Islam and Hinduism: Experience of an Evangelist

And.. the purpose of this article is???

I believe that one man's religion is another man's blasphemy. So I do not believe that 'all religions are true' and 'all religions are valid paths for salvation". Moreover, I think the statement that 'all religions are true' is illogical and can never be substantiated with evidences. In fact, it is logically valid to say that "all religions are false" though I believe one religion is true because of evidences (and you know which I think as true). Therefore, if one man truly preaches his religion, then it would be a blasphemy to another man. You may ask: if I do not think other man's religion as valid how am I going to live in a pluralistic society? My answer is- I believe in the dignity of every human being though not in the validity of every view. So along with the alleged statement of atheist Voltaire, I will say "I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

one of the most twisted logic I have ever read!

I am not sure when will we get out of this mentality of evangelism that inherently promotes violence of mind through provocation and sniping.

Looking at how the religious in the Church have been behaving - I have rule of thumb -

The one who shouts the loudest about the virtues of Marriage and Morals - will be the one who is screwing prostitutes the most.

The one who shouts the loudest against the gays.. will be the one who will be screwing young boys in the premises of the Church itself!

Those who go out to convert or talk about "One True" religion.. understand neither their own religion nor anyone else's.... that they have no idea of the "Truth" itself is not even an argument!

-desh

And if salvation was indeed in winning debates as this joker and others like Zakir Naik are doing day in and day out....

... then Jesus would have been a winner of a declamation contest and a master debater. :-)

All religions are bad. But monotheist religions are the worse because they are the the cause of most inter religious conflicts in the past and even to day.
"I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Why end here just add to it "but by hook or crook convince you that you are wrong." And that is what precisely the monotheists are doing. The process hook or crook often ends in violence.

Ambedkar also considered Christianity a dangerous aggressive religion. Conveniently forgot to mention that eh?
Also the Gypsies (10-15 million )are the untoucables of Europe under the age old Christian caste system where they suffer horrendous discrimination under fellow Christians.
Here's something funny, the Pope gives lectures to India about being secular and allowing conversion, yet he oppose's it aggresively when Protestants convert Catholics in South America and the Vatican is not a secular state, so India being a secular country should not recognize religious entities.

Also why do you Christians always lecture Hindus about caste, but have the most disgusting rigid caste sytems, like separate lines in Church, different burial grounds. Everyone remember the Christian Slave system in the U.S.? After 400 years, White Christians can't seem to accept African American Christians.

Jerry: Thanks for your perspective. I have only one question to ask you. It is about your opening passage.

I am a Christian evangelist who believes in winning others to Christ

Sounds like a perfectly acceptable belief. But what are your means to achieve this end. Could you detail those here?

Man....you sound like a complete lunatic....

You are preaching reasoning and logic, while making very illogical claims.

Some of my Christian friends have told me about low IQ levels of the preachers in the churches. Now, you validate that.

If you believe one religion is true and all others as false, then please believe it inside your house or cave.

Do not wear that "intolerant attitude" in the street.

How the hell you preach tolerance to others, while you youself stand on the podium of "intolerance" by claiming yourself to be preacher and then saying:

"Therefore, if one man truly preaches his religion, then it would be a blasphemy to another man."

===========
Now, I have serious doubts.

If you are not a lunatic, then

are you a sectret agent of RSS or Bajrang Dal out there to defame Christianity? Your language shows that the only entities, who can benefit out of your intolerant views are RSS and Bajrang Dal.
===========

I only have one question here.

Who the hell edited this article?!

Why does the paragraph designated as blockquote not appear as such? Why does the italicized blurb about the author not appear aa italicized? Why work with MT if the editors will cause the text to appear as HTML?

First I took it seriously, but by the end, I figured that this article was a very clever joke. Very amusing article indeed.

Nice one :)

hi preacher

...(i peeked at your website)...you are better off railing against the muslims...everybody in the wide world and their pets do it and they are used to such rants...

but

at least on this site your realigned target would be more than your zeal can handle

treat this as a friendly digression;)

hey bd:

take a peek at the website

that will make you cringe and withdraw your comment

;)

"But as of now, I am only bothered about India. "
============
Please do not bother about India.
============

Please bother about your own backyard:
-----------
The rate of murder of people in US is 2 times more than India.

1 out of 4 teenage girls in US have sexually transmitted diseases.

3000 women are murdered every year in US.

Gypsies are untouchables even today in Europe.

There are some 800 estimated cannibals roaming in Germany.
-------

Please clean all that in next 10 years and then indulge in religious debates.

