Clash of Civilizations!!

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mark Milan:
Conversely, what should I avoid?

Apparently anything outside superficial conversation, like "Some weather we're having."
[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <Anand>:
Few of the
converted people who tried to go for fishing were attacked by the other
villagers. Their boats were attacked and burnt down....

Assuming the source is on the level, when you get this type of thing happening, the problem is a cultural one. You would think after ~3000 years of civilization there would be some amount of advancement and these types of things wouldn't happen.
[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[R K Singh]

And I was thinking that its over now....
I know some people when they dont have anything to say more, they start using preaching language OR talk something which has nothing to do with current session but makes other outrage OR they use abusive language.
Two things have been said and done.
Let us wait for third one, abusive language.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
that is also without conversion and in that age when there WAS castesism.

By reading your news, such as what rahul rege posted, it seems that casteism is alive and well, even if only unofficially.

And I have felt you are very much talk like BSP guys, who have done nothing but only spread hatred among everyone.

By disagreeing with you he is spreading hatred? If anyone seems to be spreading and perpetuating hatred it would be those who champion religious and other forms of intolerance.

Use your own mind if you have one.

Is that all you can do is insult people? I guess when the only arguments one has are paper thin it is diverting to make an issue of the poster instead of his argument. However back to the meat of the statement at hand. Why are you insisting here that he must use his own mind and on the other hand insisting that one cannot use their own mind to determine which religion that one would like to choose for themselves, particularly if that religion is not Hinduism? Is free choice and "use of one's own mind" conditional on whether or not the choices or conclusions reached agree with your own?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I received some unsolicited mail from a religious institution yesterday, which made me think of this conversation. It included several pamphlets, many of which were describing their particular flavor of religion. They were telling me how I would be "saved" by accepting their saviour as Lord, and how those who don't accept Him will likely burn in Hell. They also made sure to mention the evil that is perpetrated through our upcoming Halloween celebrations. It's possible they will be going door-to-door to try to talk with people face-to-face.
I received this unsolicited mail, as did all my neighbors. Some of my neighbors are Protestants, some are Catholics, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Buddhists, some are aetheists or agnostics, and probably some others are religions that I haven't even thought of (it's none of my busniess and I don't care). Now I know the majority of us don't particularly appreciate such mailings, even finding them somewhat offensive in some cases, and are generally hostile to the purposes for which they are sent out. Many are probably even more unhappy with the idea of someone knocking on their door trying to sell them a new religion.
So if I understand what some of our enlightened friends have been saying there are several problems here.
For one, any successful conversions that result from such communications would be "forced", since they explicitly informed us of the rewards for joining their religion, and the potential penalties for rejecting it. Do you agree with this interpretation?
Second, as these forms of communications are deemed offensive by most of us, it should not be within their rights to communicate with us in such a matter since it is not protected speech. Since we find their message offensive and it might "hurt our feelings", plus the fact they are in essence telling us that our religion may be wrong or "less correct", they should not have the right to such speeh. Is this correct?
Third, since the people here would be somewhat hostile to their coming in our neighborhood and going door-to-door, plus the fact that through experience they likely know they often get a negative response from people, anything that may happen to them is their own fault, or at least they should have known better. Do you agree?
Fourth, let's assmue the majority of people in my neighborhood are Catholic. As you doubtless know through your extensive Western educations, Catholics have a very rich heritage and culture. There is a possibility that some here may resent the fact that another religion is coming in here trying to turn people away from the one true Church. We would see it as a threat to our Catholic culture. In fact, I have no doubt that anyone who did convert would have only converted because they have been duped by these people and their promises. Why else would they? We've all seen these tactics before and know they are dishonest. So therefore, it should be up to the rest of us to protect our culture and save our neighbors from making what the rest of us know is a bad choice, correct?

