One of my most terribly Americanized tendencies is to find out what’s going on in India mostly from non-Indian sources. For example, while editing an article about prison rape, I ran across a couple of press releases by a Southern Baptist organization that was trumpeting its success in Christianizing higher caste Hindus. Presumably their particular delight in making inroads in this sector of Indian society is not due to caste snobbery as such, but to missionizing’s generally having its best luck among marginalized groups rather than the mainstream. This is true not only for Christianity in India, but also of Islam in the United States, which found many more converts among African Americans, particularly those who were imprisoned, than among affluent whites.
My reaction to this news was complex. On one hand, I’m very opposed to the laws in Tamil Nadu and Gujarat that briefly attempted to ban mythical “forced conversions” and required people to register any change in religion with the government. If people wish to peacefully convince others of a particular belief, even one with which I don’t agree, they should be free to do so without fear of punishment or deportation.
On the other hand, I find conversion activity vaguely displeasing because it inherently pre-supposes the superiority of one religious faith over another. For whatever reason, I don’t mind thinking liberalism preferable to conservatism, capitalism to communism, but a similar judgment on religions tends to raise my hackles. Moreover, one could claim that the Indian government appears to treat all conversion activity as objectionable, even when it doesn’t involve Hindus. Ennis’s mention of Indian Jews two months ago neglected to note that the Indian government objected to having the previously-Christianized, long-ago descendants of Jews officially converted to Judaism on Indian soil.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s office sent to India six rabbis, who converted 600 members of the tribe to Judaism to ensure they could immigrate to Israel under state law […] India had pressured Israel to stop the conversion activity, implying that it violated Indian law, Regev said. In response, an Israeli parliamentary committee asked Sharon to reconsider the location of the conversions, Regev said.
Another little-known fact about the Bnei Menashe members brought to Israel is that most were settled in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, which Israel recently evacuated.
I have seen religion give neither more nor fewer benefits to my Hindu family than it has to my Jewish and Christian friends, which is not something that I can say of my shallow observations of political and economic regimes. A good person seems to produce an equally generous Christian or kind Muslim, depending mainly on the culture in which that person was raised, whereas the same nation subjected to highly restrictive economic and social conditions versus reasonably liberal ones will turn out quite differently.
Thus the amount of effort expended in altering others’ beliefs about deities often strikes me as wasted. It is effort people should be legally free to waste, just as they can waste it on computer games and other things that give them pleasure. But it is nothing I can applaud regardless of what alteration has been made, though I encourage the work of missionaries who bring significant secular educational, medical and capitalist resources to India along with their tracts.
Of course, this is the inevitable viewpoint of an agnostic, and perhaps that of a person raised as a Hindu, if one remembers the infamous exchange between Gandhi and Jinnah: Gandhi – “I am a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Zoroastrian, a Jew.” Jinnah – “Only a Hindu could say that.”
shx – you really don’t seem to be able to reconcile with the idea that some people in India convert due to conviction rather than expediency. Can we agree that this is hypothetically possible? If not, I’m afraid that we’re just talking past each other.
So when Hindus talk about conversions and are a bit emotional, but you say so very logically, “well technically it isn’t really /forced/ per se”, we can’t really have a conversation.
This confuses me. Are you saying that you cannot distinguish between force and environmental coercion; that your emotions do not permit you to distinguish; or that I should not converse on this topic unless I am willing to see the two conflated? Whatever the answer, do not generalize it to all Hindus. I was raised Hindu, most of my family and friends are practicing Hindus, and though their emotions might lead them to misuse terms, they would admit the error in language and stop making it.
Besides, while one has an ethical obligation to help the unfortunate without strings attached, if the Christian aid would not be coming at all if the conversion requirement were prohibited, then people wouldn’t even have the option of the hard choice. They would just go without, as they could do if they didn’t want to convert. The U.S. government puts people in this situation all the time: do what Congress wants or lose money. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether the government should be able to take away funding from colleges that refuse to permit military recruiters (who violate the schools’ anti-discrimination policies regarding homosexuals) on campus.
@Anna: Sorry, if I offended you.
@basmash: Yes, I agree that people do convert due to conviction.
@PG: Suppose it is snowing outside. And my neighbors aren’t home. But their daughter is stuck outside in freezing tempuratures. So she comes over, and I say, “Well, if you do [something], then I’ll let you in.”, then I am giving her a choice, not forcing her right?