Actions speak louder than words. It is time for action for you to clean your own backyard.

Now, do not say, Jesus will give "eternal life" to all these people in US or Europe and hence you have got nothing to do about it.

ruvy:

the blockquotes are fixed.

engage jerry please

he too does not believe in your god

;)

SAN

"My answer is- I believe in the dignity of every human being though not in the validity of every view. So along with the alleged statement of atheist Voltaire, I will say "I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"."

Can you say "I may not follow what you follow, but I will defend to the death your right to follow your religion? That I may not agree with your religion, but I will not try to convert you to my religion?" Than you would be considered to have developed a tolerance for religions of other people and respect for pluralism - and other religionists will extend you the same respect and benefits of pluralism. That if you deny religious freedoms of other religionists, than the same will be denied to you too.

Jerry Thomas,
Surely you didn't write this with a straight face. I'm sure you were rolling on the floor as you were typing out your article.

You must be kidding.


Surely.

Someone once said:

A likeable person to me is one who likes me.

Well - that is true of most people. So, if you get offended by other people's comments on your site... it is because you set out to offend them in the first place!

You are like that brat in the neighborhood.. who goes around throwing stones to break people's windows and when caught and scolded.... raises the hell about "kiddy rights"!

-d.

Temporal

engage jerry please

he too does not believe in your god

You're holding MY coat? He believes in Jesus. That's his problem. As Judd Hirsch said in "Independence Day", "nobody's perfect". So long as he doesn't make what he believes in my problem and stays out of my country I really do not care that much. It appears that the Hindus of a Hindu nation have gotten his attention. They do not like conversion attempts and are letting Christians know this in a very clear way.

I don't need to engage this guy. The Hindus have him well in hand. He seems worried about his safety.

That is the way it should be.

ruvy:

he is an evangelist

first they want jews to secure the region

then the promised one returns

and wipes off all jews

it is in their book!

he is an evangelist
first they want jews to secure the region
then the promised one returns
and wipes off all jews
it is in their book!

Thass okay, Temporal,

His book I leave on the remainder table. The one next to the garbage pail. The evangelists have another thing coming (and ain't no damned messiah) if they think we're doing them any favors coming here. We come here on our own account....

Go check out this guy's other article though.

Nice chatting with you, though. Gotta go and make some money now...

Later!

Jerry, I had a dream in which Jesus appeared. He asked me to tell you to unplug your ears. Apparently he has been screaming at you to shut up and you aren't listening, because your ears are closed. He added that you are a major embarassment.

Jerry

Thank you so much for this article. I have been ranting about the missionary problem and cutting and pasting links from all over the place. Now, I dont need to do that. All I have to do is link your articles on this web-site. You are fabulous baby

Study other's religions also. Though you are a majority, it will help to build a better pluralistic society

I totally agree! It's about time the two largest (by number of adherents) religions in the world learned this very basic and important lesson. ;)

• Thanks to those who still tried to use some form veiled threats even in this forum! Many of you have already provided enough evidences for my case so that even a hard core skeptic (but open minded) can be easily convinced now. Earlier I had to forward mails that I receive to prove my case. Now, along Sadhvi Pragya's case (which they faithfully owned up, I appreciate the truthfulness Sangha Parivar in this), I only need to forward this chain of comments. I love you guys.
• Those who think that I will be scared with Hindu terrorism- sorry. What can you threaten me with when I have eternal life?
• Vinod Joseph- I never claimed to represent you or any other Christian apart from myself. So do not be so embarrassed. In fact, one of the reasons why I would not like to be in the payroll of any organized/institutional Church set-up is- there are many Christians like you (if at all you are a Christian) who will easily silence me. Because I proudly work with my own hands, Christians like you can hardly stop me from speaking what I think as true
• Thanks so much for asking the question on logics- I genuinely thank you for raising some sensible question. In my knowledge, the first law of logics say- Two contradictory statements cannot be true in the same sense at the same time. Applying this to religion- if Hinduism(s) say that god is impersonal/or many, Islam says that god is numerically one and Christian faith that God is Triune; all of it cannot be true at the same time in the same sense. In fact, all of this can be false and maybe atheism is true- or maybe there is something else that we do not know yet. But one cannot logically argue that all of this are true anyways
• And those who think that I will not be able to handle criticisms here- I think; it is easier to handle those over the web than face to face.

SAN,

Are you for real? Jeez...you make all Christians look so bad in such one article.

Good job and keep it coming. Let fun times begin.

nice try.....i think u gonna turn all christan to other religion.....keep it up......EGOTISt...

