American Arrogance Rooted in Christian Beliefs

[Sandman]

It's not lack of religion that deludes people into condemning a country for defending itself, but propaganda. The Vatican recently refused to condemn suicide bombings against Israelis...

Oh, come on, at best, that's an over-simplification.

Sort of like Divine Right?

Yes, I suppose.

Religions are inherently arrogant, and so are we. Arrogance helps drive progress... albeit often in violent ways such as militarism... If someone is convined they found a special pipeline to the almighty, they're bound to feel better for themselves than they feel for the poor souls who haven't found enlightenment.

There's a difference between the implicit arrogance of knowing God is on your side and the explicit arrogance of conquest and theocracy.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Religions are inherently arrogant, and so are we. Arrogance helps drive progress... albeit often in violent ways such as militarism... If someone is convined they found a special pipeline to the almighty, they're bound to feel better for themselves than they feel for the poor souls who haven't found enlightenment.

There I would disagree ( about the inherent part ) . Maybe you speak of your experience of the Semitic religions ?

[Frankychan]

It's those religions that are final...and saying that only THEIR religion is the way to get in to heaven. I.E. Christianity, Islam, etc. A clear picture of black and white.

You ever see a Buddhist suicide bomber or a Buddhist holy crusade? Nope.

Posted by Berzerker


Religions are inherently arrogant, and so are we. Arrogance helps drive progress... albeit often in violent ways such as militarism... If someone is convined they found a special pipeline to the almighty, they're bound to feel better for themselves than they feel for the poor souls who haven't found enlightenment.

Never thought I'd agree with Berz.

[Mr. Harley]

Berz - good post.

Aneeshm - could you post your views on Hinduism, while also putting the Hindu Nationalist party in context - that party appears from the outside to be pretty intolerant. Also post what you know about the abuses of Christianity, and if you could it's positive record, in India. I am curious, and it is nice to get views from outside Europe and the US.

As noted by other posters, Islam does not have a paticularly impressive record either in it's actions while "converting the heathan." Now my detail knowledge of Islam's record is not nearly as good as Molly's, but since WW2 I can honestly say that Islam has a substantially worse record than Christianity on how it plays with other religions.

Ted (and I wonder what happened to hit your hot button on this one, I shudder to think how you would react to living in the Bible Belt for a year ) right now in the US there is a conflict over the ownership of the term "Christian." Don't let those who want to narrow it's meaning to include only Conservative Christians to sour you to the entire religion. Get pissed at them, and the media, and their Republican operatives (who do this to get their vote effectively whoring the Republican party - since some of the Conservative Christian values go against what the party stood for in the past). (yes LOTM I'll get back to the ceremonial deism thread after this).

Frankychan starts to get to the point on what makes a religion have the potential to be a bad actor. Note though that it is potential. The Umayyad rulers in Spain are those that are pointed to as enlightened and tolerant. They were definitely more tolerant than the Christian kingdom that finally displaced Moslems in Spain.

However, the various Berber groups that came in and displaced the Umayyads were definitely not paticularly tolerant, and are used for an example of how unpleasant it was for non-Muslims in Muslim states of the period. History is dotted with all kinds of various examples of this, of how the same "religion" could be in predominant in a state yet the entire context of the state changes utterly, again in context of the predominant religion.

And to those of you using this discussion to make various snide remarks as the conflict in the Israel and the Occupied Territories - don't. I can do a thread jack on that one, and can be very pointed and unpleasant on that topic, just like I can on America's treatment of it's original inhabitants. It is not easy, nor a clear cut as a single line, or even paragraph, post can generate. Suffice to say there is plenty of dirt for both sides in the Middle East. And for your info, the reason many Christian fundamentalists support Israel is because of Apocolyptic beliefs - they are neither tolerant of Jews nor do they believe in Israel per se, they just believe that Israel and it's trials and tribulations will bring about the second coming of Christ. It's a marraige of convenience, nothing more.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Frankychan

You ever see a Buddhist suicide bomber or a Buddhist holy crusade? Nope.

I like Buddhism, but it isn't immune to fanaticism either. The Tamil Tigers have committed numerous suicide bombings over the last 20 years or so.

