“Why have Missionaries chosen to attack India?”
From the christian aggression website, an article on “why have Missionaries chosen to attack India?”
I am trying to ascertain the veracity of this graph (click below).
�
If anyone has more details about this (exact date of publication, source etc), please do post a comment here. Thanks
*** Update ***
I came across two other articles from TIME Magazine archives on this topic:
“Missionaries Under Cover” (by David Van Biema, June 30, ’03) and
“The New Missionary” (by By Richard N. Ostling, Dec. 27, 1982)
***
UPDATE: Comments to this post are now closed. Please continue the discussion here:
On Kandhamal, Conversions and Proselytization
Part II of the thread is here: “Why are Christian Missions targetting India?” – II
Part III of the thread is here: Why are Christian Missionaries targeting India – III
http://jocalling.blogspot.com/2007/03/my-thoughts-on-conversion-and-religion.html
Thank you Amit….I have just posted a comment on the blog.
Here are my comments:
Dear Jo,
I was alerted to your post by a comment on my blog.
You make several statements that appear to be true but are perhaps a little simplistic…
For example, you talk about Tripura and say, “the natives go to the church, gets their 10 bucks and comes back home and worship their own tribal gods. It is as simple as that. There is no cultural wipe-off. The father knows it, the natives know it. They just do it to have 10 bucks. They don’t have any problem with it. I would say, this in no way threatening Hinduism.”
OK…In the short term, you are right..it does not APPEAR to be threatening…and yet, the Father continues with his 10 bucks and the native continues to receive it, why? The Father knows that over time, a debt of gratitude is being created…at the very least a very strong and positive image of a particular religion is being subconsciously internalised…The native may not really care…but his children see him/her coming home with 10 bucks every Sunday..They see their lives improving ever so slightly because of the 10 bucks…
Over time, the Father begins to tell them that Jesus is responsible for their “extra” comfort/wealth…the children begin to believe this and of course become converted Christians…no force was used, there was no coercion and for all intents and purposes, the choice that was made was entirely out of free will…and yet, the nagging thought remains, was it reallya “free” choice?
(By the way, I have personally experienced this in rural North India)
Secondly, you say, “But I do not understand when a Hindu being converted to Christianity is considered as a cultural threat, but a Christian turns to Hinduism is called enlightenment by the right-wing Hindutva brigade….” Hindus being converted to Christianity in such large numbers (especially in the North East) and in some cases using fairly aggressive tactics is bound to be viewed as a threat (just as Rajneesh was viewed in the US during his heydays)…
If conversion happens entirely of free will and after a deep understanding of what one is choosing (and prompted by positive experiences rather than coercion or allurements, I would call it enlightenment – whether it is from Hinduism to Christianity or Christianity to Hinduism)
You also say that, “The interesting thing is most of the tribal people who gets converted or goes to church (like in the case I mentioned above) are not even ‘Hindus’. They do not practice Hinduism. They have their own tribal Gods. They do not worship Hindu Gods.”
This again reflects a very simplistic understanding of Hinduism..You no doubt know that Hinduism does not have a Bible or One God or a Prophet…So not only is it very hard to say whether someone is practising Hinduism or not, it is also a bit ingenuous to argue that they do not worship Hindu Gods – yes, perhaps not Shri Rama, Shri Krishna or other popular deities but what would you call the worship of “Mata” amongst many tribal societies…Is not “Mata” an obvious representation of “Shakti”?
But you and I are one in that we are both motivated by national interest…So I applaud your sentiment on this score and I am encouraged by your observation that, “What I believe is as long as a person lives a normal life and doing good deeds, he/she is saved/blessed by God. No matter what name that person calls the God.”
Please take this post in its proper spirit (as you say, creative criticism) as an attempt at debate to get to the truth – and not an attempt at scoring cheap political points…
I look forward to your response…both here and/or on my blog…and hope something positive comes out of this dialogue.
Here is the follow-up to the above comment which I had forgotten to post until now:
***
Jo said… B. Shantanu:
Thanks for your comments.
The Father knows that over time, a debt of gratitude is being created…at the very least a very strong and positive image of a particular religion is being subconsciously internalised.
This reminds me of a talk with a friend of mine, who is also a Hindu and not an atheist. We were talking about conversion and I mentioned that conveting people by offering monetary benefits is wrong. (I still stick to this personal belief of mine as a Christian). Then he asked me back, “What is wrong with that? Were there any Hindus trying to make their lives better? The missionaries setup many schools, hospitals etc. Whatever their intentions are, isn’t something good they are doing to the fellow humans although their intentions are wrong?” I put these questions before you.
Shantanu, why don’t you show such examples to those poor people and try to do something to make their lives better? They will definitely stick on to whatever they believe. As for me, like I said in this post, “This is actually making Christians fools of themselves. Selling Christianity for 10 bucks or so.”
On another note, religious differences is a topic of importance mostly in the lives of elite, educated, pesudo-intellectuals like me and you. As far as I have seen, the poor people is not bothered about it UNLESS they are being fed with the fundamental thoughts by the religious fanatics. They live in harmony with each others.
You no doubt know that Hinduism does not have a Bible or One God or a Prophet…
Bible is a collection of religious texts. Many books in one. Hinduism has many religious books, but not collected under one name as Bible. That’s the only difference as I can see.
