Don takes "confusion" to a new high!

Submitted by iasius (India), Dec 2, 2005 at 04:10

I felt honored to find my name mentioned in a long posting by Don ["To Rakshas….Opposition is not confusion", November 29, 2005, 1253 hrs]. Reading the latest, I was forced to conclude that Rakshas had diagnosed Don's condition either too hastily or too charitably, for I am now convinced that he is more confused than I had earlier been willing to concede.

Confusion # 1. I am not completely familiar with actual conditions prevailing in India, but it is clear from the history of exceptionally catholic ‘Hindu' inspiration that "Christians", per se, cannot be targets of attack; only Churches and their missionaries are. Having spoken with several Christians from India, I was quite taken aback with amazement when I heard what they had to say, in choice expletives, about missionaries generally! Not to speak of the devout ‘Hindu', even the staunchest atheist would wince at the uncivilized and unethical manner in which these despicable organizations and their henchmen are carrying on of late. Read reactions of even their older co-evangelist business partners and associates in plunder, as expressed with considerable angst in a Christian Science Monitor article, "A New Breed of Missionary" [http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0401/p01s04-wosc.html ]. And as Don himself states a little later in his piece, "I have not included the physical abuse, torture, terror, abuse and rape of nuns, beating of priests, killings etc" and, "there will be attacks on churches, priest or nuns in that state and sometimes sporadic attacks in neighboring states…", the alleged attacks seem to target only the clergy. Perhaps one can imagine the level of provocation provided by these agents of rank commercialism, sufficient to cause the traditionally docile and tolerant ‘Hindu' to turn violent!

Confusion # 2. Don says, "ONE MILLION activists (karsevaks) of the VHP and other associated groups" destroyed the Babri Masjid. I might have thought a congregation of that magnitude, converging at the site of a relatively unimpressive and unimportant (from the Muslim angle) structure with an intention of demolishing it was clearly indicative of the will of the people. After all, isn't ‘will of the people' what democracy is all about? If sold-out political leadership is incompetent or unwilling to address and resolve an endlessly festering issue involving a proven historical usurpation, the masses are going to do something themselves. Moreover, it seems Hindus viewed the structure as a deliberate attempt by an invader to defile a significant place of pilgrimage, thereby to establish the inferiority of the faith and culture of the vanquished. But, again, isn't that what prophet-inspired monotheism is all about [Don, surely, is familiar with one of the earliest in that tradition: "….ye shall break down their altars….." Deuterrornomy 7:5]

Confusion # 3. From what I gather, ‘Hinduism', unlike Christianity or Islam, isn't a monolithic religion defined and distinguished by one prophet, one book and one set of ‘dos and don'ts'. It is a conglomerate of innumerable inspirations and thought-systems ranging from strongly deist to ultra atheistic (apparently, three out of six traditional schools of philosophy do not even contemplate god) that have co-existed harmoniously for eons under a common secular law, developed by native genius, which evolved with time and clime. Philosophical differences were strictly restricted to considerations of the ‘hereafter'. Zoroastrians fled to India after the Muslim conquest of Persia, Jews made India their home when a surfeit of ‘Christian Love' began telling disastrously on their health, especially digestions, as did Syrian Christians fleeing from heresy hunters back home. Even glaringly intolerant and exclusivist doctrines like Christianity and Islam co-existed effortlessly with their hosts so long as their votaries were willing to live by that law. Indeed, it seems that except for a brief stint under Ashoka, who imposed Budhhism as the state religion, the indigenous state was always ‘secular', ensuring that faith was an insignificant factor, if at all, in its treatment of subjects. Further, again unlike Christianity, none of the many ‘Hindu' persuasions is so deficient or defective in its doctrinal core as to need subduing or annihilation of ‘other' doctrines for survival. DOCTRINE, it would seem, has NEVER BEEN CAUSE FOR CONFLICT, except when secular law and order, or just rights of subjects, was threatened on the basis of doctrine. Experience has taught Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists that they have nothing to fear from ‘Hindus' on account of any doctrinal consideration. Your "next target" hypothesis about Sikhs, Jains, et al, is thus pathetically untenable because these denominations are part of the same ‘Hindu' tradition of tolerance (as a principle, not policy) with whom they share a common destiny and are becoming equally aware about wantonly inimical geo-political interests that use ‘religion' for undermining the unity and integrity of India in pursuit of selfish ends. The situation, in fact, is likely to be the very opposite of what you propose. Sikhs, Jains, Budhhists and others of indigenous persuasion might actually join hands with majority ‘Hindus' in preempting, thwarting and neutralizing any threat to national concerns. And threats these certainly are.

Confusion # 4. Again as far as I know, Jainism, Budhhism and Sikhism are essentially part of the ‘Hindu' conglomerate of indigenous doctrines. Their individual concepts about man's destiny in the hereafter notwithstanding, they strictly share parity with all the others because they subscribe to the common time-honored principle of tolerance and have no doctrinal qualms about co-existence under secular laws. Their separatism was instigated by dictates of British imperial interests, and is now kept alive for predominantly socio-economic or political gain. (Sikhism, in fact, was constituted as a militant wing of the majority for the express purpose of defending ‘Hinduism') So, as long as all conduct themselves according to common secular law, even the most rabid, fundamentalist and extremist ‘Hindu' would be unable to find justification, much less support for his fanaticism or acts of violence. But the crux of the problem seems to be the increasing and valid perception that ‘all' are not adhering to the law while an unimaginably pliable government is studiously looking the other way. An informed observer, not taken in by false international propaganda, might be amazed at the tolerance of 850 million subverted ‘Hindus' who have been able to produce no more than just one Dara Singh! And, without in any way condoning the heinous act, it needs to be noted that even someone allegedly as rabidly communal as Dara only targeted one perceived to be indulging in unethical proselytization, again with the government looking the other way as usual.