I suppose I should not hold my breath waiting for a response from either of you guys, Pranav, Ravish or any of the others? You people were claiming that neither Thomas nor I were answering your questions, and while I believe we had, the same cannot be said of you regarding answering questions posed to you.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
[QB][/QB]

My Dear Jaosn,
1. FYI, casteism exist in India only officialy, so that political parties can play their caste card. But in reality its moving towards oblivion.
2. May I know what do you know about BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party)?
If you know then really your knowlegde base is great. I have given ful-form, now you can search and know more abt BSP.
Is that all you can do is insult people?
This is very posh way of insulting. I can go down to the level, you cant think of.
Now again to elaborate the NEWS he has given:
The conversion was taking place not because of faith in Islam. Its just that they are shown that there is no casteism in Islam. I know Indians muslims have casteism.(you can ask any Indian muslim here. If he is not agree then I will tell the caste of Inidan Muslims. FYI, from class 3rd I have spent more time at my musllim friends home than mine.)
Indian Christians have casetism.(search Matrimonial in any Indian news papaer for Chriatian wanted groom/bride)
And in the news, itself very good point is given, I think you missed it to read.
How will conversions change our daily existence?
This is truth, conversion cant give them what they are promised before conversion.(let us say, good life.)
Missionaries try to fulfill their promise upto some extend by giving money.(as I said earlier, its all about Rich Vs Poor)
And I have said that conversion wont help you, if they are converting for illusion of better life. For better life ine has to work hard.
Again, I think, you did not read my reply OR you avoided it as usual.
If you want to pass an exam then you have to study, changing college wont help you in passing exam.
It means that you have to work hard & smart to get better life.
What do I remember that you have accepted that you could not understand our complex society.
How can you talk about thing which you dont understand.

[R K Singh]

I read it, and did not find anything to reply but as want reply I will try to give.
For one, any successful conversions that result from such communications would be "forced", since they explicitly informed us of the rewards for joining their religion, and the potential penalties for rejecting it. Do you agree with this interpretation?
If you think that its a FORCED, then as per you it might be. Not for me.
Second, as these forms of communications are deemed offensive by most of us, it should not be within their rights to communicate with us in such a matter since it is not protected speech. Since we find their message offensive and it might "hurt our feelings", plus the fact they are in essence telling us that our religion may be wrong or "less correct", they should not have the right to such speeh. Is this correct?
Everyone has right to say that *my Mom is best.* But I have not been taught or I have not listen till now that someone is saying that my Mom is better than yours. My question is to you now. Is this correct to compare two uncomparable things.
Do you think, its correct to say that my Mom is better than yours??
If your answer is YES, then I am sure it is because of the way you are brought up in your society. And its not that your soceity is bad. With the current time and considering lot of other factors, your society is also best as per their gepgraphical location.
Third, since the people here would be somewhat hostile to their coming in our neighborhood and going door-to-door, plus the fact that through experience they likely know they often get a negative response from people, anything that may happen to them is their own fault, or at least they should have known better. Do you agree?
When I salesman knocks a door, he is trained to face the worst and stil smiling and promote its product. I have seen one door to door salesman training programme. So he is ready for negetive responses.
I am not clear, what do you want to say.
To short it, if someone shoots him for knocking the door, its bad., but closing door on his face, I dont think is bad.
Fourth, .......So therefore, it should be up to the rest of us to protect our culture and save our neighbors from making what the rest of us know is a bad choice, correct?
Yes, you also have a right to protect your society. When you can give fund to spread it and then you can also collect fund to save it.
Here also I am not clear what do you want to say??
If you want to say that you want to kill the guy who has sent you a mail, then PLEASE dont do it. Its bad.
Please Jason, I am tired with playing words.
Everyone has accepted it that you are great in playing words.
You have got best argument.
But this time your lack of knowledege about India could not support any of your argument. As you dont know the facts.
and Now free trip to India offer is also over
AW I think I have accpeted it earlier also this time also I accept that you are great guy with lot of knowledge. Please interpret/use that knowledge in constructive work.
And I can understand, from other side you are right. But here its wrong.
There is diffrence in thinking, the way we are brought up. THe people who are near by us. Everything is different. You might be right at your place. BUT I am also right at my place.
I wish I have answered your all questions.
You are free to reply each line, by making it bold and your answer in normal text.

