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
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
..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 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
@ 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…
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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!
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
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!
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
From The Telegraph in UK: Christian preachers face arrest in Birmingham
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
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.
“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.
Replying to comments 1 -5:
@Patriot and Shantanu:
I think we need to make a key distinction here.
All of us seem to naturally assume that:
i. Sanaatan Dharma does not claim to be the sole route to truth/enlightenment or does not lay an exclusive claim on your beliefs, thoughts and values. In short, Sanaatan Dharma believes and allows for alternative paths to Gods.
ii. The statement (i) above naturally implies that we cannot say or believe that “Sanaatan Dharma is the best religion/faith of all.”
I am not at all comfortable with the causation above.
Considering one’s own path/religion/faith to be better than the other is one of the foundational pre-requisites of any follower. This holds equally true for any religion of the world – whether hinduism, islam, christianity, jainism or any other.
You cannot be a true muslim and say that there is no difference between islam and other religions. Why are you preferring Islam over other religions then? It is a pity that when a hindu says the same thing about his own dharma, he is supposed to be feel guilty or apologetic about it. This is a result of the natural conditioning of the hindu society over past many decades, if not centuries.
So, being a firm believer in sanaatan dharma as he is (I assume), Shantanu has no need to justify his statement. Neither is it in variance with the assertion (i) above.
A Sanaatan dharmi (at least my interpretation) believes that there can be different perceptions of the same “truth”. Every individual has every right to follow and develop (intellectually not by force) his own perception of this fundamental reality. But the individual is not bound to believe that the perception of the ‘other’ is naturally equal to his own perception. In fact, that would be the easy way out. Even within sanaatan dharma, there has been a long history of healthy debates between different philosophical schools (advaita, dvaita, sankhya, mimansa) with each school trying to assert that his perception is better than the other.
The difference lies the manner in which you go about developing and propagating your perception. Is it in the form of healthy, spiritual debates or by use of sword or inducements or disrespect/denigration of other’s perception? Also, if the ‘other’ wants to continue believing in his own perception, do you willingly accept his freedom and right to do so?
But what if the other’s perception of reality says that you should be killed if you don’t convert to his own perception of reality? Does sanaatan dharma still accept that ‘perception’ as an ‘alternate perception of the ultimate truth’? Or is it just a falsehood as per sanaatan dharma?
[Note that even if sanaatan dharma considers it a falsehood, it would still respect the right of that individual to excel in his falsehood, if he so wishes :). But I personally think that sanaatan dharma is silent on this question. Or perhaps these were classified as ‘asuras’ in our mythology. But even asuras in Hindu mythology had a right to exist honorably as per their own value systems, as long as they did not interfere with the others!]
Harshit,
Sanatan Dharma did have debates on way to realizing truth but never was it imposed by way of door to door campaigning. The learneds used to live ascetic life and still do. The debate was meant for learneds and seekers not for everyone. Missionary doesn’t debate with learneds, he fools who are not even seeking by first making him believe that he is committing sin. Sin my derriere… I wake up, go and do my duty deligently with all due care I can and yet I am committing sin is what exactly missionary says.
Learned Shantanu believes it is right to do door to door campaigning and make everyone walk on path to realizing god… Something that Gandhi did… “Main to sheedhi sheedhi sachchi sachchi baat karne waala aadmi hoon jahan ahinsa hai wahan ishwar hai”… Making all patriots laying down life of country as sinners.
@preacher
I agree with your first part.
But I am not sure about your second assertion. My limited reading of Shantanu’s post seemed to suggest that he was against such ‘door to door campaigning’.
Harshit,
You can read Shantanu’s comment (#69) here https://satyameva-jayate.org/2009/10/18/missionaries-targeting-india-5/
@ Harshit: This is a great formulation, I think (I am writing each sentence as a separate bullet point for clarity):
– A Sanaatan dharmi (at least my interpretation) believes that there can be different perceptions of the same “truthâ€.
– Every individual has every right to follow and develop (intellectually not by force) his own perception of this fundamental reality.
– But the individual is not bound to believe that the perception of the ‘other’ is naturally equal to his own perception.
– The difference lies the manner in which you go about developing and propagating your perception. Is it in the form of healthy, spiritual debates or by use of sword or inducements or disrespect/denigration of other’s perception?
– if the ‘other’ wants to continue believing in his own perception, (Sanaatan Dharmi)…willingly accepts his freedom and right to do so?
As for your last question re. “what if the other’s perception of reality says that you should be killed if you don’t convert to his own perception of reality?” – I think this is what could be called a righteous war.
You are right that “…even if sanaatan dharma considers it a falsehood, it would still respect the right of that individual to excel in his falsehood…” but will not accept violent imposition of that falsehood on others.
***
@ Preacher: “Learned Shantanu believes it is right to do door to door campaigning and make everyone walk on path to realizing god…”
I have no idea what you are talking about…Can you please clarify?
Shantanu,
I am referring to your comment on level playing field in the other post… By the way you deleted some humor… Are you always dead drop serious, zero humor?
@ Preacher: You mis-understood me. I was simply saying that the playing field is not level.