This is probably one of the honest posts i have read if the author is what he claims to be....

As far as Christianity is concerned there are no other true religions.

Any christian who says all religions are equal is not a christian.

jesus himself had said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me..."

Every religion has its own ideas and are not compatible with the rest.

But what is wrong in preaching it.If its not being taught in school, One should have no problems with it.

Freedom of Speech and Expression.

It'll will be great if Hindus/Muslims/Christians
be honest about their beliefs and approach this logically...

It seems like people have their own ideas of intolerance...

Holding one view and standing by it and trying to attract people towards it...is not intolerance, while threatening/killing/raping people when your view is challenged is.

BTW: christians in India are Indians. Asking them about problems in europe is just stupid.

The only thing a guy like Jerry will accomplish is incite more hatred against common christians who are religious but have no desire to get into quarrels with their neighbours because of their own practices. There are radicals on all sides and it is inevitable that writing of this sort will only help those radicals. At some point, there will be no debate and just violence. Inevitably in such circumstances, minorities will suffer. In this instance, the christian minorities will go through the same pain as sikhs and muslims. It is sad but true....

Hi Chandra,

In India it is just not only minorities that suffer, even the majority HINDUS suffer as in KASHMIR. So please do not say only minorities suffer. On the other hand Minorities such as Christians and Muslims have history of harassing Hindus. For example, KASMIRI MUSLIMS abused HINDUS, and likewise TRIPURA CHRISTIANS through their liberation army continue to abuse HINDUS in TRIPURA. So your argument that only minorities suffer abuse does not hold water.

San:

You are a bundle of contradictions. You want an open debate with a closed mind. When you are sure your's is the only true religion (though you have conveniently concealed the so called evidecnes for your conclusion), why bother calling others for a debate.

Your article proves that lunatics are there in every religion and fortunately no one, including your own clan, would consider them seriously.

Please keep writing, so that my faith in Hinduism is reinforced.

EH

Just as crying fire in a crowded theater is not freedom of speech, Jerry's version of Xianity symbolizes hate speech in a pluralistic society. One has freedom to practice one's religion but in a way that does not take away similar freedoms of other religions. Pluralistic society is built on recognizing and respecting differences and not allowing encroachment on their respective freedoms. If you do not like other religions, fine, if you think your religion is the best for you, fine, go practice your religion, nobody will stop you - but don't go around attacking religions of other people, create organized international lobbies to convert other religions and regions. That is religious warfare, and other religions will react in kind, not with kindness.

"BTW: christians in India are Indians. Asking them about problems in europe is just stupid."

When xian missions get majority of their funding from Europe, than one can not separate xians from Europe and agenda of such missions. These missions are global in nature, therefore, it is relevant to examine them globally. Such missions have a long history around the world, so it is relevant to examine kind of history they create.

Hi Kerty,

Just a doubt-

Scenario 1: There is no fire in a crowded theater. X comes and shouts fire.
Scenario 2: There is a danger (say bomb, or fire) in a crowded theater. X sees it and silently walks out.
Scenario 3: There is a danger (say bomb, or fire) in a crowded theater. Y sees it and alerts all at the cost of his own life. Some calls him lunatic, some calls him fanatic because the fire was far behind them and only near to Y.

According to you which one is the responsible act? I guess you know my answer.

Is not India already burning? Maybe the fire is still far away from you.

Correct me if I am wrong, a speech is irresponsible when it is primarily a lie. Now, am I speaking the truth when I say that all religions cannot be true or am I lying? And tell me who is supporting irresponsible speech?

Are you telling me that there is no danger for religious minoirty in India if people like me keep silent? I too have unfortunately read likes of Gowalkar and Sarvarkar (that is why ancient sages like Manu said never teach a dalit (also a Mleccha, i may add), they will be able to see through the danger after that). Whether I keep silent or not, they anyways do not want me to live as full-fledge citizen.

I too have the option of moving to some other country silently as a few friends have done. I studied in one of the excellent central universities in India. But I choose to stay in India with the hope that my beloved country will one day realize what free speech really means.

For your record: I have publicly opposed Christians who asked for banning Da Vinci Code despite that could have been an example of irresponsible speech, a lie. Neverthless, I thought it was his right to do so. So I conducted open forums including Gujarat (MS University, Baroda)so that I may set an example.

If Hindus get intolerant with any criticisms, then it is for you guys to start educating your community rather than silencing its critics.

Thanks! And let me know how many Hindus I have turned intolerant with my comment. My only answer is- if they were really tolerant, they would have never done so.