[Mark Milan]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

My Dear Jaosn,
1. FYI, casteism exist in India only officialy, so that political parties can play their caste card. But in reality its moving towards oblivion.
2. May I know what do you know about BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party)?
If you know then really your knowlegde base is great. I have given ful-form, now you can search and know more abt BSP.
Is that all you can do is insult people?
This is very posh way of insulting. I can go down to the level, you cant think of.
Now again to elaborate the NEWS he has given:
The conversion was taking place not because of faith in Islam. Its just that they are shown that there is no casteism in Islam. I know Indians muslims have casteism.(you can ask any Indian muslim here. If he is not agree then I will tell the caste of Inidan Muslims. FYI, from class 3rd I have spent more time at my musllim friends home than mine.)
Indian Christians have casetism.(search Matrimonial in any Indian news papaer for Chriatian wanted groom/bride)
And in the news, itself very good point is given, I think you missed it to read.
How will conversions change our daily existence?
This is truth, conversion cant give them what they are promised before conversion.(let us say, good life.)
Missionaries try to fulfill their promise upto some extend by giving money.(as I said earlier, its all about Rich Vs Poor)
And I have said that conversion wont help you, if they are converting for illusion of better life. For better life ine has to work hard.
Again, I think, you did not read my reply OR you avoided it as usual.
If you want to pass an exam then you have to study, changing college wont help you in passing exam.
It means that you have to work hard & smart to get better life.
What do I remember that you have accepted that you could not understand our complex society.
How can you talk about thing which you dont understand.

Ravish;
I think you have to accept that your definition of a better life is diferrent from mine, or from the Dalits in the article. It would seem that your idea of a better life is attained through education and hard work, (though I don't want to make any assumptions). There's nothing wrong with that - I try and instill those values in my children. And while you may have more of an insight than we do into what the Dalit's definition of a "better life" is, it seems to me that no amount of hard work and education on their part will change the attitudes of the people around them. It's the people around them that are interfering with a "better life" by making their lives a living hell - removing the fear of lynching would go a long way towards making a "better life".
At the risk of turning the topic to religion, I would also add that some religions ask us to define (or re-define) our priorities. Your definition of a "better life" would not be the same as that as someone who now sees that he must renounce all worldly possesions.
I thought the point of the conversion (in this article you are discussing) was a protest to the lynching of 5 Dalits. I don't see that they were promised anything for converting, as you seem to imply. I percieve the quote of "how will the conversions change our daily existence" as a statement to the futility of the protest (their conversion).

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

What else is a democracy if not agreement of majority? Who are "we" - another democracy? Why do you think one democracy knows better than another democracy?

One democracy cannot be better than another, by our own declaration:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
One democracy cannot be better than another, by our own declaration:

There is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. That is the reason we have the Bill of Rights. No democracy can violate the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So yes, one democracy can be better than another.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Pranav Jaidka:
Thomas Paul : You just defeated the purpose of your argument all along . And yeah after this post you should not post in this thread at all. Have a great Life in your country .

Shameless TP

[Pranav Jaidka]

