Discussion in 'Religion & Culture' started by maomao, Mar 30, 2015.

  1. maomao

    maomao Veteran Hunter of Maleecha Senior Member

    Apr 7, 2010
    Likes Received:
    The right to ‘propagate' does not mean the right to ‘convert'. And it is this inability to distinguish between the two that highlights the appalling ignorance of those who see nothing wrong with offensive evangelism

    Astonishing ignorance laces the arguments proffered by the Left-liberal commentariat and ‘secular’ politicians in defence of religious conversions through deceit, allurement and coercion. A lot of this has been heard in recent days both inside and outside Parliament. Amid the raucous din in Parliament and television studios, a point that is heard over and over again is how converting Hindus to another faith is integral to ‘secularism’,

    sanctioned by the Constitution, and must never be objected to as that would hurt India’s pluralism. The Idea of India, it would seem, is hinged on the idea of allowing foreign-funded evangelists a free run. “The Constitution guarantees Christian missionaries the right to convert people to Christianity,” we are told. “In a secular country, the Constitution reigns supreme,” we are reminded. “Violation of rights enshrined in the Constitution will destroy democracy,” we are warned.

    A Christian woman appearing on Barkha Dutt’s show, feigning great outrage over ‘persecution’ of Christians by Hindus, especially the clergy (her reference was to the alleged rape of a nun in West Bengal, a crime for which Bangladeshi Muslims have been arrested) absurdly claimed that India has turned into “Hitler’s Germany”. The Archbishop, a Cardinal and the woman who heads West Bengal Minority Commission, who spoke on the issue to the media, poured unadulterated hate on Hindus and have not had the courtesy to offer even an apology now that they have been exposed as liars.

    But let’s return to the contentious issue of conversions, which are based on fraud and deceit and whose victims are invariably the vulnerable sections of Hindu society. What does the Constitution say on the Church’s claimed right to convert Hindus and ‘harvest their souls’? Ask the Constitution-thumping saviours of secularism, pluralism and democracy this simple question and they will be stumped.

    The ‘Constitution of the Socialist, Secular Republic of India’ is likely the most mentioned and least read book in the world. Everybody loves to flaunt it; very few have actually bothered to read it. This is what Article 25(1) of the Constitution says: “Subject to public order, morality and health and to other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion.”

    Read it out to those who pretend great outrage every time there’s a hint of protest against conversions, and they will pounce upon you: “See, the Constitution gives Christian missionaries the right to propagate their religion.” Wrong. The right to ‘propagate’ does not mean the right to ‘convert’. And it is this inability to distinguish between the two that highlights the appalling ignorance of those who see nothing wrong with offensive evangelism. That the constitutional right to ‘propagate’ does not mean the right to ‘convert’ was clarified by the Supreme Court while upholding the validity of anti-conversion laws (the Freedom of Religion Act 1967 and the Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam 1968) in Odisha and Madhya Pradesh.

    Chief Justice AN Ray, in his ruling, left little scope for confusion between propagation and conversion. The two, he said, were different. “What Article 25(1) grants is not the right to convert another person to one’s own religion by exposition of its tenets,” Chief Justice Ray ruled. The Supreme Court, in that judgment, also ruled that States, bearing in mind their responsibility to maintain public order, have the right to adopt laws “prohibiting conversion from one religion to another in a manner reprehensible to the conscience of the community”.

    Some years ago, Christian organisations, including the Catholic church, raised a huge hue and cry over violence against evangelists in Rajasthan. Then, as now, the BJP was in power and Vasundhara Raje was the Chief Minister. That was enough of a reason, it would seem, for the onslaught that came from the church and the Minorities Commission.

    The furore was centred over a Hindi book, Haqeeqat, which was being freely distributed in Rajasthan’s tribal-dominated areas by ‘Archbishop’ MA Thomas and his son, ‘Reverend’ Samuel Thomas, of the Emmanuel Mission International. Here are some samples of what Haqeeqat, which was being used by the Thomases and their associates to convince Hindus in Kota to abandon their faith and embrace Christianity, has to say:

    “Hindu gods and goddesses are fictitious and were invented to persecute Dalits” (Page 9).
    “To prevent indigenous people from acquiring knowledge, Saraswati invented difficult Vedas (which nobody can understand)”. (Page 16)
    “With the progression of time, people all over the world (except India) were freed of their ignorance and they began to disown wicked and cruel gods and goddesses. But in India, because people are (enveloped) in the darkness of ignorance, imaginary gods and goddesses are still worshipped.” (Page 17)
    “Naked sanyasis are worshipped by (Hindu) women. The moment (Hindu) women see naked sanyasis, they fall on the ground and prostrate themselves before the sanyasis. (Hindu) women pour water on the sanyasis’ penises and then happily drink that water. Ling Devata is gratified when he sees all these repulsive things and feels empowered... These people are ignorant and do not know the difference between what is right and wrong.” (Page 93)
    “Sita was abandoned in the forest as per Ram’s wishes... Ram later asked Lakshman to kill Sita. In the end, Ram frustrated with life, drowned himself in Saryu. Such are the teachings of half-naked rishis who are praised by Hindutvawadis.” (Page 100)
    “Lord Shiva, to get people to worship him, dropped his penis on Earth (Devi), shaking the ground and the sky! ... . Poor Dharti Devi was shaken by the weight of his penis. Seeing this, all the Gods were scared. It seems Gods would use their penises as bombs! Whenever and wherever they wanted to, they would drop their ‘penis bombs’ to terrorise the people. Thus, they were able to enslave the people... But compared to foreign bombs, these penis bombs were a damp squib.” (Page 106-107)
    “(Ramakrishna) Paramahansa should have known that Ganga is the world’s filthiest and dirtiest river. How many dead bodies float down this river every day? How many half-burnt dead bodies are dumped into it every day? And Hindus call it the holy river! In fact, all the rivers of India are dirty and polluted... Hindutvawadis pollute the rivers... and then depend on their false Gods to cleanse them...” (Page 122-123)
    “(For Hindus) men can be Gods, women can be Goddesses... animals are gods, snakes are gods... they (Hindu Gods) fight among themselves, marry among themselves, throw out their wives, run away with others’ wives, they steal, get intoxicated, drink blood, are reincarnated as animals, fish and tortoise, some of them can lift mountains... Some Gods are in same-sex relationships and are yet able to produce babies. These Gods and Goddesses are always armed because they believe in killing and plunder. Some Gods think their penises are more powerful than nuclear bombs. Others like animals live naked among their followers. Some of them spend their time in yogic exercises, others are in samadhi and happy to see the number of blind followers swell... You can wash away your sins by worshipping the penises of Gods.” (Page 146)
    “How could Arya Hindus bring Aryanisation on this earth. To be Arya, one has to be born of an Arya womb... If Arya Hindus want to bring Aryanisation then they must lend or rent out all Arya wombs to non-Aryans. Non-Aryans should be given Brahmin women so that children are born from Brahmin womb” (Page 182-183).
    “In modern India, many Ramas of this belief are living a carefree life. They marry several times, desert their wives, marry several times, and leave them. Many Ramas kill their Sitas. They are following their God Rama.” (Page 269)
    “(Lord) Krishna had a despicable sex life... Shri Krishna is famous because of his love life. He had 16,008 wives. And all Yadav women were his illegitimate lovers. (Hindu) women are drawn towards him because of pornographic and vulgar tales of his sex life.” (Page 391)
    The Government of Rajasthan, following street protests, decided to ban it to prevent the eruption of violence. Cases were registered against the father-son duo of ‘Archbishop’ Thomas and ‘Reverend’ Thomas. Immediately thereafter, the campaign of calumny began. It’s not for nothing that Indira Gandhi, incandescent with rage after the mass conversion of Hindus to Islam at Meenakshipuram in February 1981, favoured the idea of States adopting anti-conversion laws and had the Home Ministry prepare a draft Act for circulation among State Governments. Why the draft never became law is another story best kept for another day.

    Last edited: Mar 30, 2015
  3. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Apr 17, 2009
    Likes Received:
    All are aware of the tricks played to prove a point that does not exist.

    Whose God is Superior?

    A stone Ganesh is chucked into the Lake and it disappears.

    But a Jesus on a Crucifix made of bamboo is chucked into the Lake and it does not sink!


    The gullible are impressed.
    maomao likes this.
  4. maomao

    maomao Veteran Hunter of Maleecha Senior Member

    Apr 7, 2010
    Likes Received:
    Last week, at a conference organised in Delhi to showcase the buoyancy in Indian markets, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor struck a slightly discordant note. Referring to reports of attacks on churches and the alleged harassment of minorities, he said that such incidents would affect India’s attempts to woo investments from Europe and the Arab countries.

    Tharoor is right to be distressed over any incident, however small, that conveys an impression that India is intolerant towards its religious minorities. He would even be right in suggesting that economic growth presupposes a large measure of social harmony. However, Tharoor was treading on dangerous ground by extending his argument to suggest that European and Arab countries have a special interest in ensuring the safety and security of India’s minorities. Ensuring the civil liberties of Indian citizens of all faiths is enshrined in the Constitution and is the duty of all governments in India. Yes, violations do take place-and religious minorities aren’t the only people who are affected-and correcting the distortions is the responsibility of both the State and civil society. But this is an internal matter of India and beyond the scope of other sovereign governments unless, of course, they happen to be directly affected by any adverse fallout.

