|
Good and intelligent response. Here
are some counters from the other side of the coin:
>Belonging to a particular
religion for most people on earth is cast in stone as soon as they are born. It
is almost as inborn as the color of skin or the language >you speak.
In my opinion, religion should not
be like a caste system cast in stone. If we do that then it is no longer a
personal matter, it becomes an autocratic paternal tradition. Religious
freedom means one should have the freedom to shop around and adopt any
religion one like. The children should be free to change to any religion.
Once we have that as an ideal, we will be able to move towards an ideal society
where religious fundamentalists will not have any room. By banning
religious conversion, India is moving against that ideal and trying to freeze
the Indian society into rigid caste system like compartments.
>Then do tell us what they
involve with? The primary focus of most religions is either God or some ethereal
being. Everything else one hears or reads about >religion is supplementary to
this concept.
What I meant was that we should not use
that as an excuse. After all I donot find any difference between a child
believing in Santa Clause and an adult believing in God. The only
difference is that, in case of Santa Clause we want the child disbelieve at one
point that there is actually no Santa Clause, but the adult refuse to disbelieve
in his/her adult Santa Clause which is God. Under such circumstances, it
is ridiculous to say that Religion has any more sacred meaning than
politics. In my opinion, politics should be more sacred to us since it
deals with how we govern ourselves, how we improve our lives, how we
educate our children, how we help the poor, how we rescue the flood victims
and what not. Religion does not do any of these except belief in a adult
Santa Clause who is supposed to save us in after life. If you read
the poem 'Abu Ben Adhem' you will find that God (if there is God) actually
loves a good politician who helps his fellow being, than a religious person
who religiously pray and claim to love God.
>Women cannot remarry, men can
>Gays are caste aside by God
>There are 4 castes and God said so. Some
castes are higher than others and they will reach heaven first
>Don't eat beef, don't eat pork
>Pray 5 times a day, or else.
>Kill all those who don't convert to our
religion (kill the infidels)
>All other religions are inferior to
mine
>To get Nirvana, just sit under a tree for
ever
>And so and so forth. Tell me now how many of
these are NOT frauds against humanity? Or how many these is problematic with
ONLY Hinduism?
In my opinion all these are frauds against
humanity we should stand up and fight agaist.
>The Vatican is NOT just
the religious capital of Catholics, but also an independent politically defined
country, like any other.
>India has an ambassador in Iran
and Saudi Arabia - which are theocratic.
The Vetican is a small town inside Rome,
the billion dollar head quarter of the Catholics. It is not a country
although they are calling it a country. In my opinion, a scecular country
like India should take a stand not recognise any country which are not secular
but theocratic. Thus we should not have any diplomatic relations with counries
like the Vetican, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.
RB
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 2:28
PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] India protests over
Pope comments -BBC
Hi Barau,
Excuse me for butting in - but will try to respond to some of your
questions.
>If religion is a way of
social life, political parties are also ways of our political
life.
>Why we allow free political
conversion and not religious conversion?
>What exactly is the
difference between religion and politics.
The framers of a democratic
constitution (like in India) have made sure to separate State &
Religion.
Religion (and its beliefs) are a
personal matter, but politics is not - its a public matter. The problems arise
when politicians and religious leaders want to mix religion with
politics. Political parties are public avenues for the voters to share their
political views and elect "their" representative to office.
Belonging to a particuar religion
for most people on earth is cast in stone as soon as they are born. It is
almost as inborn as the color of skin or the language you speak.
>Don't tell me that religion
involve with God.
Then do tell us what they involve
with? The primary focus of most religions is either God or some ethereal
being. Everything else one hears or reads about religion is suplementary to
this concept.
>Is Hinduism is not fraud when
we tell people that God created four castes?
Does Hinduism say that? I didn't
think so. But I can point out many similar misnomers (or frauds) from Islam,
Christianity, Buddhism, and Judaism. All religions will say that "God
has said this or that" - but that is the WAY religions can get people to
accept that religion. Its upto to the adherents to accept or reject such
notions.
Also, the very definition of
religion is "faith" which does not need to go thru the scrutiny of a
scientific study of logic or of any political correctness.
For instance, religions can say the following
and get away with it too (as long as they have the faithful supporting
them):
Women cannot remarry, men can
Gays are caste aside by God
There are 4 castes and God said so. Some castes
are higher than others and they will reach heaven first
Don't eat beef, don't eat pork
Pray 5 times a day, or else.
Kill all those who don't convert to our
religion (kill the infidels)
All other religions are inferior to
mine
To get Nirvana, just sit under a tree for
ever
And so and so forth. Tell me now how many of
these are NOT frauds against humanity? Or how many these is problematic with
ONLY Hinduism?
>This is another fraud India
is doing. Why in the hell India is sending an ambassador to >Vatican at
all? Who is telling India to send an ambassador at all?
The Vatican is NOT just the
religious capital of Catholics, but also an independent politically defined
country, like any other.
India has an ambassador in Iran
and Saudi Arabia - which are theocratic.
The way to look at India's
representation is that India has an ambassador to the "political" Vatican and
not to be with the Pope.
>Why India not sending an
ambassador to Dalai Lama's monastaery?
Because the DL's monastry is NOT
a country. When and if it does and India recognizes it as such, then there
surely will be an ambassador.
>If we allow fraud in
politics, we better allow fraud in religion.
As a true believer in democracy
and democratic institutions, I am surprized that you would equate one with the
other.