I'm no fan of the monotheist religions in general, but I can say with certitude that none of them actually prevent good people from being good people, and in many cases they actually promote good behavior. They are often critical in the development of moral individuals in societies where the other institutions fail abjectly to do so. This is not to say of course that religious institutions like other institutions cannot adopt evil goals or simply fail to resist temptations to take advantage of their flock for monetary or other personal power agendas. But moreso than most other institutions such behaviors tend to go against their entire stated ideal, which can make things tricky for the Elmer Gantry types of the world.

[trev]

I am THE way, THE truth, THE life, no man comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus

There is an afterlife that will be spent with Jesus and God the Father for christians, we choose to call that Heaven.
Likewise there is an afterlife without Jesus and without God the Father for the non-christian, christians choose to call that hell and is likened to a lake of fire.
It is your choice where you go based on your decision regarding Jesus Christ.
Because the simple words of Jesus give the distinction in the afterlife destinations of believers and non-believers it is not arrogant to state that fact, it would actually be wrong for Cristians to kepp silent on this truth.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by aneeshm


OK , give me some examples . I ask .

Random India hater:

"Some people there seem to worship cows. Since I don't think worshipping cows is how it should be I call those people uncivilized barbarians. Since other Indians allow this scandalous behaviour in their country, the entire country is uncivilized."

You get the idea? I can take any example from India and re-interpret it to something which people from another cultural or religious background could call barbarian with a similar justification you gave first for Christianity being uncivilized etc. If that makes sense is another question. You were taking a horribly simplistic view there - my constructed random India hater does the same about India.....of course it is nonsense, but your post wasn't that much better in this aspect....

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by BeBro


Random India hater:

"Some people there seem to worship cows. Since I don't think worshipping cows is how it should be I call those people uncivilized barbarians. Since other Indians allow this scandalous behaviour in their country, the entire country is uncivilized."

You get the idea? I can take any example from India and re-interpret it to something which people from another cultural or religious background could call barbarian with a similar justification you gave first for Christianity being uncivilized etc. If that makes sense is another question. You were taking a horribly simplistic view there - my constructed random India hater does the same about India.....of course it is nonsense, but your post wasn't that much better in this aspect....

Ah , but did we force other people to do so , and kill them if they didn't ?

By the way , I gave no justification for my view whatsoever in the beginning - I asked whether you wanted any .

[BeBMan]

Ok, my bad, but then your position does not look much better - calling something barbarian, uncivilized etc. without any justification....

Ok, you offered to bring examples. But as I said it is always easy to find certain examples which support a certain position - if these examples are however just single examples or representative for something like a religion, ideology, political movement etc. is something more difficult to find out.

And your killing argument is not much convincing either (if you want to imply that Christianity simply tries to kill people from other religions), because I can bring examples were people volunteerily decided to become christians. So you need to prove that forcing others to give up their faith (or even try to kill the infidels) is inherently Christian, which my examples would contradict

[aneeshm]

First - I cannot support the Hindu nationalist parties , as they advocate making Hinduism the state religion ( which I find to be immoral , as I find all state religions immoral ) .

I do , however , share some of their ideals - one of them being a honest approach to history ( where no attempt is made to put the gloss of tolerance on the barbarity of Islam , or whitewash atrocities committed in India ) , and another being the revival of pride in the idea of being a Hindu ( a Hindu being defined as a way of life , and not necessarily a belief in a certain ideology or theology . It is perfectly permissible , for instance , to be an atheist and still be a Hindu ) .

Another idea that I want implemented is secularism - where two communities are free to criticise eachj other as they see fit , and the majority does not bend over backwards so as not to "hurt the sentiments" of the minority . You can curse us , we can curse you . That's equality .

I do not think modernity poses any problems to Hinduism ( as defined by me ) , as it does for other religions .