Jason I can say nothing more than has already been said. And the reason you did not get answers to your questions earlier was because most people would have thought those 'Questions' to be a conclusion to the arguments you presented before.
For you "Force" means physical force. For me it means anything done to put pressure on the other person to break him into submission..... For example a demand for Ransom by kidnappers also amounts to Force . Often times this kind of 'Force' is taken as a threat to society because the motives are unclear and selfish. As another Example :-
US imposes Sanctions on India/Pakistan . That is force ....However the US removes Sanctions on Pakistan and India in return for support for forces in afghanistan .... Pakistan attains economic relief and decides to help the US knowing that it would cause unrest among its own people. Under No Circumstances would a Pro Taliban govt make such a complete turnaround on its policies unless it was under pressure to
Also there is probably been some mismatch in what we are arguing for ..........I have always argued for the methods of conversion being wrong(I posted earlier too that my belief of a fair conversion would be education about the religion and then leavign the choice to the possible convert). You have always argued that the end result is wrong.
All im trying to say is that it can all be avoided in India. But since India is a very volatile society (which more often than not lives in peace) where a few misguided individuals can blow an incident out of proportion .You and Thomas 'may ' not know the true picture of whats going on . It boils down a million other issues like Media coverage in the West . One such indident in india is blown out of proportion in the West because of the "SHOCK VALUE " of the News. As another Example here what the Sniper episode resulted in .
NewsMan to Guest at Studio: Sir do you know this Sniper converted to Islam 17 years ago.
Guest: Yes I do.
Newsman : Do you think this has anything to do with the killing spree.
Guest : No I dont .Its unfair to equate these two together.
Newsman : But thats impossible .How is it possible that he was quiet for 17 years and suddenly a year after September 11th he starts with this .
(And before you know it they have to go on a short break)
Thoughts can be planted Jason. People can be made to "think" in a certain way. You and I are perfect examples. Both stand firm to their beliefs.
This may seem out of context to you . But if you think about the American Psyche it makes sense in this discussion too. Most often people will not get the complet picture and jump to a conclusion based on what they see or hear.
Some other people decide never to step foot out of their country.(Reminds me of a story of a frog in the well )

Hope Im making sense because frankly im getting tired of this discussion and would seriously want this thread closed.
[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Pranav Jaidka ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Pranav Jaidka:
And the reason you did not get answers to your questions earlier was because most people would have thought those 'Questions' to be a conclusion to the arguments you presented before.

Actually it was attempting to draw an analogy and to try to verify whether or not I am getting the basic gist of what you are saying. By restating your beliefs in a somewhat analogous situation I was seeking understanding on some level.

For you "Force" means physical force.

Not at all. As you say there are several types of force. It seems though that you are saying that persuasion of any type equals force, at least when it comes to conversions. Persuasion does not equal coercion however. Is the only legitimate way for someone to convert if they seek out information on the religion totaly on their own free from any suggestion whatsoever? And even if the person sought out information on the religion on his own, and then chose to question a priest about the religion and the priest told him about all that God promises, would that then be a "forced" conversion?

It boils down a million other issues like Media coverage in the West . One such indident in india is blown out of proportion in the West because of the "SHOCK VALUE " of the News.

As you well know there is very little media coverage here of events in India, unless there is something exceptional that has occured. Would you say Western media coverage of the events in Gujarat was blown out of proportion?

As another Example here what the Sniper episode resulted in
...
Newsman : Do you think this has anything to do with the killing spree.
...

I do not think most people would reach this conclusion. I believe most people would say that the events aren't linked. (Although personally I think it is high time that Muslim scholars take an introspective look and see what if anything there is in Islam that allows it to be twisted and used to fuel hate on such an widespread level. It may be fast approaching the time when non-Muslims on a large scale may begin to draw the conclusion that Islam itself is somehow a threat to peace, and such a widespread conclusion would only cause more problems.)

Some other people decide never to step foot out of their country.(Reminds me of a story of a frog in the well )

Hmmm... I certainly hope this isn't a reference to me.

Hope Im making sense because frankly im getting tired of this discussion and would seriously want this thread closed.

Funny thing about freedom of speech is that people can discuss pretty much whatever they like regardless of how you or I feel about the topic. Nor would either of us seek to deny others the right to hold such conversations, would we? As we do have freedom of choice, our choice is simple, avoid such conversations if we are tired of them.

[Anonymous]

If I may ask, Jason, what is your point?

