Hindu and Buddhist missionary work (in the pursuit of gaining converts) pales in comparison to Xtian efforts with respect to results?

my first answer is, yes. this especially true in africa, which was less than 10% christian in 1900 but is now nearly 50% christian. that being said, there is another angle you can take upon it too: 'eastern' ideas have achieved wide traction in much of the west. surveys regularly show that 1/4 of westerners accept reincarnation, for example. additionally, let's focus on india vs. the USA. xtians are about 2.5% of india's population. a substantial number of these are communities of long standing in kerala, but let's ignore that. i would offer that the quantitative impact of buddhist and hindu ideas since the 1960s in american culture is at least, if not more, than 2.5% of the united state's population. the 10-15% of americans who avow 'no religion' are generally not atheists, but their spirituality is often of a strong dharmic tint when they do avow it.

Is missionary work, with respect to conversion, a core component of the religious doctrines of Buddhism? I ask, because I stated that, at least in theory, the three religions I mentioned specifically do NOT ask their adherents to prosletyze. I could be wrong

Buddha himself was a missionary. He did not wait for disciples to come to him, he travelled through a good chunk of north-central India (Bihar, U.P. etc) spreading his gospel of salvation. And he taught his disciples to do the same: "Go forth, O Bhikkhus, for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world". And his followers became the most successful missionaries of all time. At one time or another buddhism has been the dominant religion in South Asia, Central Asia, East Asia and South-East Asia. Today it is spreading in the West especially among the educated classes.

There have only been three African Americans appointed to the cabinet -- Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Alphonso Jackson.

Still wrong, even after reading my post. Read it again. Bush has appointed four african-americans to his cabinet: Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Alphonso Jackson and Roderick Paige. You are also wrong in claiming that there have been no african-american senators since Reconstruction. There have been three: Edward Brooke, Carol Mosely-Brown and Barack Obama.

With respect to my comment regarding "much higher" appointment levels, I am speaking about a larger swathe of the executive branch than the cabinet secretaries. If you include political appointees within the executive branch (i.e. White House staff and cabinet staff, but excluding US Attorneys), there have been (to date) at least 33 Latino/Latino-Americans, 18 Asian/Asian Americans (including several desis), 20 African Americans, and 3 people of Middle Eastern descent.

Assuming your figures are correct, explain how you managed to conclude that 18 is "MUCH HIGHER" (your emphasis) than 20? Even 33 cannot be called that.

Show some class and intellectual honesty and admit you were wrong when you claimed that: "the Bush administration has been way more enthusiastic in appointing "swing minorities" (e.g. Latino-Americans, Asian-Americans) than communities that they see as "beyond saving" because they vote overwhelmingly Democrat (i.e. African Americans)." Have the decency to give credit where its due.

Also, Bush has appointed african-americans to more important and prestigious positions than any other racial/ethnic minority. No hispanic or east asian has reached the status of Secretary of State or National Security Advisor.

Republicans have also appointed african-americans to such important positions outside the administration as Supreme Court Justice (the highest judicial position) and Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff (the highest military position), which no hispanic or asian has reached yet.

also, re: the success of christian missionaries. even if 2.5% is a small number, do note that very few indians are christian even after hundreds of years of attempts by western christians. evangelicals claim that hundreds of millions of chinese are xtian, but two polls in the past year suggest a number closer to 40 million (that's less than 4%): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6337627.stm

so be careful about the hype.

'eastern' ideas have achieved wide traction in much of the west.

Yes, i've experienced this first-hand for, say, about 15 years of my life.

there have been no african-american senators since Reconstruction.

camille, i think the actual fact is that there have been no af-am senators from the south since reconstruction. of the whopping three that have made it to the senate in the 130 years (in which time there have been roughly 130/2*100/3 ~ 2200 contests for seats - 100/3 seats every 2 years), 2 were from illinois and one from massachusetts. af-ams have it just peachy, see?