As for abuses in India - the most recent example is that of some missionaries who went to a village just after the tsunami , with trucks loaded with food an medical supplies , and asked the inhabitants to convert before they got any of the supplies . When the inhabitants refused , the whole lot shifted to another village . They were perfectly within their rights to do so , but that does not make it any less barbaric . What follows is the text of an article about this :

Tsunami - An Opportunity To Convert

Whilst much of the aid coming from around the world is purely humanitarian and unconditional, many aid workers have been alarmed at how some of the American aid is being channelled through missionary organisations like Southern Baptists' International Mission Board, WorldHelp, Samaritan's Purse, and Gospel for Asia, which see the tsunami as a rare opportunity to make converts in hard-to-reach areas. InterAction, the largest alliance of U.S. based ngo organizations, reports that of its 55 member agencies providing tsunami aid, 22 are faith-based.

In Krabi, Thailand, a Southern Baptist church had been "praying for a way to make inroads" with a particular ethnic group of fishermen without much success, according to Southern Baptist relief coordinator Pat Julian. Then came the tsunami, "a phenomenal opportunity" to provide ministry and care, Julian told the Baptist Press news service,[9] and added "We need to get past the death toll and get focused on the living -- because that's where our ministry is going to be."[12]

Samaritan's Purse, which is approved by the White House as a humanitarian organization for tsunami relief donations, are working with an American missionary Pastor Dayalan Sanders who has set up base in Sri Lanka, giving him "an opportunity to reach out to his neighbors, mostly Hindus". Head of Samaritan's Purse, Franklin Graham who considers Hindus as being "bound by Satan's power" and Islam as "a very wicked and evil religion" explains "We've come to help in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ."[11]


A 3 year old Sri Lankan tsunami survivor, Salomia, whose parents are not to be found, holds a broken doll sitting atop a broken wall of her destroyed tsunami-house in the town of Kalmunai on Sri Lanka's east coast. Little does she know that she is the prime target of ravaging missionary gangs operating in the area.

One missionary interviewed by the Telegraph newspaper[13], who didn't want his surname revealed, was candid about why he was in Banda Aceh (Indonesia):

"I'm not here to do relief work," said John. His calling was missionary work, he admitted. "They are looking for answers," he said of the disaster victims, whom he described as particularly good candidates for conversion.

"Now we are befriending them, giving them food aid, clothes and stuff. We need to make friends with them first rather than telling them the concept of salvation. Long term that's where we are heading towards, to save their souls."


Sponsor A Missionary

"This (disaster) is one of the greatest opportunities God has given us to share his love with people," said K.P. Yohannan, president of the Texas-based Gospel for Asia.

Their activity in the tsunami hit area of Tamil Nadu (India) have drawn sharp criticism from local officials. In Akkaraipettai, Gospel for Asia and Believers Church have set up an orphanage without the knowledge of the government, said Suriyakala, the district's social welfare officer. 108 children, mainly Hindus have been taken to the orphanage and are told to recite Christian prayers six times a day. "As soon as we get up, we pray," said a 13 year old Hindu child Rajavalli. The church officials claim "We did not take the children", but recruited them from the relief camps. They also denied giving out Bibles in the relief camps and villages even though they were caught giving out Tamil-language Bibles to the refugees.[20]

Gospel for Asia is seeking to train and send 100,000 native missionaries into the most unreached areas of Asia. Their website boasts of planting over 10 churches every day.


Mug shots of missionaries you can sponsor from their web site

They run a "sponsor a missionary" scheme where $30 a month buys an indigenous missionary working covertly among non-Christian communities. The FAQ for sponsors states that a sponsored missionaries cannot receive letters from their sponsor as that might blow their cover:

"native missionaries must not be viewed as working for a foreign agency, as this could severely hinder their work among the non-Christian communities"[2].

Gospel for Asia has set up a special ministry to convert Muslims. They offer specific training for working among Muslims, and provide radio broadcasts in Bengali, Dari and Pashto - targeting the Muslims of India, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.[3]

More about forced conversions going on even now :

Alleged assault on boys for refusing to convert
The Times of India News Service

BHOPAL: Parents of nine Dalit and OBC school-going children aged between seven and 10 have registered a case with the police in Rajgarh against a priest, Father Abraham, on the charge of repeatedly assaulting their wards and denying them meals following their refusal to convert to the Christian faith.

The priest has been absconding since Monday after the complaint was lodged with the Rajgarh police station. Also on the run with the priest is 10-year-old Vikram (a resident of Jhabua) who had reportedly acquiesced to the conversion.