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

There is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. That is the reason we have the Bill of Rights. No democracy can violate the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So yes, one democracy can be better than another.

There seems to be some logic in between the lines you're relying on, but I'm not sure what it is.

[Anonymous]

{
Is the only legitimate way for someone to convert if they seek out information on the religion totaly on their own free from any suggestion whatsoever? And even if the person sought out information on the religion on his own, and then chose to question a priest about the religion and the priest told him about all that God promises, would that then be a "forced" conversion?
}
Nope that wouldnt be a forced conversion. People convert all the time in India. Some for political reasons , some to make a statement, and some others for valid reasons.
For instance a popular musician in India(Rehman) converted to Islam,and nobody is asking him to convert back. Similarly the Indian president is a Muslim and he is happy with his religion.By the way you cannot actually convert into Hinduism, so I dont understand what the VHP types are asking for.
What many of us are against is the scheming,organised conversion activities of foreign funded missionaries.

[Anonymous]

{
There is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. That is the reason we have the Bill of Rights. No democracy can violate the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So yes, one democracy can be better than another.
}
I know a de'mock'racy which does not want to abide by the UN security council resolutions.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <slacker>:
I know a de'mock'racy which does not want to abide by the UN security council resolutions.

ROFL! What Thomas mentioned isn't a UN security council resolution. LOL.
At first I thought you meant the US, but since there is no security council resolutions we aren't abiding by, I knew that wasn't the case. But maybe the "de'mock'racy' you're speaking of is India regarding UN resolutions concerning nuclear weapons and production of fissile material?
Although if I were India I wouldn't abide by the UN resolutions anyway. The UN is a farce. I seriously don't know why we even bother with the League of Nations, excuse me, United Nations.

[Pranav Jaidka]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
[QB]
Although personally I think it is high time that Muslim scholars take an introspective look and see what if anything there is in Islam that allows it to be twisted and used to fuel hate on such an widespread level.
It may be fast approaching the time when non-Muslims on a large scale may begin to draw the conclusion that Islam itself is somehow a threat to peace, and such a widespread conclusion would only cause more problems
QB]

Now Jason is it possible that can happen with another religion . For Example Christianity in India ??
Is it possible that Non Chrisitians(Hindus in this case) start taking Christianity as a threat because of the methods used. Not that it matters because India has had over 500 years of foreign rule and is still 85% Hindu......surprising right??

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Pranav Jaidka:
Now Jason is it possible that can happen with another religion . For Example Christianity in India ??
Is it possible that Non Chrisitians(Hindus in this case) start taking Christianity as a threat because of the methods used.

Get back to me when airplanes start dropping on your major cities. Get back to me when the Christians there express their desire to wipe out every Hindu in the country and show that they are willing to carry it through and posess the resources to start making good on those threats. Get back to me when Christians start killing Hindus all over the world in the name of Christianity.
People can view absolutely anything they'd like as a threat. There is however a difference between a credible threat and a less than credible threat.
At least now you admit you view conversion as a threat to your culture and identity, and no longer profess to be looking after the best interests of the disenfranchised.

[Anonymous]

{
ROFL! What Thomas mentioned isn't a UN security council resolution. LOL.
}
Ok so now you want to pick. You dont like the UN and dont want to follow its orders, but you still want to preach about the UN declaration of hman rights. LOL

[Pranav Jaidka]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Get back to me when airplanes start dropping on your major cities. Get back to me when the Christians there express their desire to wipe out every Hindu in the country and show that they are willing to carry it through and posess the resources to start making good on those threats. Get back to me when Christians start killing Hindus all over the world in the name of Christianity.
People can view absolutely anything they'd like as a threat. There is however a difference between a credible threat and a less than credible threat.
At least now you admit you view conversion as a threat to your culture and identity, and no longer profess to be looking after the best interests of the disenfranchised.