Chandra:

""The only thing a guy like Jerry will accomplish is incite more hatred against common christians who are religious but have no desire to get into quarrels with their neighbours because of their own practices.""

pretty sad when people leave their brains behind and allow themselves to be incited by such unhinged evangelicals. (No I don't mean you Chandra :)

Jerry

"Scenario 1: There is no fire in a crowded theater. X comes and shouts fire.
Scenario 2: There is a danger (say bomb, or fire) in a crowded theater. X sees it and silently walks out.
Scenario 3: There is a danger (say bomb, or fire) in a crowded theater. Y sees it and alerts all at the cost of his own life. Some calls him lunatic, some calls him fanatic because the fire was far behind them and only near to Y.
According to you which one is the responsible act? I guess you know my answer.
Is not India already burning? Maybe the fire is still far away from you. "

That only xianity has the knowledge, that only it can save others from fire, that rescuing and civilizing others is its burden - that is supremacism 101. Putting down all other faiths, conquests and conversions of non-believers, colonizing their land and enslaving the infidels becomes its missions.

"Correct me if I am wrong, a speech is irresponsible when it is primarily a lie. Now, am I speaking the truth when I say that all religions cannot be true or am I lying?"

When it comes to religion, there is no such thing as truth but subjective reality open to many interpretations. Spiritual experiences are deeply personal and unique/relevant only to the individual - if every person is touts his/her belief as the only truth and rest as liars, we would have people at each other's throats attacking and shoving their version of truth. That is why such missionaries have to be banned. They do not lead to civil or religious society.

Would you mind if Hindus were to claim xianity to be a big hate-speech and hold it as a matter of truth or faith? You wouldn't mind if they act on such belief, or would you cry persecution of xians and freedom of religion?


"Are you telling me that there is no danger for religious minoirty in India if people like me keep silent?"

We have large number of political parties specializing in looking after the welfare of minorities. And that is where all battles of ideas have to be fought, in political arena, not in religious arena. We do not need missionaries for that. They only want to use minorities to create their own foothold in alien countries so they can create divide and rule dynamics by pitting them against different groups, and colonize such countries for their foreign masters who fund such missions. That is how native cultures around the world have been colonizied and wiped out by missionaries. And that is why natives end up reacting strongly against missionaries and their local stooges.

"I choose to stay in India with the hope that my beloved country will one day realize what free speech really means."

That 'beloved country' has 80% hindus - you have to show that you love all those hindus too, not just their land and their minorities. You can not hate 80% of population, their religion and their culture and yet claim their country to be your 'beloved'. Those 80% whom you hate might view you as enemy within.

"So I conducted open forums including Gujarat (MS University, Baroda)so that I may set an example."

Go ahead, hold a forum to educate missionaries to stop their conversion missions - that would set a good example.

"If Hindus get intolerant with any criticisms, then it is for you guys to start educating your community rather than silencing its critics."

In case you have not noticed, Hindus rarely see eye to eye on any matters, particularly in social and religious matters, therefore so much diversity in those fields. Hindus have rigorous tradition of dissent and discussion, and respecting them, accommodating them. But the same is not going to be extended to intolerant antithesis of it. It is not going to be extended to those who seek to wipe out such traditions in favor of an intolerant monolith. It is not going to be extended to missionaries whose hate-filled colonial ideology masquerades as a religion. Hindu would be right to silence them.

Any fool can convince himself that he is a superhero going to heaven. Just because your mind is brainwashed in a cult won't make it true.
Throughout history certain people have decided to stab their own people in the back by appeasing a powerful conqueror. Once Hindus gain the wealth and power they held before, they will change their tune. It's all about looting money from gullible Western Christians/Churches.
The Bible says to Stone adulterers, will you be following Hammurabi's code of laws, ahem..I mean the Sun God's good book.

Showman:

""Any fool can convince himself that he is a superhero going to heaven.""

You mean it won't happen to me? why are you indulging in personal attacks against me?

Nonsense,

Was I talking to you? You Christians need to stop killing each other first, then come and lecture Hindus.
If you want to delude yourself go right ahead, not my problem. Demographics and rising % of the population IS our problem.
Some Radical Muslim think there are 72 virgins waiting in heaven if they kill infidels. Is that the same XXX heaven you are going to?

Showman:

""Nonsense,

Was I talking to you?""

Showman, perhaps not, but that should not stop me from non-talking to you; why did you assume that I was talking to you in particular? I am intrigued

NS

All hail Jerry the Evangelist. Jerry the Great. Jerry the Great Logician. Jerry the True Believer( whatever crap that means) . Jerry the Hero. Jerry the Voice Raiser. Jerry the Master of Inductive and Deductive Logics.

