Church Lures Gujarat Tribals to Christ

Re: # 40

Romair Sahib,

Excellent post. I think I will send you links of not only proud secularists but millitant secularists as well.

From you post you appear to be non fanatic Muslim. But sir rest assured if such people sprouted in Pak and abused your religion prophet etc and were given primacy of place in media then believe me you would return from Canuck not to rejoin PAF but Al Qaeda.

You can then forward the same to Mr YLH and see if secularism ``the true dictionary meaning that is`` is palatable.

Re: # 23

Dear Shri Stuka,

You really have the wrong end of the stick. Teresa and Missionaries of Charity are any day a more potent cancer than the church ever will be.

Remember organisations like Opus Drei are under a 100k in membership but they are the brain that controls the foot soldiers of papism.

What organisations like MoC have done is that they have made reconverted secularists like you focus on the C part when they are actually for the M part. And remember this is not a discussion of MI6 where C is the title of the Chief meaning C for Cumming which Ian Fleming Changed to M for Mansfield in James Bond.

People like tahmed32 are a scum of this world. I really do not know why Chowkies should tolerate him. I know even if he is blocked, he will reappear in a new attire. And that`s cowardice. And, dude, I do not owe you an explanation. To know about me you only have to do a Google search, but that is not the case with you. And this will be the last time I will be answering your mail. Do you think if any sane person will reply to the mails sent by bin Laden or Narendra Modi? And I am not a Hindu but a citizen of the world: this is to the other pals who thought I was touchy and a VHP guy. I am not going to rest my case.

#151 by tahmed32

[free will means the right to make a decision. no ifs and buts or questions on whether or not it was a wise decision.]

Free will - The word `free` means free of all inducements, coercion, or fear. If a decision is influenced by any of these factors, then it is by no means ``free``. Is it so difficult for you to understand this simple word that you type one meaningless post after another without giving so much as a thought to what it means?

samosa: if christians become hindus out of free choice that is fine. I dont care how many hindus or sikhs or muslims or christians you have in india. why should i? i dont care what religion a person follows as long as he does it out of his own free will. that is all i am saying.

#160 correction last line in first paragraph should read as ``as superior beings who think they know what is religiously/spiritually better for the poor and orphan since they are feeding their stomachs.... ``

since one person one vote became the rule of democracy and concept of self determination got importance in making or breaking countries...the issue of conversions is central political issue. but no one wants to talk about it because it is not politically correct.

Tahmed sahib, orphanage is already taking care of the kids, feeding them clothing them and hopefully educating them...what does converting them achieve? tell me how does it benefit them by converting? If the orphanage is already helping the kids - and I am sure it is good people who are helping the kids - then why convert them? why not educate them and let them decide when they become adults which religion to chose? Why ``doing good`` is dependent upon whether the person whom you are doing good is converted to your religon or not? In my view it is these orphanage people or missioneries who are acting as superior beings who think they know what is better for the poor and orphan being fed....

tell me why is it so hard to help a poor, orphan, sick and weak person without worrying about his religion?

BTW I think views of most of the Paks are not any different on the missioneries issue than most Hindus...if situation was reversed I am sure they will argue the same way. What if the western donor agencies send preachers along with their money to preach Christianity in Kashmir? it should be ok by your logic, after all it would be beneficial to the victims...I am sure billions can be spent by Christian right for that cause....donor fatigue shateegue uDD jayegi ikk damm.

Re: # 157
tahmed32 there will be a few more sikhs and christians in indian than hindus - so what??
According to your logic there is nothing wrong if there are even less christians. Thus, there is nothing wrong or bigoted about the babus....correct. You should not take offence if babus on chowks are against conversion.