Confusion # 5. Don mentions the woes of Somalia and Rwanda. See what Christian missions are doing, or have done, in these impoverished faction-ridden countries. The BBC reports that in Somalia, "demonstrators condemned the gifts handed out by Christian aid agencies, which included Bibles, toys, books, pens and crucifixes" and that Sheikh Nuur Baaruut, the chairman of the Muslim council, feels that "these are Christian missionaries working under the cloak of aid workers. The gifts were given to our children without our choice" [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3650981.stm]. As for Rwanda, the Hutu-Tutsi (not ‘Tutu', Don) conflict was fuelled entirely by Belgian missionaries in the late 19th Century and that "The loss of so many lives was indirectly the result of interferring (sic) with a country's culture".
[http://www.edu.pe.ca/montaguehigh/essay.htm]

Confusion # 6. Both Babri Masjid and Gujarat happened for reasons about which Don is as usual confused. Babri Masjid, from all honest accounts, was stubborn and persistent refusal by the Muslim community to correct historical usurpation of a site sacred to a section of the ‘Hindus'. For Muslims, it was no more than another mosque, and even that was not in use. Gujarat, even from dishonest accounts, happened because the pre-meditated locking in and immolation by Muslims of 58 ‘Hindu' passengers in a railway carriage proved the ‘last straw' for ‘Hindu' patience. On closer examination, neither seems like the result of momentary, whipped-up frenzy of a mob ‘on the rampage' for its own sake, but an attempt to teach a lesson in the only language he understands to the Muslim, who is becoming progressively more audacious, belligerent and intransigent under kid-glove pampering by the state.

Confusion # 7. I am not "shy" to call Agnes by the epithet she wangled by wooing an obliging media. I am, rather, "convinced" of her ‘step-motherly' proclivities. Actually, anyone who is aware of her inspiration, thoughts and actions might be "shy" to say she was a ‘fellow-human being'! Film stars are not necessarily known to be in the business for their intellectual abilities, wisdom or rational outlook. Further, so like our ‘step-mother', patronage from the media is one of the best guarantees of continuing to remain in business. It is therefore natural that they are bound to exalt someone the media has helped creating. I wonder how seriously anything apparently reflective that film stars say is taken at face value!

Confusion # 8. Despite its untiring preoccupation with suppressing evidence and resourcefulness in diverting logical inquiry, new findings are dramatically exposing how Christianity lacks even the semblance of profound thought. If at all any was ever present (which is doubtful), it was completely hijacked by Paul through clever substitution of ‘faith in the Law' by ‘faith in Jesus Christ'. Exclusive emphasis on ‘faith in JC' also had another advantage. It immunized the clergy against culpability for even the most deplorable bestiality. Everything they did was in pursuit of their ‘faith in JC' (Poor man IESAPL, whose name is used even now to waylay humanity; if alive today, he might have suffered immeasurably more through abuse than he ever could have, nailed to a crucifix). Faith is the undoing of ‘God-given' reason; it also thwarts inquiry. Intolerance comes to the aid of rogues wishing to maintain unquestioning belief. To be intolerant, one needs power – military, political and, in our times, economic. The Church has passed through each one of these stages at some point in its vile existence. First it was military power, assisted later by its political counterpart when the state became the ‘political arm' of the Church. When oppression became too much for Christians themselves to bear, the Church became marginalized in its own home through the so-called Reformation. The inherent belief steeped in exclusivity and intolerance continued to hold sway in spite of severe curtailment of secular powers of the clergy. What it was doing at home then continued with increased zeal in colonies. Tyranny at home transformed to plunder abroad when missionaries joined the colonial bandwagon. In our time, when both military and political control is impossible for the Church, we may find it hopping onto the new economic bandwagon called globalization. But hop on it must, for its survival depends not on any truth, or insightful and elevating thought, but on slick mundane commerce. David Yallop's book, ‘In God's Name', exposes the tip of the iceberg of cold, scheming and ruthless ‘Christian Love'.

The ‘Poor Church' as it describes itself, is, on the contrary, one of the most opulent business empires in the world with interests in political maneuvering, funding wars, arms dealing, drug money laundering, kidnappings, assassinations galore, and other similarly ‘religious' pursuits. On this factual reputation of nefarious activities, which people in its right mind would permit a missionary to mess up their national unity and integrity ungrudgingly? Perhaps only India, whose political leadership seems to have been sold out already. No ‘Hindu' would insist on uniformity of faith, only uniformity of secular law and its sincere implementation. And, by the way, Christianity does not convert by force only because it can't. It certainly would if it could. Even Gandhi was "allergic" to missionary activism and its sole purpose, proselytization.

Confusion # 9. That petition to the Guiness Book of Records I mentioned (in an earlier posting on this weblog) about Don's discovery that the origin of ‘Hinduism' is extra-territorial to India, needs to be actively and vigorously pursued also for other statements of his: 1) "Christianity should not be attached to any political conspiracies or "world dominion by force"; 2) "Missionaries don't spoil cultures"; 3) "Christianity has separated it self from "state" and would do so in any country it covers…". (I only hope I will recover sufficiently from effects of Don's hilarious comments to enjoy a fruitful weekend.)

He sure is a very confused soul…..…!

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".