Thou shalt go out and convert
From an article in UK’s Daily Mail today:
The Church of England was accused by one of its most senior bishops yesterday of failing in its duty to convert British Muslims to Christianity.
…The Pakistani-born bishop…was echoing concerns that many Church leaders are abandoning attempts to spread Christianity among Muslims out of fear of a backlash.
The bit that I found most interesting was this:
Synod member Paul Eddy…said that the active recruitment of non-believers and adherents of other faiths had always been a Biblical injunction on Christians, commanded by Christ himself.
But he claimed that many bishops were downplaying the missionary role of the Church and official documents often glossed over the requirement to convert Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs or followers of other religions.
I think this “officially” answers the question I had raised in an earlier post wondering why Christian missionaries appeared to be targetting India?
The article went on to reveal that “…numbers attending mosque on Fridays will overtake those going to church on Sundays by 2050″ and an estimated “50,000 Britons had converted from Christianity to Islam over the past decade, while the number of Muslims becoming Christians was negligible.”
I wonder though whether Muslims are “allowed” to change their religion (see: Can Muslims change their religion?). As a commentator on Daily Mail’s website has pointed out, the punishment for apostacy in Islam is death.
The problem of course is that with everyone going around claiming that they are the sole purveyors of “truth” the stage is ripe for conflict.
Does anyone need more convincing why Sanatan Dharma may offer the best “model” for any faith and.or religion and why Hinduism may be key to an inclusive, peaceful, liberal and tolerant culture in the 21st century?
.
Related Posts:
Of “Monkey Gods” and “Elephant Heads”…
Christian Aggression in Cauvery Layout?
Excerpts from “The Dangers of Monotheism…”
“Why have Missionaries chosen to attack India?”
and finally, Francois Gautier on Conversions…
“‘Does anyone need more convincing why Sanatan Dharma may offer the best “model” for any faith and.or religion”
Ummmm, Shantanu, don’t you think that you have fallen into the same trap as the evangelists …….. my religion bestest, etc?
Cheers
Comment by Patriot | May 27, 2008
Patriot: Good point…Pl. allow me to clarify.
The BIGGEST difference between Sanatan Dharma (as I understand it - or at least believe it to be) is that it does not claim to be the sole route to truth/enlightenment or does not lay an exclusive claim on your beliefs, thoughts and values.
It is - in that sense - inclusive, liberal, tolerant, accommodating, not only that but even respectful - of other “paths” to truth.
In that sense, it does not claim to be the “best” of any other faiths or belief systems…Neither do I claim it to be the best..
What I said was (with added emphasis):
I deliberately avoided saying:
“…Sanatan Dharma is the best religion/faith of all..”
That would have been falling in the same trap, I think
Comment by B Shantanu | May 27, 2008
..Also don’t forget that Sanatan Dharma does not advocate killing for belief (this is a corollary to SD not laying out *the* one path to be followed. But it needs to be mentioned and emphasised to people).
Killing/humiliating/looting/confiscating property/carrying off booty–raping —— all under direct orders from their “God” : all these are a part of the “law” that is “laid down” under Christianity and Islam. It is in the original texts and written out in no uncertain language.
Also, SD is big on arguing your position and challenging others over the soundness of their scriptural interpretation. Disputing the scripture is a no-no in Christianity and Islam.
Comment by Ashish | May 27, 2008
*** COMMENT COMBINED ***
So, do you not have to be tolerant of all those who do not follow Sanatana Dharma ….. instead of saying it is (may is a cop out) the best model around.
Islam says the same thing
As does Roman Catholicism
Judaism probably just does not care if you are not born a jew
So, actually, I do think, Shantanu, both you and Ashish do fall into the same trap ….. of saying my religion is better (forget the reasons why you claim to be better, others also have reasons).
If there is some thin line that you are drawing, I really fail to see it …. i can only see semantics.
Cheers
***
“”Does anyone need more convincing why Sanatan Dharma may offer the best “model” for any faith and/or religion…””
Isn’t the first part of this statement any assertion (in a question form) that no should require any convincing, etc ……
I am sure that the Muslims/Christians/Jews/centipede-worshippers do not see it in the same light as you ……
Also, if Sanatana Dharma says there are multiple paths to god, then we do we abuse the muslim/christian faith on this blog or anywhere else for that matter? Aren’t they all sanatana dharmis, after all, and your co-religionists? Maybe, you guys are not Sanatana Dharmists, in that case?
Heh!
Cheers
Comment by Patriot | May 28, 2008
@ Patriot: A hurried response…
You said: “…then we (why?) do we abuse the muslim/christian faith on this blog or anywhere else for that matter…”
That is a little extreme…I take great care when I write about these things…
As far as I can remember (and my memory is not perfect, so I may be wrong), I do not believe I have - at any time - “abused” any faith on this blog or in my writings…
I may have condemned some of their practices but *abuse* is a pretty strong word…
Comment by B Shantanu | May 28, 2008
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2007/1-3/media/ht_2007-01-01_proselytization.shtml
Please watch this video carefully till end. some excerpts may seem similar to other videos on prosyletization but this is different.