But it shouldn’t be like that! If people want to come to your religion voluntarily, then great. Why even coerce them? People in dire need should be helped without any expetations — that’s part of being human!!! Forget what the government does. Religions should be held to much higher standards than governments!! But the real reason that I think Christians are actively converting others is because they don’t believe the other persons path is as valid as their own path. That attitude must be lost before any real conversations can take place between religions.
Organized religion appeals to losers who desperately want to be part of something big. I have seen this play out time and again. People with low self-esteem and need to “belong” to something fall into the religion trap. There will always be such people and there will always be those who seek to exploit such tendencies by offering these losers an organization to belong to. These individuals invariably get rich from the “club fees” that the losers pay to be part of the group. Lets call these exploiting individuals “Pimps”. So the pimps and losers are entangled in a strange S&M scenario where one group simply wants to get exploited by the other group.
The Pimps provide a service and get wealthy in the bargain. Note that they do not actually contribute to the GDP of a country – they only live of the ants who actually do the work. The only way to get more wealthy or to preserve their wealth is to recruit more losers so that they can get political clout which will protect them in the long run. It is necessary for the Pimps to organize into a larger group that will secure their financial future and political clout. When Pimps of one point of view – let us call them Christian Evangelists – try to recruit members from the losers belonging to another group – let us call them Islamic Fundamentalists – then we have a culture war. There is no way to get rid of this war because there will always be losers and Pimps who exploit them. In this way, organized religion will always bring out the worst in us. Don’t be fooled by a nice piece of music or some great looking cathedral that the Pimps will point to – to show that they are benefiting man-kind in some way. The truth is such artistic works are usually commissioned by Pimps for the express purpose of attracting losers. In the history of mankind, the death and destruction wrought by religion far outnumbers the one or two pieces of art commissioned by the Pimps.
Moral: Stay away from religion to save your sanity. Myself? – Never had the urge to give cash for Brainwash-Sunday!
I think your earlier insight (regarding elite support for Hinduism) is more valid. As long as the elites continue to support Hinduism (and right now there is no reason to think they will not), there is little chance that Hinduism will not remain dominant in India.
This is also the reason why the Southern Babtists in pjs post are ecstatic to convert “upper castes”; why the American Neo-Evangelist Ravi Zacharias boasts of his Brahmin antecedents; and why De Nobili (the missionary) emulated Brahmins.
1) there is something to this. a conversion of the elite would almost certainly result in a progressive conversion of the masses. this is the classic christian and islamic model, co-opt the indigenous commanding heights and the rest will follow
2) …but, if that isn’t working, and hasn’t for the duration of christian missionary work, you need to use other avenues. so, another tradition, which has become prominent over the last few centuries in asia (where the elites are resistent because they have an indigenous high religion tradition) has been to target the marginalized. in southeast asia this refers to non-buddhist ‘hill tribes.’ in indonesia this mean the non-islamic peoples of the eastern portions of the archipelago, as well as isolated peoples in the interior of borneo and sumatra. there is a reason that hindus in pakistan and bangladesh are targeted by missionaries, they know that that this group is vulnerable, while the islamic majority is not (missioanries would be physically attacked if they targeted muslims, but not non-muslims)
3) as for starks’ thesis, be careful about how you bandy it about. i’ve read almost all of his books and a lot of the work is predicated on an american ‘free market’ system of religions, which i do not believe applies totally with most of the world. additionally, christianity would not be a NRM in a conventional system, because conversion to christianity is not just alienating from the mainstream society, it is establishing cross-cultural alliances. something like mormonism, for example, which is starks’ archetypical successful NRM is a better example of what he is talking about because it has no wider affinity aside from itself, and conversion in results in a high barrier of separation with the rest of the world. neo-buddhists in central india are technically an NRM in india, but they have connections and have received support from the therevada sangha in both sri lanka and thailand, which also illustrates the principle
But the real reason that I think Christians are actively converting others is because they don’t believe the other persons path is as valid as their own path. That attitude must be lost before any real conversations can take place between religions.
so you are saying, ‘christians, stop being christians and then we can have a dialogue?’ i’m an atheist who generally prefers hinduism, casteism excepted, to the abrahamic religions, but this sort of attitude is ironic. one promotes intolerance of intolerance as an exhibition of tolerance
1) you have consistently used inflated analogies, which do not necessarily hold
2) you have not established that christian conversion in india is predominantly forced, you have simply shown us examples, which may or may not be typical
3) you have not established that christians india are typically of the exclusivist sentiment. in fact, a quick a examination of the census india numbers suggest that 25% of india’s christians live in kerala, and these are a big chunk which are unlikely to exhibit the opinions that you express (cuz they have to live with hindus)
4) your post where you quoted something to the effect that “the world council of churches is a missionary organization” reduces your credibility as someone who is looking for the facts, since most people who did a little research into the to topic would know that that organization is a) notoriously ecumenical b) the members churches are often criticized in the wack-job evangelical circles as uninterested in prosleytization. here is something i found on their site after 2 minutes:
“Is God listening to my Hindu neighbour’s prayer?” The question is simple, but Christians have enormous difficulty in responding to it. By and large, Christians have ignored theological questions relating to God’s life with our neighbours of other religious traditions and their life with God.