    The isolated thefts and vandalism in churches and the criminal assault of a nun in West Bengal are unfortunate, even shameful. However, these incidents don’t warrant internationalisation and certainly don’t necessitate India being at the receiving end of a gratuitous sermon by a visiting President of the US. In the past, and under successive governments of different political complexions, India has always protested against other countries meddling in its internal affairs. It is, therefore, unbecoming of a Congress MP with a rich background in international affairs to link incidents such as thefts in churches, the criminal assault on a nun and perhaps even the beef ban in Haryana and Maharashtra to religious sensitivities in West Asia and Europe.

    At the possible risk of being unfair, it may well be argued that Tharoor’s intervention wasn’t entirely innocent. Over the past three months, there has been a concerted campaign by India’s Opposition parties, the English language media and some members of the Christian clergy to exaggerate the significance of crimes directed at churches and individual Christians. A fire caused by an electrical short-circuit, a bout of window breaking by a handful of louts and the assault on a nun by ordinary criminals lured by the large amounts of cash kept in a seminary have been quite consciously painted as part of a larger design to harass and intimidate India’s Christians.

    It has been claimed that these incidents are the direct consequence of the Ghar Wapsi programme launched by Hindu evangelists and the tacit encouragement of ‘majoritarian’ impulses by the Narendra Modi Government. Despite forcefully reaffirming India’s unflinching commitment to religious pluralism in the course of his parliamentary interventions, Prime Minister Modi has been mercilessly pilloried by the upholders of cosmopolitan sensibilities for leading India up the garden path of Hindu obscurantism. The pattern isn’t new. It is fashionable today to posit the ‘intolerant’ Modi against the ‘large-hearted’ Atal Bihari Vajpayee. However, those with longer memories will recall that the very same forces who are suggesting the imminent arrival of Hindu fascism launched savage attacks on Vajpayee for his alleged encouragement of the people who murdered the Australian missionary Graham Staines in Odisha, unsettled some improvised churches in the Dangs district of Gujarat and allegedly attacked a Christian shrine in Bengaluru. Quite systematically, an attempt was made to suggest that religious minorities would be unsafe under any dispensation that had the BJP at its helm.

    The pattern is being repeated in today’s India. The charges of Hindu intolerance are just a precursor to a larger political intervention aimed at suggesting that there is a hidden agenda of the Modi Government that has nothing to do with improving the material well-being of Indians. The aim is also to tarnish India’s social record in the international community and, in the process, call into question the ethical viability of its economic programme.

    That this psychological warfare is based on the premise that everything must be done to undermine the Modi regime is quite obvious. But what is the basis of this fear? Why, for example, were such issues never raised during the two terms of the UPA regime? Yes, there has been some change in ground realities but this change doesn’t correspond to stereotypes of cowering Christians and alienated Muslims. Under the UPA, the evangelical excesses of those committed to ‘harvesting souls’ were overlooked. In large tracts of southern India, there was a show of unwarranted indulgence towards those committed to debunking the ‘false’ ancestral faiths of people and showing them the ‘true faith’. These resulted in social tensions and a sense of disquiet among people who were otherwise content keeping their faith separate from public life. Today, these misgivings have manifested themselves in a determination to tell generously-funded religious predators to keep off. The benign political environment for large scale religious conversions no longer exists.

    Does the new mood constitute an attack on people’s civil liberties? The answer is a definite ‘Yes’ if the right to change faith is placed on top of the agenda. However, if equal importance is attached to the right of people and communities to retain their faith, the tables are turned. When poachers suddenly assume the role of gamekeepers, there is bound to be some disorientation. India’s Christians aren’t becoming strangers in their own country. Those who believe that only one mode of worship should prevail over all else, are encountering the resistance of those who believe in a plurality of gods and faiths. The rest is all rhetoric, propaganda and hyped-up politics. Resistance of those who believe in a plurality of gods and faiths. The rest is all rhetoric, propaganda and hyped-up politics.

  5. Khagesh

    Khagesh Senior Member Senior Member

    Jan 27, 2015
    Likes Received:
    The thread titled "Games Evangelists & Missionaries play" is more of a repository for the techniques that are used for conversions by foreign powers.

    Here's something that is relevant for the overall situation of the world's religious demographics.

    Observe how the Hindus, at a worldwide &/or India (almost same in Hindu population context), are holding only because of a certain degree of fertility rate despite massive conversion pressures that have seen the Christian population in India, on a proportionate basis to rise the second highest in the last decade (just after Muslim population).

    Observe how the Buddhists are not even managing as much as the Hindus.

    Caveat - There is a degree of Christian propaganda also, built into this report, but only on the worldwide scale. In India the world projections are finding are finding a nice data fit.




    Source: The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050 | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project
    http://www. pewforum. org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2015

Share This Page