Comment by Indian | May 29, 2008
Well, Shantanu, one man’s condemnation is another man’s abuse! And, while you have generally been careful about how you write, the same can not be said for many others who post on this blog.
I have no issues about abusing religion ….. I think it deserves all the abuse that it gets ….. but you can not abuse another religion and then say my religion is so tolerant!!
Here is a movie recommendation for everyone on this site, especially the conservative, religious types: Dharm.
Do watch it, Pankaj Kapoor is excellent, as always, and while the movie is a bit of an allegory, it raises interesting questions.
Cheers
Comment by Patriot | May 30, 2008
Dear Shantanu
Re: your comment: “Hinduism may be key to an inclusive, peaceful, liberal and tolerant culture in the 21st century?”, I’ve got a few comments.
I am currently analysing the history of all major religions, briefly, for my 2nd book, in relation to tolerance. I find that most religions are fully compatible with liberty and tolerance, and also fully compatible with intolerance.
I do agree with you that members of various Hindu religions (there is not one but many forms of Hinduism) have generally displayed a lesser penchant to brutalise others, but I note with grave concern that things have been changing since the early 20th century, particularly in the last 20 years, with the rise of the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS. Militant Hinduism (allegedly in self-defence) is now a well established part of Indian life.
Therefore significant intolerance is practiced by some proponents of Hinduism today, evidenced by the destruction of the Babri Masjid. I also note that in communal riots in India, a disproportionately higher number of Muslims are killed by Hindu majority police forces. Do have a read of some documents cited at
http://www.liberalpartyofindia.sabhlokcity.com/communal/faq.html
particularly: http://www.liberalpartyofindia.sabhlokcity.com/communal/riots.html
We also can’t forget that perhaps one of the greatest Hindus ever (in my mind, definitely the greatest Indian), Gandhi, was killed by a fellow-Hindu.
Islam was an extremely tolerant religion for a few hundred years until some fanatics grew out of it in recent centuries. But it still has some excellent leaders (pl. do read Benazir Bhutto’s book, “Reconciliation” to get a perspective from an eminent Muslim lady). Christianity was a particularly intolerant religion till perhaps a couple of hundred years ago, but is now broadly compatible with tolerance and liberalism.
I appreciate where you are coming from, but no religion is perfect, and liberalism implies tolerance.
Tolerance means the complete freedom to preach one’s views. Preaching can mean ‘converting’ . I do not subscribe to any religion, but I will fight for the right of all religions to propagate their message peacefully, even as I refuse to propagate any religion to my children (they are most welcome to adopt best practice from anywhere, including any religion). I propagate, instead, critical thinking and self-reliance to my two children. But I will have no problem if any missionary talks to them. After all, they should be free to decide what is good for their soul (or heart).
Regards
Sanjeev
Comment by Sanjeev Sabhlok | May 30, 2008
One more point.
If there are genuine concerns about the use of improper techniques of conversion or preaching, then I suggest that the leaders of all major religions in India come together and formulate a binding Code of Conduct for Preachers and Missionaries.
Every industry has its own code of conduct and good practice documents. Religions - which are in the business of saving our souls, and claim to be the paragons of morality and truth - should set the lead in ensuring that only the most truthful and non-coercive methods of advocacy are used. No guile and no cheating; no bribes of ANY sort, whether before or after conversion.
If that method (self-regulation) doesn’t work because of lack of buy-in from religions, then I suggest creating a law or regulation to bind all preachers and missionaries to comply with ethical practices during their advocacy. Failure to comply could lead to prosecution and severe penalties including banning of the organisation.
Such a law won’t amount to interference of the state in religion; it will simply be part of the state’s obligation for consumer protection.
Regards
Sanjeev
Comment by Sanjeev Sabhlok | May 30, 2008
Dear Sanjeev,
I am in total accord with your two posts above.
I would nevertheless like to tell you that from my understanding of Vedanta, which doubtlessly is the most ancient and authentic Indian philosophy, Hinduism indeed promotes above all critical thinking and self-reliance which you so much desire for your children. Unlike other religious philosophies which invariably impose a rigid code of conduct under threat of an imaginary hell, Vedanta encourages independent seeking of Truth and then following a code of conduct devised after a deep introspection. This introspection invariably leads to realization of universal brotherhood and Love. I am sure we would all be very proud of this heritage. It has no dispute or confrontation with any other faith or religion. I would happily become a BJP supporter if they truly propagated this philosophy which I could even call Gandhian. This philosophy integrated with liberal politics would bring about a truly Great Noble Indian Nation.
Comment by Suresh | May 30, 2008
Dear Sir,
That is precisely what the secularists want. create a confusion in the minds of the people!
Let us understand that there is no RELIGION known as Hinduism. Hinduism does not exist anywhere in the world, it is a total misnomer.
It is a word bandied about by the prostelysers and the fanatics to destroy a culture in the guise if being very educated.
What the destroyers of the Babri masjid did was not to right a wrong, it was to highlight the destruction of a History replete with lies, lies and only lies.