…
Our recognition of the mystery of salvation in men and women of other religious traditions shapes the concrete attitudes with which we Christians must approach them in interreligious dialogue.
We need to respect their religious convictions, different as these may be from our own, and to admire the things which God has accomplished and continues to accomplish in them through the Spirit. Interreligious dialogue is therefore a “two-way street”. Christians must enter into it in a spirit of openness, prepared to receive from others, while on their part, they give witness of their own faith. Authentic dialogue opens both partners to a deeper conversion to the God who speaks to each through the other. Through the witness of others, we Christians can truly discover facets of the divine mystery which we have not yet seen or responded to. The practice of dialogue will then result in the deepening of our own life of faith. We believe that walking together with people of other living faiths will bring us to a fuller understanding and experience of truth.
After the last discussion on this site about missionaries and such, I went and did some research. I’ve found both sides of the coin. There are missionaries who truly do help people and along with that, those who seek the “lost to be found” After conversing with my pastor, I’ve found out that there are many aspects of mission work in India that’s actually hurting the debate. For example, in a tribal area- a tribe leader chooses to accept Christianity. His entire tribe converts along with him, certainly not a real conversion or a change of heart or anything. Researching about this has certainly given me a new perspective on all of this, rather than my old “I’M RIGHT, YOU ARE ALL NUTS!” viewpoint. Yet, I still stick to my convictions.
Anna, it seems like everyone claims to have been baptised by St. Thomas 2000 years ago. I’ve tried researching this and haven’t found much evidence supporting this claim. I did a google search on Pulikottil and found an early elder in our family being leader of an Orthodox church in Kerala. Nothing past that.
While conversion may be “displeasing” to some, it is the right of a human being to change his or her beliefs. And, obviously, as most people here agree- it is wrong to forcefully convert people. I can’t believe I actually had to say that. By the way, what is the basis for determining if one religion is superior to another? If you said because it is inclusive- how exactly did you come to that conclusion.
As always, a very enjoyable and thought-provoking read at Sepia Mutiny. I agree with badmash when I say that I’ve found a quite a few people here who are willing to listen to my ideas.
And finally, just to finish this off.. conversion is looked down on in Traditional Christian circles in India also. My family, as I mentioned, was Orthodox- Jacobite, to be more specific. When my great grandfather converted to Pentecostalism- he was kicked out of the family and lost his share of the inheritance. Interesting stuff eh?
Take it easy..
and look again at the double standards in the media as mentioned here, which refuses to pay attention when hindu places of worship are desecrated but go into overdrive if even a shack that has come up overnight with a cross on it is attacked. this happens all the time. there are practically weekly incidents of guru-mandirams being vandalized in kerala, and the hindus, esp. ezhavas are supposed to take this with a smile, turning the other cheek and so on. but somebody threw an unexploded bomb at a bishop’s house, and that is now an international incident with everyone screaming for the cbi to investigate, if not the fbi and the cia and the nsa and interpol.
also, look at how ‘land donated by the maharaja of mysore is being used for commercial purposes by christists’. the story of urban india, where christists have grabbed lots of land, much of it donated in good faith for ‘spiritual’ purposes, and now they run hotels, shops and restaurants there.
by the way, the axiom used against hindus is that if any hindu anywhere does anything bad, it is the fault of all hindus individually, and of hinduism itself. on the other hand, if any non-hindu anywhere does anything good, it is to the credit of all non-hindus individually, and of christism/mohammedanism/marxism collectively.
so why isn’t any crap done by christists the fault of all christists and of christism as well? much of what they do is, after all, justified by saying, “it’s in the book”, and it’s the same book that all christists swear by.
here the catholics are washing their hands of the alleged misdeeds of ‘revivalist churches’ and other ‘fundamentalists’. no, people, since they all believe in the christist mythology, they are all one, and it is up to them to get the others in line. it is not the hindus’ problem to figure out “oh, these are the good christists, those are the bad ones”. their internal doctrinal difficulties are their problem. after all, when it comes time to demand something like reservations for christists, they are all willing to get together, aren’t they? they can’t say, “we’re good people, it’s those others who are bad christists.” it’s the collective responsibility of all christists.
amazing how much bull we’re being fed and expected to believe. yeah, right, catholics are not out to convert! then why did godman john paul 2 say that he wanted all of asia to convert?
and anyway, i wonder what has been the fallout from this particular report, which after all was done in 2002. i suspect all that has happened is that the population of mysore has now gone from 5% christist to 20% christist, despite all the talking.