But this should be done only in front of him. Otherwise there is a possibility that if we oppose his views he might consider us intolerant and again post a rather lengthy blog of arguments which are true only in his created alternate logical universe.

Disclaimer: If Jerry considers that this post is a mockery of him and go on to logically deduce that he was attacked because he is following the path of one and only one absolute True God and believers are always attacked ....then fine. I have no problem because I think that's how Jerry brain works. If he doesn't then also it's fine.

One thing I would like to add for my joy : Sage Manu , St. Paul. St.Xavier all belong to the same set called Idiots.

I have no clue why people spend time discussion religion. Seriously, get a life and live in peace.

Answer the question first if you are so eager to discuss?

E.H.

Even a suicide bomber can come and write a honest post to attract people to his "beliefs". So, should we remain silent just because he is honest?

You said,"one must not question Christianity in Europe."

Why not?

Today, it takes just 7 hours to reach Europe from India. Today, everything has to be seen in global context. After all Pope runs a sect like a company with branches in India.

We are fed up with this "God" and one true God concept. We are fed up with rot in Christianity as much as we are fed up with rot and pandas in Hinduism.

No one is supporting violence here.

No debates are possible with anyone, who has a closed mind (with bullshit like "One True God").

==============
Why the hell God has to be Human?

Why God has to have a voice?

Where was God during Big Bang?

Is God the master of earth or master of Andromeda as well?

==============

Every religion starts with spirituality and then a bunch of criminals take it over.

All religions have horrible criminal records.

Just the way we say,"verify criminal records of a politicians before allowing him to stand in an election", same way one can not be "liberal" with any religion, which has a criminal record.

==========
Any religious debate is utter bullshit. According to theory of complexity, logical structures break down once complexity increase. Debates are logical and they are not the right tools to understand any complex issues involving societal complexity or spirituality.
==========

It is a lie that Hinduism is a non-violent religion. All the so called tolerance in Hinduism is only at a structural level which allows it to accommodate alternate religious views.

There is no point in showing any shock at terrorism by extremist Hindus. They are capable of doing all the things that fanatics from other religions can do.

Now, religious intolerant from both sides play ping-pong and force us to watch the fun.

One says, I have "one true God" and all other Gods are "devils". The other says,"my Gods are true" and other's god is a "Dog".

And both want to have free license to preach. Then they claim themselves as great logical debaters.

----
May be we should forcibly convert all into atheism.
----

Indian media is promoting the extremists in Hindus by taking a biased stand. When people know, the Media is biased in reporting and is taking a politically correct position, it is frustrating for them.

So, there is a clear disconnect between what we learn in Internet/Youtube and via Indian Media.

These conversions, counter conversions and the non-sense will create all kinds of extremists from both sides, who will create misery for all (irrespective of religion).

This is a famous documentary by a Norwegian Lady related to conversions, which was once referred to in one Indian TV channel.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=q3Zxjndf0mw

showman or snowman? i'm confused as usual

I hope you are not a Jerk SAN. Atleast your article projected that kind of image. Let met tell you why? First, I got that you lack a clear perspective of why you are a christian. All I could get was "I think" "I feel"....statements. Who cares what you think and what you feel. Like a 2 year old commenting that "Angelina jole is Ugly", you are commenting on "Hinduism".

Anyone who think Angelina Jolie is ugly is un-Christian

Religions are divisive. Period. I am an ex-Christian, now an atheist living in the US, so this is as unbiased an account of the conversion debate as possible.

Christianity has had a history of bloodshed in its past. Just look up role of the church in colonial bloodshed in South America, Africa and Asia. Only Islam comes close to killing so many people in the name of religion, but still falls behind Christianity.

However, none of the comments here address the real issue in whats going on in India now. It is a matter of freedom of speech and expression. Hindus feel that Christians are bribing and deceiving poor Hindus into converting to Christianity. The problem with this argument is that it is not illegal to do so, unless there is extortion of money or forceful admission of conversion. Although Christians have been guilty of these things in the history of Christianity, they DO NOT do this anymore, simply because they cannot. Hindus, however, are breaking the LAW! There is a difference between non-violent evangelism and physical violence. The moral issues aside, the latter is illegal and violates the Indian constitution.

I would like to see someone address this issue here.

Ajita

There is some code of conduct required for warring religions to coexist in the same nation-state religious space - if one religion is not willing to have such code of conduct, than other religions too would follow suit and what you would have is a free-for-all religious warfare and state be damned.