The destruction of the structure brought to the fore the role of what is known as HINDUTVA and not Hinduism.
There are no isms in the way of life. it has only roles to play. it has no role to play in charging one against the other.
It is what you do and how you place it.
Shantanu Saab, i think you can put it differently.
If the way of life is considered think that will be “ The way of life may be key to an inclusive, peaceful, liberal and tolerant culture in the 21st century?”,
If that is true the question arises why it should not encourage the other formas of RELIGION? That is because a way of life cannot be discriminatory, it lets people live not as a spook from! from! from! from! from! from! from!
It is as the people will it.
The way of life lets you appreciate every other way of life not THE WAY OF LIFE!
Regards,
vck
Comment by v.c.krishnan | May 30, 2008
Sanjeev
Have you seen the video link I have posted above? If you have time please watch it. In the end they have proposed what you are saying in the above post about ethics.
Have anyone seen the video links I have provided?
Jai Hind!
Comment by Indian | May 31, 2008
Thanks, Indian.
I spent 20 minutes, each minute was worthwhile. I encourage everyone to look through this video. The video shows the shameful side of SOME Christian missionary work. I strongly condemn all unethical attempts to convert anyone. I trust that TRUE Christians worldwide will strongly condemn such unethical practices as well, since they claim their religion supports morality. If religion and morality are divorced, then the very basis of their religion (or any religion) collapses.
Having said that, religious services are a kind of business, and it is obligatory for a government to regulate all unethical business practices. True Christians can’t guarantee that some of their brothers wont adopt false practices, just as true Hindus can’t guarantee against the murder of Gandhi or true Muslims can’t guarantee against Osama bin Laden. Evil and fraudulent people will exist in all communities. It is then the job of government to ensure law and order.
There is no doubt in my mind that missionary work must be completely free of all tricks, fraud, opportunistic exploitation of vulnerable people, and bribes. I therefore advocate consumer protection laws be enacted in this area in India with very stringent penalties including long jail terms and bans on evangelical organisations if anyone spreads hate about Hindus or their gods (or for that matter, about any other religion/god), or bribes anyone to convert, or attempts fraudulent faith healing methods, etc. In fact, all suggested recommendations advocated at the end of that video must be made into law in India.
It would also be quite appropriate for the law to require all conversions to go through an independently certified due diligence process. A mandatory registration certificate should be required to be lodged with the government for each conversion, certified by a (privately managed) All Faith Integrity Assurance Body. That would preclude mass conversions of any sort, or conversions of anyone below the age of 18.
India must clampdown on duplicity, hate, fraud, and bribery. These seem to have gone on long enough under the auspices of India’s (relatively) liberal state. A liberal state is not a free-for- all for immoral practices.
Ethics must rule in a liberal state, along with tolerance and freedom of belief. I strongly advocate the right to preach, but equally, I insist that this right is restricted to preach which is conducted ***ethically***. Freedom comes with accountability (and that includes ethical practice). Where accountability is missing, freedom can’t exist.
Regards
Sanjeev
Comment by Sanjeev Sabhlok | May 31, 2008
Shantanu
I assumed you watched it.
I am asking everyone here to watch that video because people in America ( most of them are Americans) can do this much for us Indians and have so much faith in Hinduism. It is our duty to support them and help them in making their efforts fruitful and effective. They are truly committed to way of Hinduism and helping Hindus to come out from fear of calling themselves as Hindus.
Jai Hind!
Comment by Indian | May 31, 2008
Indian: No I have not seen them yet…
There is a bunch of pending stuff that I hope to go through in the next 2-3 days - incl. the videos and lots of comments to which I need to response.
Please bear with me….
Thanks
Comment by B Shantanu | June 1, 2008
From The Telegraph in UK: Christian preachers face arrest in Birmingham
Comment by B Shantanu | June 8, 2008
Dear Sir,
This is a frightening development. If such a freedom is not guaranteed to preachers in Britain, it means only one thing, the british are losing their hold over free society.
The same act will be called a bullying act by the police in India and we would have had the “Free Secular Press” all over the place, interviewing the store keeper who has sold the underwear to the preachers and ascertaing the views of the local Muslims.
Is this freedom, or communalism or is it fundamentalism? I do not know where this is going to end.
Let us hope that the IHRC will come down strongly on these policemen as the preachers have a fundamental duty to prosteylise and convert.
Or is that Muslims are a seperate breed for the IHRC and only Hindus should not retaliate?
Regards,
vck
Comment by v.c.krishnan | June 8, 2008
vck: Yes it is unbelievable, isnt it?
By the way, your comment reminded me of this post: “If Muslims revered cattle…” - excerpt
I think you will enjoy reading it.
Comment by B Shantanu | June 8, 2008
“Islam was an extremely tolerant religion for a few hundred years until some fanatics grew out of it in recent centuries.”
what kind of bs is this?
“Extremely tolerant”, is that why Muhammad broke Arab pagan idols in the Kaaba or massacred and expelled the Jews living in Medina?
Do a bit more reading before u spew nonsense and try to pass urself off as some expert.
Comment by Harish Duggirala | June 30, 2008