Sorry. Forgot to mention that the above is an extract from rajeev2004.blogspot.com….
Well, since YOu haven’t found anything to support such a claim, it’s probably false. Good of you to enlighten us.
awesome. the next time i meet a hindu who is a total ass, i will call you up, and you’ll set him straight. sweeet. it’s not my problem to figure out who is good vs bad? merry christmas to ME!
raj, your intemperate comments are very unchristian! i’m sure that makes you happy 🙂
CommunisRixatrix:
What is it with you? I was sincerely asking if someone had found evidence of this… I really didn’t intend to say that it’s false because I hadn’t found anything. I just want to know…
man.. people sometimes..
Article 30 is used as the justification for this practice.
There have been supreme court decisions where equal financial support for hindu schools is declared unconstitutional.
Hindu nationalism fell out of favour with the masses after Gandhi’s assasination by Godse (a hindu nationalist).
Massive corruption in the Congress party and resentment bred by laws like article 30 had a lot to do with the rise of modern hindu nationalism.
This is often distorted in a lot discussions of hindu nationalism in the west.
Even where article 30 is mentioned, they talk about how article 30 rights are being eroded, neglecting to mention that these rights do not apply to hindus.
Ultimately I think the Indian governement needs to become more like America in terms of religious indifference to ensure puralism in the country.
The government should neither run Hindu temples nor provide subsidies to Haj pilgrims.
These policies cause resentment that is exploited by extremists.
it seems like everyone claims to have been baptised by St. Thomas 2000 years ago.
In India, there is a percentage of Christians who were lower caste Hindus and have now converted to Christianity. In North Indian states and Pakistan, a significant percentage of Christians are former lower caste Hindus. As people in that part of the world still discriminate against lower caste people, it is not surprising that some Christian converts might want to clarify that they are not former lower caste converts.
I think ‘religious superiority’ is acceptable as long as there is no force. I don’t have any problems with rice conversions also. Being an atheist, I don’t consider religion is ‘ethical’ in the first place. However, the problem would be lack of reciprocity from the traditional Muslim and Christian countries. In that sense, I don’t have any problems with Christianity but Islam…Hmmmm… I think we should allow only Turkic donations for religious conversions or for any Islamic activities in India. However, the problem would be all those Arab countries pumping money thro’ that channel. So we should ban all Islamic religious activities supported by foreign funds. On the other hand, if these considerations were made out of fear than any other angle, then we should encourage muslims to indulge in proselytization.
and
sigh.
:+:
Al Mujahid:
so when do people cease to be converts? personally, once someone is at the millenia-mark, i don’t think you should use the dreaded c-bomb, but that’s just me.
:+:
it may not have been exclusively aimed my way, but i’m annoyed so here goes.
correct. i’m that kind of douchebag who worries about caste implications and thus needs to claim some pointless mantle of prestige so that i can impress…just whom again? north india and pakistan, i cannot and will not speak for, but kerala…that’s my blood, my life, my history. as such, i continue to contend that there are Christians who aren’t retarded zealots OR forced-rice-recipients, and i’d know b/c i’m RELATED TO THEM.
why is there so much skepticism about St. Thomas and numbers like 52? true, for those who want to make Christianity this evil, foreign cancer, it’s just terrible that sincere conversions took place among a society’s elites centuries ago. yes, there are also more recent Christians who were converted, who come from a variety of backgrounds. so what? that doesn’t negate my history. it’s simply factual for me to state that i’m not part of that group and that’s why i self-define so that it’s clear whom i’m speaking for. i should’ve known that such intentions would get twisted. daycruz, if other people are jumping on the St. Thomas bandwagon, frankly, i don’t blame them– it’s one hell of a heritage and i’d want to be a part of it if i weren’t, too.
badness, graceless me, this is the last place i thought i’d have to pull out my late-father’s famous, fiery lecture about how we’re not “converts”, unless 2,000 years isn’t long enough to just “be”.