As for humour, well I don’t feel up to it…seeing what is happening around us.
That’s where you err… Foreign Missionary has no need to come to India. He should remain satisfied in his country. As far as Christians are concerned, they should assimilate in this country. What Church is trying to do is change demography and the results of such activity won’t be pleasant.
Dear shantanu,
ref yr comment last 2 paras @ 24 in reply to Harshit.
you will find this link adds weight to what you said.
http://vedabase.net/sb/10/66/en
cheers!!!!
sridhar
Post 8, Sanjeev S.
Christianity was an intolerant religion ……
It had to be forced to be tolerant after WWII as it turned out to be a moral victory for Jews , whom they hounded and chased for centuries. Great thinkers like Shaw, Russell, pre 20th century Voltaire , Jefferson in USA and many others made Christianity tolerant. I would not still say it is full proof tolerant, but trying to be. It still has political ambitions, with opulent life style for the priests.
I shall repeat what Rohit said elsewhere… Monolithic religions are infants in terms of philosophical thought development process… They will come to same understanding that Vedas, Upnishads contain but after lots of experiments which we can term as “EXPERIMENTS WITH TRUTH”.
Guys like Sanjeev Sabhlok, KK, Salil, Shantanu believe it is RIGHT TO EXPERIMENT WITH TRUTH… They word this as RIGHT TO PROPAGATE… Although these guys will again debate this statement differently… In nutshell, even these guys in infancy of mental thought process and they rely on France/ US/ UK to say something and then it becomes truth for them.
From Vatican Says Catholics Should Not Try to Convert JewsBy GAIA PIANIGIANI, Dec 10, 2015
…
Addressing an issue that has been a sore point between the two faiths for centuries, the commission wrote that the church was “obliged to view evangelization to Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views.†It specified that “the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews.â€
From The Most Intolerant Wins: <The Dictatorship of the Small Minority by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (Aug 14, 2016):
…We can answer these points using the minority rule. Yes, an intolerant minority can control and destroy democracy. Actually, as we saw, it will eventually destroy our world.
So, we need to be more than intolerant with some intolerant minorities. It is not permissible to use “American values” or “Western principles” in treating intolerant Salafism (which denies other peoples’ right to have their own religion). The West is currently in the process of committing suicide.
Also, this except (from the same article):
The One-Way Street of Religions
In the same manner, the spread of Islam in the Near East where Christianity was heavily entrenched (it was born there) can be attributed to two simple asymmetries. .
….
The two asymmetric rules were are as follows. First, if a non Muslim man under the rule of Islam marries a Muslim woman, he needs to convert to Islam –and if either parents of a child happens to be Muslim, the child will be Muslim[3]. Second, becoming Muslim is irreversible, as apostasy is the heaviest crime under the religion, sanctioned by the death penalty. The famous Egyptian actor Omar Sharif, born Mikhael Demetri Shalhoub, was of Lebanese Christian origins. He converted to Islam to marry a famous Egyptian actress and had to change his name to an Arabic one. He later divorced, but did not revert to the faith of his ancestors.
Under these two asymmetric rules, one can do simple simulations and see how a small Islamic group occupying Christian (Coptic) Egypt can lead, over the centuries, to the Copts becoming a tiny minority. All one needs is a small rate of interfaith marriages. Likewise, one can see how Judaism doesn’t spread and tends to stay in the minority, as the religion has opposite rules: the mother is required to be Jewish, causing interfaith marriages to leave the community. An even stronger asymmetry than that of Judaism explains the depletion in the Near East of three Gnostic faiths: the Druze, the Ezidi, and the Mandeans (Gnostic religions are those with mysteries and knowledge that is typically accessible to only a minority of elders, with the rest of the members in the dark about the details of the faith). Unlike Islam that requires either parents to be Muslim, and Judaism that asks for at least the mother to have the faith, these three religions require both parents to be of the faith, otherwise the person says toodaloo to the community….
…
Egypt’s Copts suffered from another problem: the irreversibility of Islamic conversions. Many Copts during Islamic rule converted to Islam when it was merely an administrative procedure, something that helps one land a job or handle a problem that requires Islamic jurisprudence. One do not have to really believe in it since Islam doesn’t conflict markedly with Orthodox Christianity. Little by little a Christian or Jewish family bearing the marrano-style conversion becomes truly converted, as, a couple of generations later, the descendants forget the arrangement of their ancestors.
So all Islam did was out-stubborn Christianity, which itself won thanks to its own stubbornness. For, before Islam, the original spread of Christianity in the Roman empire can be largely seen due to… the blinding intolerance of Christians, their unconditional, aggressive and proselyting recalcitrance. Roman pagans were initially tolerant of Christians, as the tradition was to share gods with other members of the empire. But they wondered why these Nazarenes didn’t want to give and take gods and offer that Jesus fellow to the Roman pantheon in exchange for some other gods. What, our gods aren’t good enough for them? But Christians were intolerant of Roman paganism. The “persecutions” of the Christians had vastly more to do with the intolerance of the Christians for the pantheon and local gods, than the reverse. What we read is history written by the Christian side, not the Greco-Roman one. [4]