--Ram
On 5/24/06, Rajen
Barua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>. Let us know how you feel about a Theocratic leader - the Pope -
trying to teach India about secularism
I think in this case, we are
giving him the scope to teach, and that is why he is trying to
teach. Why we need to give that scope.
Religious conversion should be
a freedom for anybody - aspirin or not- period.
India is violating this
fundamental human right.
Tell me this.
Why we allow political
conversion - by bribing, cheating and false promises, and not religious
freedom?.
If religion is a way of social
life, political parties are also ways of our political life.
Why we allow free political
conversion and not religious conversion?
What exactly is the difference
between religion and politics.
Don't tell me that religion
involve with God.
Is Hinduism is not fraud when
we tell people that God created four castes?
Is that true?
What God has to do it?
And in my opinion telling
people that there is God is the biggest fraud of
religion.
>Do you think India or any country for that matter should send its
ambassadors to a nation (Vatican) whose sole purpose is to promote their
faith - and stop other >faiths from flourishing?
This is another fraud India is
doing. Why in the hell India is sending an ambassador to Vatican at all? Who
is telling India to send an ambassador at
all?
India should have the guts not
to send any ambassador to Vatican. Why India not sending an ambassador to
Dalai Lama's monastaery?
But that does not take the
responsibility away from India to give freedom for free religious
conversion like political conversion. If we allow fraud in politics,
we better allow fraud in religion.
RB
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:35
PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] India protests
over Pope comments -BBC
Rajen-da,
You always try to make politically correct statements. Let us know
how you feel about a Theocratic leader - the Pope - trying to teach India
about secularism.
Don't give us that we should take advice from anyone and everyone -as
long it is good.Do you think India or any country for that matter should
send its ambassadors to a nation (Vatican) whose sole purpose is to
promote their faith - and stop other faiths from flourishing?
>The BJP says that it supports legislation to ban "forced
religious conversions", because many Christian >missionaries recruit
converts among the majority Hindu population using financial and
educational enticements.
I fail to understand what is
called a "forced religious conversion" specially by the Christians.
People can be persuaded, people can be bribed, but people can be forced
to convert? What is wrong in Christians giving financial and educational
enticements? Why the Hindus cannot counter with better educational
enticement? We discussed this before. I think this ban on "forced
conversion" by the Hindus is actually a ban on any "conversion".
The Christians never forced anybody for conversion. That we have only 2%
Christians in India even though Christianity was here since 1 AD goes to
prove that. Every religion should have the freedom to convert
others to his/her religion.
RB
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 4:32
PM
Subject: [Assam] India protests
over Pope comments -BBC
Quite unsure why India is surprised. The Vatican has over the
centuries used force and enticements to convert people of other
faiths to Catholicism. That is how the religion has been able to
sustain itself.
The Vatican's lecture to India is both unwarranted
and 'holier than thou' - which it ain't
--Ram
"India is a secular and democratic country, in which adherents of
all religious faiths enjoy equal rights," said Junior Foreign Minister
Anand Sharma.
India has summoned the Vatican envoy in
Delhi in protest over comments by the Pope in which he condemned
attempts to ban religious conversions.
India's junior Foreign Minister, Anand Sharma, told parliament on
Tuesday that the envoy was told in "no uncertain terms" of India's
disapproval.
The Pope criticised India last week for what he called
"disturbing signs of religious intolerance".
India's main opposition party, the BJP, has already protested to
the Vatican.
'Religious intolerance'
Pope Benedict XVI made the comments last week while talking to
India's new Ambassador to the Vatican, Amitava Tripathi.
![Head shaving as part of religious conversion in Tamil Nadu in 2003]()
Religious conversions are a controversial
issue |
The pontiff criticised India for "disturbing signs of religious
intolerance which have troubled some regions of India".
He specifically cited attempts by some Indian states to introduce
legislation to ban what right-wing Hindus call "forced conversions".
India's foreign ministry has now reacted strongly to Monday's
papal comments.
"India is a secular and democratic country, in which adherents of
all religious faiths enjoy equal rights," said Junior Foreign Minister
Anand Sharma.
Interference
Correspondents say that Mr Sharma made the comments in response
to opposition criticism that India had not protested against the
"grossly unwarranted" statement from Rome.
Rajnath Singh, the President of India's main opposition Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) wrote to the Pope on 20 May.
"My interference in your religious domain within the Vatican will
be unwelcome, uncalled for and will be treated as interference in your
religious management and administration," the letter said.
Earlier this month, the state governor of India's western state
of Rajasthan refused to sign a contentious religious freedom bill,
which would have banned people from being converted to religions
"against their will".
Human rights agencies and minority groups also opposed the bill,
saying it was introduced to appease radical Hindu groups.
But the BJP-led Rajasthan government, led by the BJP, said that
the bill had been introduced to stop religious conversion by means of
allurement, greed or pressure.
The BJP says that it supports legislation to ban "forced
religious conversions", because many Christian missionaries recruit
converts among the majority Hindu population using financial and
educational enticements.
Christians make up just over two percent of India's 1.1 billion
mainly Hindu population.
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
Umesh
Sharma
5121 Lackawanna ST
College Park, MD
20740
1-202-215-4328 [Cell Phone]
Ed.M. - International
Education Policy
Harvard Graduate School of Education,
Harvard
University,
Class of 2005
weblog: http://jaipurschool.bihu.in/
All New Yahoo! Mail � Tired of [EMAIL PROTECTED]@! come-ons? Let our
SpamGuard protect you.
|