Anna, I did not direct my comment at you and I am sorry if you felt it was directed at you. I was speaking about Christians who live in lets say Delhi or Lahore. I have not been to Kerala and know little about the history of Kerala and the Christians who live there. I would of course love to go there as I have seen countless shows about Kerala on the Travel Channel and its a beautiful state. Anyway, I understand your concern about when people cease to be ‘converts’. As I have a Muslim family, I know exactly how you feel, as a lot of Muslims also get annoyed when they are asked about when they converted to Islam. The reason I brought up lower caste Hindus converting to Christianity is because there is a perception in places like Delhi, UP or Punjab (Both Indian and Pakistani Punjab) that a lot of the Christians are former lower caste Hindus. So for people who live in those areas, it would make sense for them to clarify that they are not former lower caste Hindus. When I was in Pakistan, I did notice that a lot of the menial work which was done by the chamars, bhangis and other lower caste people in India was done by the Christians. A lot of them converted to Christianity from lower caste Hinduism (because of the discrimination against Hindus) but have still continued to work in their family profession because of discrimination, lack of skills or poverty and other factors.
Thank you, Al Mujahid. I really appreciate the clarification and the kind way you did it. Additionally, you answered a question that I didn’t ask but thought about when you talked about the similar frustrations that Muslims face wrt “conversion timelines”.
Something good came from my insomnia-enhanced irritation: I learned. I had no idea about the Christians working in Pakistan and I’ve always wanted to find out more about North Indian and specifically Punjabi Christians– I don’t know any IRL, but I get propositioned by them on browndating.com, all the time. 😉
Epoch – I’ve done a brief search for Indian supreme court decisions which refer to Article 30 – haven’t come up with much. Could you document the decisions that you’re speaking of. The reason I’m asking for this is so that we can move beyond speculation and start discussing the facts.
Raj – which “media” exactly are you talking of? The local vernacular press in the North is very different form the national media and other regional press/media. The vernacular press/media in the North served as one of the keys to Hindutva revival in the eighties – specifically through emotional appeals to the alleged double standards and persecution of Hindu interests/ sensibilities (read Christophe Jaffrelot, 1996). Again, in the interests of having a discussion based on fact can you provide us with some information on the contemporary desecration of Hindu shrines in India, grants to minority religious organizations that are used for business and Catholic conversion rates in Mysore?
Suresh
Totally agree. Not making this distinction mixes up the issues
Sumita
Suresh, Sumita – On the one hand when making such a legal distinction one aspect is allowed to undermine the other – how can there be conversion without proselytization? If proselytization is disallowed then what use is there in protecting conversion.
On the other I don’t how this is compatible with the ideals/goals of liberal democracy. It seems to me that the debate/discussion of the most sacred ideas is central to the preservation of the freedom of expression.
One of the aspects about Hinduism that struck me when I studied it is the long tradition of healthy debate and dialogue. One only needs to glance at the Upanishads or the Dharmashastras to get a taste of this. The debate is so intense and engaging. How legitimate then is an interpretation of this tradition that stifles debate/discussion?
Razib wrote :
>>society, it is establishing cross-cultural alliances. something like mormonism, for example, which is starks’ archetypical successful NRM is a better example of what he is talking about because it has no wider affinity aside from itself, and conversion in results in a high barrier of separation with the rest of the world. neo-buddhists in central india are technically an NRM in india, but they have connections and have received support from the therevada sangha in both sri lanka and thailand, which also illustrates the principle
That is actually a very good point re the deficiencies in Stark’s work. I once emailed him about Dalits and he responded saying he didn’t know enough about the situation to proffer an opinion. Christian leaders in India do try to establish trans-national networks. One reason why Dalit issues received a Congressional hearing last month is because of the contacts made by Dalit Christian leaders with influential American missionary organizations.
They also lobbied US firms to grant reservations to Dalits in their Indian facilities.
Manju wrote:
In that sense, I don’t have any problems with Christianity but Islam…Hmmmm… I think we should allow only Turkic donations for religious conversions or for any Islamic activities in India.
Some Hindus believe the foreign cash nexus is responsible for the inter-religious strife in India.
Islam in South Asia is not Arab or Turkish: such things as caste, animist practices, syncretic festivals, and what have you are utterly alien to a Wahhabist, for example, who is revolted by the “heresies” in Indian Islam, and thinks they ought to be corrected. (Where is Umair and his liminality?)
In the process of foreign “reform”, so the argument goes, the village ecosystems that evolved over centuries are destroyed.