If secular state is not willing to create and enforce even basic ground rules of conduct among competing religious, than its other laws dealing with religions would cease to have legitimacy. Missionaries too are breaking the law - laws that should be on the books - but psecular state refuses to enact and enforce them, forcing the other side to disregard what ever laws such psecular state uses against it to suppress its reaction. If religions can not have a say in how secular state minds secular and religious affairs, than why should laws of such secular state be applicable to religions, and why should religions honor them? Psecular state under leftists is playing a dangerous and provocative game against Hinduism by deliberately sponsoring and appeasing Missionaries and Jehadis and pitting them against Hindus and if hindus survive or react to their onslaught, seeking to bring the full weight of psecular state to crush Hinduism. Laws of secular state has legitimacy only when secular state has a legitimacy among the people it seeks to rule. India's psecular state under missionary sonia congress is fast losing that legitimacy.

Ajita

"Religions are divisive."

So are cultures, ethnicities and ideologies - that is why nation-states need to exist in order to give them their own space and isolate them from each other. What happens when nation-states are drawn artificially to crunch these competing cultures, ethnicities, ideologies and religions within the same nation-state space and sleezy secular state seeks to create is mandate out of their contrived re-engineering, not by seeking to harmonize and accommodate them, but to negate them, to create divide and rule?

Take the example of Marathi Vs Bihari brawl in Mumbai - now both ethnicities have co-existed for centuries in their own respective geographic cultural space and there is nothing antagonistic or divisive about them - but when they both are squeezed into same geographic and ethnic space, than they both feel threatened by each other, and seek to blame each other for their sorry plight and lack of space to practice their ethnic hegemony. Someone like you would argue that ethnicities are divisive and should be squashed by laws - but it is an engineered argument. Those who make such arguments might rally behind Biharis, but it is a divide and rule game against ethnicities, meant to destroy ethnicities, not accommodate them by giving them their own space.

And that is what modern implementation of nation-state represents - one that seeks to destroy the very reason d'etre for having independent nation-states and reduce them to bunch of geographic states without any reason d'etre to be independent or different from each other. Kind of like a global empire/republic ruled by a super state. Xian conservatism vies to construct a 'nation' part of such super 'nation-state', and Secular liberalism vies to construct a 'state' part of such super 'nation-state' and Xianity waits in the wing to pounce its flag over such a super nation-state and declare it a kingdom of God, its theological mission accomplished. It is no secret how missionaries ride with statist ideologies to fulfill their nefarious missions.

kerty:

How are cultures, ethnicities and idelogies divisive?!! Are there like writ manuals about what one culture or ethnicity should or shouldn't do....like most religions have and religious people follow, thereby claiming higher moral and ethical grounds from those that are say not religious or of a different religious persuasion?

Aditi

"How are cultures, ethnicities and ideologies divisive?!! Are there like writ manuals about what one culture or ethnicity should or shouldn't do"

There are no written manuals. But they tend to be very protective about their hegemony and propagation. They do not yield easily and it often takes many generations. Try to mix capitalism and communism in the same political space and see what it takes - they would demarcate the whole hemispheres as their exclusive domains to be guarded by nuclear blackmail that can destroy the whole world many times over.

Adit, good luck!!!

kerty:

""Try to mix capitalism and communism in the same political space and see what it takes..."

ha ha ha! one gets a string of northern european economies if one mixes these two: sweden, denmark, norway, finland...not to mention canada, china, singapore etc. etc. all of these incorporate elements of both, albeit in very different proportions; no explosions so far! only the elites in the usa can successfully mobilize the fear of something called "socialism" to keep universal medicare etc. out of reach for the regular folks.

kerty: So its the people who are divisive, not the concept of ethnicity and culture itself. Cause some (most actually) people find it extremely easy and even gratifying to mingle with other ethnicities, cultures and possibly learn from them. Religions are different because most religious people choose to take literally or sometimes grossly misinterpret the words they believe were left behind by their respective prophets, "gods" etc as a moral-ethical instruction manual. Culture and ethnicity have no such written documents or scriptures that could serve as distinctly divisive pre-set idealogies even if some low IQ people wanted to fight evolution armed with cultural and ethnic differences.

CS

I do not think examples you gave are communist-capitalism combos. China would come close. But there too, capitalism is isolated geographically to certain zones. Who knows how it would blow up when capitalism demands its political space. Bengal tried to imitate China and we know what happened to Nano.

Socialism is an ideology of statism and it is highly adaptable to prevailing local conditions - as long as statism is not challenged, socialism does not mind co-existing with other ideologies that emanate from people's spheres - as long as they empower or do not disempower statism.