Christians believe in one God. Hindus believe in multiple Gods or let me put my thoughts here for the debate sake. How can you say that the sages in the old days had to imply the theory of multiple Gods to make it simple for the humans to understand the concept of God? Can it not be the different expressions (explained as incarnations) of the same God? And if Christians believe in one God isn’t it their freedom to believe so? How can one say for example something like ‘no. there is no one god. there are multiple gods’. Who have seen this ‘one’ or ‘many’ Gods? It is all based on the religious experiments of one, right?
yes, perhaps not Shri Rama, Shri Krishna or other popular deities but what would you call the worship of “Mata” amongst many tribal societies…Is not “Mata” an obvious representation of “Shakti”? So not only is it very hard to say whether someone is practising Hinduism or not, it is also a bit ingenuous to argue that they do not worship Hindu Gods
As far as I know, God in the form of woman was largely worshipped amongst all ancient religions. Even among the Catholics, Mother Mary is a second important figure after Jesus Christ. Just because Athena was the Goddess of wisdom in Greek mythology and there is ‘Saraswathy’ in Hindu mythology, would you say Greeks are Hindus? Or would Greeks say it is the Greek mythology that came first? Worshipping the different expressions of nature and natural powers were seen in all ancient religions. That doesn’t mean one is part of the other.
I want to add that these days it is a common practice that implies Hinduism is not a religion and it’s a way of life. Perhaps I shouldn’t call it Hinduism but Sanathana Dharma or HInduism, which is being referred as a ‘way of living’ by right-wing fundamentalists, is a religion. I recently had a discussion on this in another website.
It’s true that Hinduism doesn’t have ‘one’ centered body like Christians have, but it doesn’t mean it is not a religion. Religion is a way of life for many, so Hinduism is a religion. If Hinduism is not a religion, then we will have to say Islam is also not a religion and its just a way of life because they also do not have a centered religious body like Vatican for Catholics.
Hinduism, Christianity and Islam are all religions and at the same time a “way-of-life” and all of them preaches or follows their own way of life.
As for Hinduism in the present days, it does have a governing religious body and the only difference is its not a centered one, but multiple bodies based on castes. Paandi Samooham (for Tamil Brahmins), SNDP (for Eezhavas), Pulaya Maha Sabha (for Pulaya caste), NSS (for Nairs), Ezhuthachan Samaajam (for Ezhuthachans) and many many more as such. They work almost the same way as the Christian church. Theirs is a close-knit community (although it is different, based on the caste system) like Christian churches like RC.
But you and I are one in that we are both motivated by national interest
If you do not support the Hindutva brigade/fundemental Hindu thoughts and shows the same enthusiasm you have shown here, we are thinking in the same lines. Otherwise, not.
and hope something positive comes out of this dialogue.
Honestly I wish, but do not have any hope on that. 🙂 The talks on religion always get ugly. It is because religion is a personal matter and the person’s ego plays a role in the discussion about religion. Either both sides keep accusing each other, or one party keeps implying the thought that his religion is supreme or tolerant or whatsoever and the other is totally a waste. I have experienced it before and I have no hope on that part. 🙂
***
B Shantanu said…
Jo,
Thanks for coming back.
You say:”Shantanu, why don’t you show such examples to those poor people and try to do something to make their lives better? They will definitely stick on to whatever they believe.”
Agreed…and I am involved in a few of such efforts (on a very small scale – and having no overt or covert “conversion” motives or agenda)
On your comment re. one god/ multiple Gods, may I point you to this post?
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/03/01/hinduism-not-monotheism-in-disguise/
And we can debate/discuss more if you wish.
You also say that, “As far as I know, God in the form of woman was largely worshipped amongst all ancient religions.”
Not quite right. One cannot find an equivalent of the “Ardha-Nareeshwar” in any other religion, nor so many female Goddesses in any other religion (and I hope you would agree that pantheic mythology is not quite the same thing as religion, so Greek “goddesses” comparison is probably not accurate)
Towards the end, you talk about “fundemental Hindu thoughts” etc”, I would just like to say one thing in response: If you look at the dictionary meaning of fundamental, it means the very core, the essence of any philosophy of belief system…so as good follower of Dharma, I would have to support fundamental Hindu thoughts…
The question is what are these fundamental Hindu thoughts? To me (briefly) they are:
The belief in the one-ness of all life…the belief that in spite of diversity and external dissimilarity, all beings are one, all life is sacred and all creatures are part of one eternal truth, it includes the concepts of tolerance and mutual respect and is, at its core, unifying rather than divisive…
I am pretty certain that you will agree with most of them…that makes a fundamentalist of the two of us!
On a more serious note, I am hinting at the need to re-shapoe the debate by clarifying terms and words and not get swept away by the laziness of mass media while/in discussing these issues.
You mention that you have no hope of anything good coming out of this…
Well, as you can see I am not accusing you or Christianity of anything and neither am I saying that my way of life or thinking is superior…so hopefully this is not a “wasted dialogue”..
I am sorry to read that your experiences before were not positive…and I can only hope that you see this differently this time…
In any case, this discussion has enriched my views and enhanced my understanding – for that, I thank you.
***
Jo said…
Shanthanu:
Good to hear that you are into social activities to help without the religious intentions.
I am least bothered about numbers and if Hinduism has more number of woman Gods than any other religion.
Thank you for educating me on the meaning of ‘fundamentalism’, but I’m sure you knew on what context I used the word.