A similar thing might be said about Christianity, Inc.–the term for American Evangelism. A place like Velankani in Tamil Nadu is vistied by Hindus and Muslims, has a cart festival where the “Goddess” (Mary) is taken throughout the town for “darshan”. In Yoginder Sikand’s book, he interviews a recently converted “Rapture” Christian (converted by Americans, and yes economic betterment was a factor) says that the whole place–the world!–is going to Hell, look at Velankanni he says, its so….Hindu.
And of course Hindu Nationalists stand accused of Abrahamization too.
I did not suggest banning proselytization. In fact, I did not take any position on it. However, the issue – so far as India is concerned – is the following. We have a large number of groups and no group seems to view proselytization beningly when it is at the receiving end of such activities, that is, when the group sees itself losing adherents. In fact, some elements react violently…In such a scenario, I think it best that a mutually acceptable policy regarding proselytization be negotiated amongst the groups. If the mutually agreed upon deal is preservation of the status quo, then so be it, but I think the issue does need to be discussed.
Personally, I have no problems regarding the status quo. I identify myself as a Hindu but if some Hindus want to leave for Islam or Christianity or whatever, then denying this choice seems to be a violation of human rights, no matter how much it might hurt me personally. I thus stand opposed to the VHP-RSS stand on this…on the other hand, I fail to see why some people (leftists of the loony variety?) oppose the VHP’s “reconversion” activity. If such “reconversions” are done within the ambit of the law (and I admit the if is not trivial here), then it seems to me that reconversions are just as legitimate as the original conversions. It is in part the problems posed by such activities (in India, in the current scenario) that prompted my suggestion for a discussion on a mutually acceptable policy on proselytization.
As for the incompatibility between liberal democracy and a restriction (not ban) on proselytization, I don’t really see this. Are you suggesting, for instance, that Israel is not a liberal democracy? (See my earlier post.)
The reason I brought up lower caste Hindus converting to Christianity is because there is a perception in places like Delhi, UP or Punjab (Both Indian and Pakistani Punjab) that a lot of the Christians are former lower caste Hindus.
the perception is probably true historically. i have read some ethnography on this topic. the % of christians in north india from ‘low caste’ or ‘tribal’ (i.e., ppls of the NE) origin is very, very high. so, it would make sense that one from that region would make christian = low caste synonomous. some pakistani christians who have moved into farming try to claim jat ancestory.
Suresh – The state of Israel does not have any laws against proselytization. I believe that in the late nineties a group named Yad L’Achim took a campaign to ban such activities as far as the Supreme Court where it was struck down.
While your proposal re: religious groups in India is interesting, I don’t know how far it will make a difference. For the most part, the mainline Church denominations in India with apopinted regional representatives/leaders (Syrian Orthodox, Marthoma, CSI) don’t engage heavily in missionary activity. On the other hand, the groups that do (Plymouth Brethren/Pentecostal) have a more decentralized leadership structure, where the leadership of individual Churches goes only as high as the congregations’ pastor/ elders. In this case, choosing a representative for such a discussion will be problematic.
I guess it’s a question of where the conversation takes place – at the level of representatives (dialogue) or individuals (which could include proselytization).
From the US State Department’s Report on Religious Freedom for 2005 in Israel, at
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51601.htm
“A 1977 anti-proselytizing law prohibits any person from offering or receiving material benefits as an inducement to conversion. No reports exist of attempts to enforce the law during the reporting period.”
I do not know how to interpret the fact that there have been no attempts to enforce the law. It might mean that missionary groups were actively involved in proselytization in Israel but the law was not enforced. Or it could mean that the law was not enforced simply because there were no active missionary groups in Israel. My feeling is the latter, but I might be wrong.
Regarding your comments on my proposal: of course, I don’t know how viable my proposal is either. It’s just a suggestion to an existing problem – the sensitivity of many people to proselytization, and unfortunately, the tendency of some to resort to violence. At the moment, it’s the extreme wing of the Hindus, but as I’ve noted, such sensitivity and even violence are not unknown in other communities. Unfortunately, we look set for more violence, at least in the near future.
I don’t want to carry this further. This is not my area, really. Thanks for your polite and considered remarks.
Have a look at this. Its not the case I was talking about but similar (look at the explanation for question 2).
The Indian school system is nationalized but article 30 allows minorities to set up schools with public money so that they can maintain their culture rather than being assimilated into the majority culture.
This doesn’t sound bad except that lower level state run schools in India are of extremely poor quality and there is a high degree of corruption.
Suresh
This is my fear too. Unfortunately, many think this fear is baseless. I think law enforcement leaves a lot to be desired in India. The extremist forces will use this an as excuse to create strife.
Well I guess we’ll see…It doesnt look good..