Where socialism is mixed with capitalism, one can see the permanent political schisms in such nations - nations politically divided over ideological fault lines. Some nations have managed such divide better than others, but divides do exist and they are bitterly fought in political arena. We just witnessed one in America. Divide usually creates a spectrum of die-hard protagonists/antagonists at both ends and mushy moderates/independents in the middle - that is how all divides manifest.

Do all 'divides' end up in explosions or violent confrontations against each other? When situations demand it but not always. Ask their ardent die-hard protagonists or antagonists, and they would give litany of harm brought about by the other ideology.

Aditi #52

All divides ultimately manifest thru people, thru their politics, their reactions. Divides usually create a spectrum of die-hard protagonists/antagonists at both ends and mushy moderates/independents in the middle who usually go with the flow - that is how all divides usually manifest. That does not mean that all divides are same or follow identical course - divide between Hindus and Sikhs is not same as divide between xians and Moslems, or that Bihari-Marathi ethnic divide is same as Hutus-Tusti ethnic divide of Rawanda. You can always find a set of people for whom any given divide means nothing.

when you can't convince them confuse them....and maybe call them "mushy" :)

kerty:

""mushy moderates....""

mushy of pakistan is no more in power, and when he was, he was hardly a moderate...

kerty:

""Divide usually creates a spectrum of die-hard protagonists/antagonists at both ends and mushy moderates/independents in the middle - that is how all divides manifest.""

in plain english, mushy or not, what pray, does this mean??

Hi Kerty/Aditi/Common Sense,

Please carry on your debate... It's great and I think it goes to the root of how human beings have been made by nature... And while I may be one of the mushy moderates as classified by Kerty (and a Bihari too:), I am still intrigued by this question...

Doing a thought experiment... Suppose I meet a person who's different from me, however. Now I am not only tolerant, not even accepting, but genuinely desirous of knowing him/her, and also him/her knowing me. Feeling that out of this knowledge, certainly something positive would come out - creative destruction, like the Indo-Persian fusion giving rise to something like Tajmahal. Maybe...

And yet I don't find the other person reciprocating in the same way. For whatever reason, he/she is uncomfortable, irritated by me, perhaps even fearful of me, wanting me out of the way.

What is to be done then? Do I accept that nature makes all sorts and pass on? Or do I, knowing the importance of acceptance, the positivity arising out of synthesis of differences, first try to persuade the person to be receptive to me, and if that doesn't work, in the interests of the civilization, force him/her to accept me by making laws?

I am on the horns of dilemma. If I don't take recourse to law, life for the likes of us will be made difficult by the intolerant people. If I do, I am taking the stand that nature doesn't hard-wire people to be intolerant, that it's all nurture. But I am not sure that's completely true going by a supposed study in the US on conservative vs. liberal leaning persons.

Apparently it was found that conservatives/liberals don't behave differently in not only how they vote, but also how they drive on the road, how they woo the opposite sex, which sports they choose and so on. It was found that overwhelmingly, in all these things, people who voted liberally were apt to take rather riskier decisions than who voted for the conservatives... were freeier in their attitude. This study was conducted precisely for those things where identity in any form didn't influence choices, so I guess it sheds some light on the nature/nurture debate.

Coming back to the main question, if nature has indeed some role to play in making Mr/Mrs. Standoffish the way they are... unaccomodating, biased, bigoted, unadaptable... couldn't I be guilty of the same intolerance that I abhor when I force them to change to suit my needs of having a more liberal world since that makes me happy?

I don't know... I haven't found an answer yet. Once upon a time, I used to quote this line from "The English Patient" liberally - "I wish to belong to a world where there are no maps". Now after many years on mother earth, I am not so sure...

What do you guys think?

artist:

"Once upon a time, I used to quote this line from "The English Patient" liberally - "I wish to belong to a world where there are no maps". Now after many years on mother earth, I am not so sure..."

nice quote; shades of lennon's "imagine". however, to some extent it has already happened and will never happen. paradoxical but true.

1. global capital and global capitalism pretty much operates with contempt and disdain for any maps, boundaries be they national, social, religious or cultural. when it comes to capital flows, there are no boundaries.