#153 avkrishna

Shri tahmed is what is known as a ``soft islamist``. You may be familiar with soft hindutva -- our friend fits into the same model. Just as the true hindutvadi will always end up claiming the uniqueness or amazing specialness of hindu tradition, our friend tahmed has also from time to time enlightened us on the ``perfectness`` of islam. When confronted with contrary evidence, he will slip-and-slide away. Unfortunately knowledge of english just turns a bigot into an english-speaking bigot, nothing more.

dullabhatti: please see what i have to say about ``luring`` people to jang below.

you say you are find it disgusting that orphans are converted to sikhism. if you hold the welfare of the individual to be the goal, rather than the welfare of religion (and those who make a living by feeding off religion, i.e. priests etc., since the Almighty clearly does not need religion to make a living), then you should be very pleased that someone is taking care of those orphans who obviously have no where else to go. So there will be a few more sikhs and christians in indian than hindus - so what??

jang #154 doesnt change what i wrote - i said that india provides religious freedom on paper, but that is not evident in the minds of many hindus (on chowk at least), as expressed in so many different ways including this deep aversion to that most basic of religions freedoms, ``conversion`` to some other religion. Of course people get ``lured`` to things when they exercise their free will. Would anyone in his right mind exercise his free will to NOT get lured to anything (religion or whatever).

What you are clearly implying is that you know better than those who convert what is best for the latter - clearly you are in possession of a superior mind where, without even being in their shoes, you know what is best for those who convert to christianity.

Pakistan on paper discourages religous freedom, but that is not reflected in the minds of the vast majority of Pakistanis (again, on chowk at least, with the exception that proves the rule being urstruly). And no, i am not lying about urstruly - he is in fact two steps ahead of this article - he not only wants to discourage conversions - he wants to stone converts to death (see his post below).

Tahmed sahib, no matter what spin you give it, motivating people to change religion using material lures and lies is immoral and unethical...on top of that most of these people are illiterate, poor and vulnerable who are not in a position to make an informed decision...not exactly the situation for free will.

I abhor the conversion of weak, poor and vulnerable by anyone...few weeks ago Dilliwala or some one posted on UP a news item of some kids in a orphanage in East Punjab converting to Sikhism..these were the kids some as old as 10 yrs...living on the food and clothes given by these Sikh custodians of the orphanage...does that sound moral and ethical? I don`t think so. I was disgusted by that news.

This issue is different than an individual person going on a spiritual searh and finding some path he likes. It would be humans rights violation not to let that person follow what he wants.

#152
{While that may be true on paper, the fact is that religious freedom is deeply resented by a lot of Indians }

this is untrue. its conversions using tempral lures is what is resented, not religious freedom. also, this article merely reports that church is usign lures. if that is what denigrates it, its the churches problem. unless you prove that this article is a lie, there is no denigration of the church by this article. the church by using lures has has denigrated itself.

an yes, there is religious freedom in india, on paper, and in practice. e.g. you can get a passport without denigrating anybodys faith.

pakistanis, except you, have mostly have ignored this article as far as i can see. urstruly has not supported this article.

so, in conclusion, you are .....

# 152,

For a moment I thought, in the process of giving back to some of us who get really nasty (other boards), your general disposition might have changed. (Nothing wrong in retorting to some of them though, unfortunately that`s the only language they understand)

Glad to know that all`s well ;-)

Good Night,
- Avkrishna

avkrishna: this is what i wrote in #119 ``poolani: you have no case to rest - just the pandit-hate education of india that causes you to blame christian missionaries for ``converting`` people, instead of facing the truth about the primitive social habits (casteism etc.) that are universally condemned - except among hindu babus.``

OK, casteism was not the right example of ``primitive social habits`` that we are discussing here and i am sorry for that. instead of ``casteism etc.`` that should read ``suppression of religious freedom etc.`` I dont have a problem taking back something it is wrong.

And please dont tell me that India is a secular society and the Indian legal system provides for religious freedom. While that may be true on paper, the fact is that religious freedom is deeply resented by a lot of Indians - and this article denigrating christian missionaries as well as the support it received from indian posters but virtually none from Pakistanis (except urstruly, the exception that proves the rule) is clear evidence of that.

as for my being not as friendly as before - i still am sir. Why would i come to chowk if I disliked people here? I wish you and everyone all the best in your real lives. But I retain my right to free will and to rant about things that I think are worth ranting about. :-)