Sumita
anna,
i’ve also been taught the st. thomas history in my family…coming to india…establishing 7 (?) churches..etc..
i have always accepted this as fact as per the beliefs handed down in my family through generations…i must say that this thread is the first time i’ve heard of this history being connected with an ‘elitist’ attitude…i guess we learn everyday..
why is there a need here for a follower of one faith to be called out to defend/explain the actions of other people in the same faith?…
Epoch – thanks! Will read and comment.
why is there a need here for a follower of one faith to be called out to defend/explain the actions of other people in the same faith?…
faiths often presuppose brotherhood and fellowship. the christian faith does from what i can gather. if one espouses christian faith, than one identifies as part of the christian community, and so participates in the collective of actions, positive and negative, attributed to that group.
to use an analogy, i’m an american. even though my family arrived in the US in 1980, i take both pride and shame i what america has done, from breaking treaties with native americans to saving european civilization from its own Gotterdammerung twice.
of course, this has its limits. i.e., if some american psycho goes crazy and kills a bunch of brits in london, well, that’s bizarro. on the other hand, if there was a concerted program by the american gov., and i knew about it, and i didn’t do anything, etc. etc.
all & all, it is a messy topic, and good faith is needed to really tack these issues of assocation and accountability. but that is hard to come by.
Anna, Rani-
Basically my point is, I’ve been taught that also but have researchers found evidence for the tradition that St. Thomas came to India? But, as a Christian, I never understood why it should even matter to me as my relationship with God is between me and Him and not about my cultural or religious traditions.
Daycruz wrote:
Basically my point is, I’ve been taught that also but have researchers found evidence for the tradition that St. Thomas came to India?
What kind of evidence are you looking for? Historical? I don’t think it exists. Its a sacred belief of the faith community. The earliest historical record we have of Christianity in India is a Nestorian community in Kerala in the 4th century AD. That is still 1600 long years though. (If anyone disputes this I’d be happy to hear.)
Subversively, a scholar of Buddhism, Edward Conze, linked the proto-Gnostic Gospel of Thomas with the “Thomas” community in India. He believed that the mystical, proto-Gnostic tract could only have been derived from Indic spirituality.
There is an interesting cover-story in Harpers this month about the Thomas Gospel.
http://hamsa.org/ — this is what I wanted. For people here to open their eyes a tiny little bit. All these missionaries (like 99% of them — hey, I asked for Anna for the numbers, but she was too cool to give it, so I am making an assumption on what I know; all of you) — all they want to do is convert and they’ll convert at all costs — like lying massively to everyone and anyone. That’s the problem that I have. I don’t have problems with people who are Christians or Muslims. Heck, the best teacher (what an inspiration!) I had in college was a devout Christian.
(But, Anna, seriously, lose your condesending tone.)
I’m not sure which “shx” I should address: the one above or the one who apologized for potentially offending me.
“he earliest historical record we have of Christianity in India is a Nestorian community in Kerala in the 4th century AD. “
Interesting. I don’t have the sources now – but I remember reading somewhere that immediately after St.Thomas’s visit, some jewish settler families (which is even more interesting) and some upper caste brahmins converted to christianity in kerala – and they were supposed to be the first native christians in India. Hope that it is not my memory who is failing me..
either one would be fine 😉 but do go re-read all your responses to me — i did try honestly, as best as i can, to have a conversation with you.
I know that my interpretation of Christianity might not be universal — accepted by all — but if is accepted by lots (say more than 50%) — then we have a problem — and I think that percentage is closer to 99%.
but what’s the purpose of converting? really — deep down what does that really mean? that’s what i want people to kinda dig into… but if all you can do is respond “but that’s telling us not to be christian”, then all i can say is, is that all there is to your religion?? can’t you let others be. what happened to my great-great-great-great-(to the 100th) -grandfather born and died without even hearing of Christianity? did he go to hell? no.
But seriously, I just want a conversation going. Yes, I know about all the bad things Hinduism is a part of: caste system (Hindus, it isn’t enough to say, “Oh, the British setup the whole dang thing, we don’t know nothin’ about that” — we did let it happen!), not caring about the poor as much as we should be….
but whatever.