2. when it comes to labour, the boundaries are pretty much there, as are visas, work-permits, deportations etc. etc. albeit not for residents of the "developed" countries.

boundaries, divisions etc. be they political, religious, cultural, linguistic etc. will never disappear. but they will never remain stable either, despite the efforts of the "thekedars" of such boundaries.

change is permanent and there is fish-all anyone can do about it, except to gently nudge it in the right direction ie. not right-wing, but in the direction of compassion, on-setarianism, non-racism, non-sexism, non-homophobia, non-dog-eat-dog world. no easy task for sure, but better than encouraging and thriving on non-compassion, sectarianism, communalism, racism, sexism, homophobia etc. etc.

CS

"change is permanent and there is fish-all anyone can do about it, except to gently nudge it in the right direction ie. not right-wing, but in the direction of compassion, on-setarianism, non-racism, non-sexism, non-homophobia, non-dog-eat-dog world. no easy task for sure, but better than encouraging and thriving on non-compassion, sectarianism, communalism, racism, sexism, homophobia etc. etc"

That is liberalism(western-left), a highly partisan Western political creed that is vehemently opposed by western conservatism(western right). Political process(change) in the west is predicated on tug-of-war between these two antithetical political forces. Rest of the world gets caught in the aggression of their power struggles, their expansionist ambitions, their imperialistic/colonial/hegemonic missions thru their appendages and satellites. True national and political independence means not becoming appendages of political process of western nations or any other nations.

artist:

""Once upon a time, I used to quote this line from "The English Patient" liberally - "I wish to belong to a world where there are no maps". Now after many years on mother earth, I am not so sure...""

artist, i agree. if wishes were horses, maps would fly! however, it's always good to wish for a better world, even if those wishes remain unfulfilled. beats wishing for a worse world ie. communalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, murderous nationalism, runaway capitalism, so-called "free markets" etc. etc.

CS

"it's always good to wish for a better world, even if those wishes remain unfulfilled. beats wishing for a worse world ie. communalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, murderous nationalism, runaway capitalism, so-called "free markets" etc. etc."

Western liberalism and western conservatism are Jackal & Hyde, good-cop-bad-cop, siamese twins, tag-team, two sides of the same coin, inseparable and locked to each other - once you have one ism, the other one comes with it. Both are part of the same package. You can't have one and not the other - they can not survive without each other. It can not create a better world - merely offer a pipe dream, a utopia. It seeks to engulf the world in its hellish duality. Peddling liberation and posing as a savior becomes a full time political theology - but its Nova can never be big enough to save all from drowning. Who pays for its sins? Rest of the world has to pay for its sins.

snowman:

"Any fool can convince himself that he is a superhero going to heaven. Just because your mind is brainwashed in a cult won't make it true.""

why?

Hi Jerry,
Well done mate. Just the right time to post something like this and set the ball rolling. Some one threatened you in e-mail and you are not scared??? post your address and telephone number and see what happens?????
What do you want to prove set fire among the religions and die in that fire along with others and tell Jesus, I died for YOU????
See some Good Psychiatrist
Where is our Sardar Gill, he will have a good time with this guy!

Brilliant,you're a brave christian soldier...
Chandra I'm sick of your veiled threats,this is fucking democracy,we have a right to preach and stuff and dont be too smug abt Orissa,the hindutvadis didn't dare attack villages where christians had stocked and armed themselves with guns and bombs....like i've always maintained ,we need soemthing like the 2nd ammendent of USA..we all should have a right to bear arms

Kela

Kela!!!

Chandra that gives me an idea ,i should start my own religion,you can be my first disciple ;)

Kela

Kela in your...

amrood??

Kela and Chandra it will be nice if both of you control your temper and especially mind your words. Personal attacks are not allowed.
Both of you are not goind to achieve nothing. If possible VOTE in the nexe election for the first time rather than bitching like this.

simplicity:

""If possible VOTE in the nexe election for the first time rather than bitching like this."'

good, simple suggestion!

what has that got to do with anything ? anyway just so that you know,i am always smartly turned out and first in line when its voting time,i have even got goonda elements kicked out when they tried breaking the line

All religions are just as bad. Christianity is actually AWFUL. They are responsible for colonialism, and continued imperialism. They have wiped off original cultures of America and Australia. In fact the pope had upheld the legal validity of slavery as per cannon law. Disgusting!!

Abhay Dang (or sting in Hindi):

""All religions are just as bad. Christianity is actually AWFUL.""

as in orwell's "all people are equal; some are more equal""

a stinging formulation for sure. talk of "dang". not to mention dung in plain english

Abhay Ding Dong:"All religions are just as bad. Christianity is actually AWFUL "

Religions are not aweful, but fighting in the name of them is !!
esp by literate people like you and me?
The way we educated people fight we justify the action of RSS, Bajrang Dal and Shiv sena !!!!!