Seven of the children were brought to Bhopal by a former BJP MLA from Rajgarh and produced before journalists on Thursday. The news has caused a furore in local political circles since Rajgarh happens to be the home district of the chief minister.

One of the children, nine-year-old Banne Singh told The Times of India News Service that he and his friends lived in a convent run by a local church at Rajgarh but studied in a neighbouring government school. Displaying mostly dry wounds around his knuckles and waist, he alleged, ``Father ne humko ravivar ko bet ki chadi se maara (Father beat us with a cane on Sunday)'' upon which he complained to ``Papa and Mummy''.

His friend Kamal, standing next, alleged that the priest used to invariably summon him inside the church when nobody was around and hand out threats and slaps for refusing to accept Jesus Christ (not Hanuman) as their Lord and saviour. Kamal said he was beaten up on Saturday.

Kamal's father Jagannath Singh, a farm hand at a nearby village, alleged that it was only after they narrated the woes of their wards to the government school authorities that the matter was brought to the notice of the SP of Rajgarh. The SP, in turn, ordered on Tuesday that the children be immediately shifted to a sarkari (government) boarding house.

Jagannath alleged that photos of Hindu Gods in the possession of his son were torn to pieces by the priest.

Tracing the history of his interaction with the local church authorities, Jagannath Singh said he first came in touch with the priest when he began doing odd jobs for Abraham's predecessor some two years ago. When the latter came to know that Kamal was studying at a government school, he extended him the facility of letting the son stay at the convent-run boarding (which now has 29 children).

He alleged that the regular beating up of children only began after Abraham came on the scene some 10-12 months ago. ``He used to tell the children that the beatings would stop and that they would get lovely things to eat and wear if they began loving Jesus instead of Hanuman,'' he alleged.

Former BJP MLA Raghunandan Sharma, who escorted the children and their fathers to Bhopal, said it was strange that though the children had been permitted to stay at the convent, none was admitted to the church-run school which was a stone's throw away from the boarding house. He alleged that this was largely because the church did not wish to spoil the ``atmosphere'' of the school by inducting children belonging to the poor families.

This also backs up my later point , about Christian missionary exclusivism in schooling .


The second is the long-tern vilification of everything Indian : An example would be Lord Macaulay , writing about India ( he was the author of the Indian Penal Code , implemented under the British ) :

". . . . the dialects commonly spoken among the natives of this part of India contain neither literary nor scientific information , and are moreover so poor and rude that until they are enriched from some other quarter it will not be easy to translate any valuable work into them . It is , I believe , no exaggeration to say that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books which have been written in the Sanskrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgement used at preparatory schools in England ."

And this guy wasn't even a missionary .

When Swami Vivekanand ( a link to his complete works ) went to represent Hinduism in the world parlianment of religions , Chicago 1893 , he greeted the assembly as "Brothers and sisters of America . . . . " . In return , the missionaries followed him while he was there , and wherever he went , they went sometime later , and tired to discredit him , spreading rumours and lies ( to the extent that they said he conducted human sacrifices ! ) , and in general tried to make his life miserable in America . His primary purpose was to introduce the West to what Hinduism really was , and clear up misconceptions . This was how he was treated .

These are only the most prominent . As for the others - the missionary schools in India still look down upon local culture , language , customs , and traditions , and try to make sure that no sign of Indianness ever penetrates the walls of the school ( as shown above ) .

Want more ? I've got much , much more . And much worse .

[BeBMan]

You missed my point. These examples don't tell much about Christian religion in general. They are telling something about the practical implementation of christinaity or practical behaviour of christian authorities/officials in your country, and indeed they do not sound good. But it isn't even clear to me what kind of Christianity we talk about (Christianity is no monolithic religion - you have the big diversions in catholics, protestants, and greek-orthodox, but "below" these there are lots and lots of small churches which often claim to be the only true christians). Still you simply use these examples to generalize.

That's the same thing some westerners do with muslims at the moment - they pick out certain elements or examples (acts of terror done by muslims) and think that says all muslims are bad or that Islam is generally evil.

It is a bit like saying there was a serial killer in city xy, so all people living there are serial killers.