“Know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
Basically my point is, I’ve been taught that also but have researchers found evidence for the tradition that St. Thomas came to India? But, as a Christian, I never understood why it should even matter to me as my relationship with God is between me and Him and not about my cultural or religious traditions.
daycruz, you know there are multiple forms of christian. as a protestant pentecostal you emphasize a personal relation with jesus christ in a specified semantic and syntatical form, and you labell that ‘christian.’ but others would also assert they are christian, even if they disagree with your wording or emphasis. you must know that the catholic and the various orthodox traditions are much more historically rooted, and though fundamentally they would agree with your contention that as a christian it is your relationship to god that is the central focus, cultural forms and expressions also have sacred character and value (expressed through liturgy, often in languages with customary resonance if not intelligibility). a pithy saying i once heard was that, “a protestant asks, ‘what would jesus do?’ and a catholic asks, ‘what does the church teach?'” it is your right to emphasize the deinstitutionalized and individualistic aspect of the christian faith, and americans in particular have taken this strain of protestantism to its logical conclusion (i.e., ‘church shopping’). but many people would assert that as full human beings their social and cultural selves have to be acknowledged within their faith. even evangelical protestants acknowledge this implicitly, ‘messianic judaism,’ which has been attacked on some fronts for being exclusivist and ethnic in orientation was started as an outreach to jews that did not alienate their jewish customs and identity.
is that all there is to your religion
you need to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions.
@razib_the_atheist:
Try to get the point instead of nit-picking on little things.
Sentences in English should start with a capital letter. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/words/grammar/sentencebasics/whatisasentence/game.shtml Otherwise, I can’t parse them!! See!! Nit-picking on the smallest and silliest stuff!!
Epoch – So as I understand it, the discussion on Q2 points to certain advantages that minority run institutions are allowed and yet are not extended to majority run institutions. These appear to be premised on the idea that majority run institutions already enjoy the significant natural advantages of space, language, social outlook and sheer numbers. Thus while the discussion is careful to point out that majority and minority provisions do not equate, it does imply that they attempt to create balance in the face of these factors. I don’t see why this is perceived as discriminatory.
Try to get the point instead of nit-picking on little things.
nope. you didn’t read the link, as it directly addressed your mistake. anyway, substance beats style everytime.
Daycruz – Thomas as the apostle to India actually has multiple attestations in the early Church literature. I’ll have to dig up the references but I can send them to you if you like
Eddie – Conze was an interesting character. I’m familiar with his work putting the Lotus Sutra and the Gospel of John in dialogue. Would be keen to hear more about the Thomas stuff.
Daycruz :
William Dalrymple tries to answer your question about Thomas and Kerala in this article from the Guardian : “The incredible journey :Did St Thomas found a church in south India? William Dalrymple unravels a Christian mystery”
It’s not really important to me if St.T did or did not get to Kerala but the history is fascinating.
@shx What is it you want “christians” to admit? That christianity forces a choice on you if you do not believe in it? Its true. It does.
wouldn’t you say that “deep down”, the point of conversion is to choose a way of life other than the one you have right now?
you think that 99% of people think how you do!!!!
how christ-like of you to have this extensive back and forth just to get through to the 1% that got away…
OK. Allow me to illustrate with this scenario.
America has a secular nationalized school system like India.
Imagine what would happen if America decides that the Christians enjoy the “significant natural advantages of space, language, social outlook and sheer numbers” and decides to follow India’s example.
The American government starts giving taxpayer money to fund Jewish, Muslim and Hindu religious schools but refuses to give money to fund Christian schools. Saying instead that Christians must use the state run secular public school system.
This scenario mirrors the situtation in India. You don’t see this as being discrimination on basis of religion ?
Furthermore justification based on socio-econmic disadvantage isn’t valid either as the upper and middle class Hindus in India send their kids to private school and the law doesn’t affect them directly.
It hurts the poor and disadvantaged sections of the Hindu population who can’t afford private school because it forces them to use a very substandard public school system.
Epoch – The discussion that you linked to addresses policy, management and enrollment. I don’t see anything about funding (am I missing it?).
Ok, let’s grant the scenario that you describe. Is it discriminatory for the government to grant funding to some and not to others – prima facie yes, but under minority conditions no. By doing this, the government is allowing a minority group (religious, linguistic) enough resources to offset disadvantages (preventing cultural dissipation) in an environment which is already to a majority group’s advantage. Isn’t this part of what a social contract is?
I guess this thread has been talked into oblivion, but let me just end with these words from an address delivered to the Archbishop of Cantebury when he visited the Shri Swaminarayan Mandir in the UK earlier this year:
Atmaswarup Swami in his address spoke of the proud Hindu tradition of welcoming visitors from all faiths… he added, “Let us teach our followers that religion does not grow by quantity of numbers, but by quality of spirituality. We want to stress the unity in diversity, that there are more things that unite us than divide.”
um, i get what your saying, but how do you write a bibliography for this page? Cuz for global i need to.