Jason you missed it when I said that inspite of 500 years of foreign rule we are still 85% Hindu . However ,yes some people may perceive this as a threat.Im not denying that .
Yes Sir there is a difference between a less credible threat and a more credible one. Maybe its more credible in the US .
Wasnt your post a confession that inspite of the problems in India we still dont have people trying to bomb us with airplanes and try to kill Hindus all over . At least you confess that people are finding problems with Americans and are trying to bomb the hell out of the Christians in US ??? In that case you should worry about atrocities on Christians in the US first .
Also would that not mean that India is still more tolerant and outsiders are more tolerant to what happens in India than in the US ???
Would that not mean that the Indian democracy works better than the US democracy ??
What does that mean Jason ?? What does it mean?? Does that mean Hindus are at fault for what happens in India and Muslims are at fault for what happens in US ?? And the Christians are just being suppressed and tormented in countries where they are in Minority and also where they are in Majority !!
[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Pranav Jaidka ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Pranav Jaidka:
Jason you missed it when I said that inspite of 500 years of foreign rule we are still 85% Hindu .

I didn't miss it. In fact it's been repeated nearly a dozen times. I just fail to see any significance to the fact.

Wasnt your post a confession that inspite of the problems in India we still dont have people trying to bomb us with airplanes and try to kill Hindus all over .

No, it wasn't a confession of the above. I do believe you have your own terrorist problem though. A bit worse than ours actually.

At least you confess that people are finding problems with Americans and are trying to bomb the hell out of the Christians in US ??? In that case you should worry about atrocities on Christians in the US first .

We are a secular nation. We do not view attacks against the US as attacks on "Christianity". As for people finding problems with us, and not India, that is only natural. One country is a major first world power heavily involved in international affairs, the other is a rather insignificant player on the international scene, albeit one that is so enamoured with their shiny new nuclear toys that they like to live on the edge of nuclear holocaust.

Also would that not mean that India is still more tolerant and outsiders are more tolerant to what happens in India than in the US ???

I doubt it. What is there to indicate that we are not tolerant with outsiders? We only host the largest immigrant population in the world, with some of the least strict immigration laws you will find anywhere.

Would that not mean that the Indian democracy works better than the US democracy ??

You are correct, that would not mean that.
However yet again you digress. You seem intent on comparing India to the US, which is not the topic of conversation. I believe the outcry on the part of the westerners here was over extremist viewpoints that many of you hold which we find.. I'll be nice and say there is some level of disagreement... and also over your apparent lack of regard for basic human rights (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc...)in some cases. While some of the westerners here have implied that they do not believe that human rights are universal, others aren't even slightly interested in paper thin excuses for violations of these basic rights. The particular religion we are discussing is immaterial, it still boils down to extremism and respect for the rights of individuals.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <slacker>:
{
ROFL! What Thomas mentioned isn't a UN security council resolution. LOL.
}
Ok so now you want to pick. You dont like the UN and dont want to follow its orders, but you still want to preach about the UN declaration of hman rights. LOL

Look at the name that posted about the UN declaration of human rights, and you will see it wasn't me, so your claim that I "still want to preach about the UN declaration of human rights" is wrong. I do not preach about any document generated in the UN. Any document generated by the UN is sure to be a compromise, and therefore of little worth as any kind of model, imho.

[Pranav Jaidka]

Originally posted by Pranav Jaidka

Would that not mean that the Indian democracy works better than the US democracy ??

Originally posted by Jason Menard

You are correct, that would not mean that.

That wasnt a statement Jason. It was a question . Your english needs improvement(In English anything that ends in the sign '?' is considered a question not a statement !!!).So Im assuming that youre kind of confused about what people are trying to tell you .
:roll:
[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Pranav Jaidka ]

[Pranav Jaidka]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I just fail to see any significance to the fact.

I know Jason.

[Mapraputa Is]

If this thread ever had any purpose other than to exchange "you @#$%^!", "no, you @#$%^!", this purpose seems to be lost by now.