[Mr. Harley]

aneeshm - yes, I am very interested, but with BeBro's caveat. I am interested in current stories primarily if the country and Christian denomination can be identified, or when the story has enough data that I can Google them to find out. Sadly, I find your first story not surprising in the slightest. Nor is the second story surprising, but was it Catholic or Anglican - I assume one or the other from the term "priest." In defense of those two religions they have both finally abandoned those techniques, but they still linger around the fringes.

edited to change verb I screwed up the last sentence - abandoned vs. adopted

[aneeshm]

Actually , Islam is generally evil ( but Muslims cannot be said to be all bad ) . You need only look to the Quran for proof : The Quran tells the believers to

Originally revealed to Mohammed

kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (Q. 2:191),
to murder them and treat them harshly (Q. 9:123),

slay them (Q. 9: 5),

fight with them, (Q. 8: 65 )

even if they are Christians and Jews, humiliate them and impose on them a penalty tax (Q. 9: 29)

no other religion except Islam is accepted (Q. 3: 85).

relegates those who disbelieve in Quran to hell (Q. 5: 11),

calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (Q. 9: 28).

fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (Q. 2: 193).

the non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water (Q. 14: 17).

slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace and that “they shall have a great punishment in world hereafter” (Q.5: 34).

As for the disbelievers for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowls and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods (Q. 22: 9).

prohibits a Muslim to befriend a non-believer even if that non-believer is the father or the brother of that Muslim (Q. 9: 23), (Q. 3: 28).

strive against the unbelievers with great endeavor (Q. 25: 52),

be stern with them because they belong to hell (Q. 66: 9).

“strike off the heads of the disbelievers”; then after making a “wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives” (Q. 47: 4).

for women they are inferior to men and their husbands have the right to scourge them if they are found disobedient (Q. 4:34).

women will go to hell if they are disobedient to their husbands (Q. 66:10).

men have an advantage over the women (Q. 2:228).

denies the women's equal right to their inheritance (Q. 4:11-12),

it also regards them as imbeciles and decrees that their witness is not admissible in the court (Q. 2:282).

This means that a woman who is raped cannot accuse her rapist unless she can produce a male witness. Muhammad allowed the Muslims to marry up to four views and gave them license to sleep with their slave maids and as many “captive” women as they may have (Q. 4:3).

Anything else that I've missed ?







As for the original point : I do not generalise abour Christianity , only about the Christians who came here to preach ( and those who were representatives of Christianity at the world parlianment ) - those who are expected to be the concretisation of the ideology they preach .

Of course I do not consider Christianity monolithic - a religion that size will have to have some disagreements . But the ultimate goal of every sect is to convert everyone to their sect - which I find abhorrent ( as I find any religion whose sole aim is world domination to be immoral ) .

[Atahualpa]

None of the afterlife's I find particularly interesting. In the christian heaven you sing all day with god himself and fly around in cosy clouds. You have wings, but lack the balls. Great.

In the islamic afterlife you get lots of virgins and while this seems good at first (at least for the males among us).. just think of it... a virgin is no longer a virgin if you bang her. That means you get lots of virgins but no sex, you're running around horny every day with no possibility for relief. What more horrible scenario can you think of?

In buddhistic you get born again and again... noooo I don't want again.... SURE!! You'll become a sheep this time! Noooo.... What a pointless life when you get back again, but can't remember anything you've done before... if you could at least build on that, but no... senseless.

The church around utah says you'll be happy in heaven, because you know everything and have the experience from your fleshly life on earth... that's great, you're happy but bored. What more is there when you know EVERYTHING!?!?!! All we'd do, would be to try and drown in alcohol, to at least forget some of it... but then alcohol is not allowed... argh!

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Actually , Islam is generally evil ( but Muslims cannot be said to be all bad ) . You need only look to the Quran for proof : The Quran tells the believers to



Anything else that I've missed ?

Yes, the fact that a modern view on religions means not to interpret a holy book only in the literal sense, but to view it in its historical context. The fact that unfortunately a certain part of the muslims still take the Quran literally I don't like either, but therefore we criticize most of them rightfully for being fundamentalists

That doesn't mean that their interpretation is the "true" Islam. Like most sane people here don't think some stupid fundy TV preachers stand for "true" Christianity.