Illegal Immigrants From India Rise Alarmingly In US: Report [Fastest Growing Illegal Group!]

I think the historical record is more complex. We had a powerful Catholic sign the Declaration of Independence as well as the US. Constitution.

True, there were forces that suspected Rome, but it had more to do with Catholic Europe than with monotheism.

Here’s an interesting observation about Alexis de Tocqueville’s experience.
____________________________________________________________________________
Tocqueville took some hope from the evidence he saw. Religion flourished here. “In the United States the sovereign authority is religious....” But the picture he drew was an elaborate and complicated one, and he foresaw various forces for change in the religious culture of the country.

The proliferation of religious sects bewildered him. And the entire foundation of Protestantism seemed to him too weak to bear the social weight of a democracy. Each Protestant sect he thought could be properly measured by its deviation from a Catholic center of faith.

Protestantism was a compromised faith perhaps suitable to an epoch of historical transition but hardly “definitive.” Protestants filled their churches preaching morality but lacked dogmatic conviction. Under the public show of piety and service “there is a great depth of doubt and indifference.” Their principle of religious toleration “in my opinion, is nothing else than good round indifference....” Roman Catholicism, still a small church in America in 1831, promised a more adequate basis for a democratic state, and

Tocqueville was convinced the church would thrive here and, in principle, ought to. “America is the most democratic country in the world, and it is at the same time...the country in which the Roman Catholic religion makes most progress.” Men in a democratic society either abandon religion altogether or choose a faith that is “simple and uniform....Our posterity will tend more and more to a division into only two parts, some relinquishing Christianity entirely and others returning to the Church of Rome.”

The historical record of Catholic support in Europe for aristocratic and monarchical government was circumstantial, based on the support provided to the church by the old regimes. In America, where no such tie between state and church was permitted, Catholicism would triumph on the basis of its powerful discipline and unity of belief, its primary religious authority. In religious matters Catholics remained “at bottom as intolerant as they have ever been, as intolerant in a word as people who believe.”

In American politics “they constitute the most republican and the most democratic class in the United States.”

This was not a contradiction but rather evidence of the relationship between the lack of public constraints in democratic society and the subsequent need for a religious culture “to purify, to regulate, and to restrain the excessive and exclusive taste for wellbeing [”the exclusive enjoyment of present and material pleasure”] that men feel in periods of equality.”

Powerful "Catholic" sign? What would that be?

And yes, the Declaration of Independence, drafted by someone who held this as an opinion:

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-- Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

"... the Common Law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824 Historical section)

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Christianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address.

"For we know that the Common Law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the Common Law ... This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the Common Law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it ... That system of religion could not be a part of the Common Law, because they were not yet Christians."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address.

And for the kicker:

"Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires."

-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814

It's not accidental that many laws and charters in the young United States explicitly targeted Catholics.

Just how much is 2,70,000? This ain’t the new math is it?

It’s actually old math. Old, old, ancient, old math.

Still used in India, where the decimal place-value numeral system was invented, in certain situations.

1,00,000 is “one lakh”.

The modern decimal system demarcates numbers by grouping them in terms of 10³, 10⁶, 10⁹, etc. The original Indian decimal system arranged the numbers in terms of 10¹, 10³, 10⁵, 10⁷, 10⁹, etc.

And so, this is lakh 2.7 lakh? I’ve heard of one little, two little three little Indians, but I didn’t know you could have .7 Indians.

Yes, 2.7 lakh = 270,000.

Similarly, a crore is 10⁷, or 1,00,00,000

Something tells me that with all of these Indian engineers coming over here, some are gonna get into NASA and we’re going to have another crash on Mars because they forgot to convert from lakh and crore to English equivalents.

Or is that metric? Dang, the old new old math is just killing me.

Quite possible.

There is historical precedence to such blunders.

Are they sneaking in from Canada? There are a lot of Indians in England, so I imagine it would be easy for them to get into Canada.

No, they simply overstay their visas and just don’t return back.

This issue you raise is not in disagreement. Catholic social teaching was against slavery as well and this was quite a thorn with Jefferson and Adams. Indeed, it was the Catholic doctrine of “natural law” that influenced the very Declaration of Independence regardless of the barbs of Jefferson.

But as history has shown there was no fundamental incompatibility between Catholicism and other branches of Christianity which were breakaway sects from the main bark.

This is quite unlike the tenets of Muslim (a perverted prophet who engaged in serial bigamy and adultery, statutory child rape, and genocidal murder as depicted in the sword; barbaric rituals of stoning adulterers to this day) and Hinduism which is a polytheistic religion that carries within its own Brahmin priesthood the equivalent of slavery- casteism and the reduction of women to chattels.

These beliefs are utterly irreconcilable with the Judeo-Christian culture that has for over 230 years produced our republic as one nation under God.

And from Washington’s farewell address, it is clear he was talking about the Judeo-Christian God.

Your differentiation of the Judeo-Christian God and the Multiple Hindu Gods brings into doubt your own certitude of the existence of one single God. Going by what you’re saying, either there exist mutliple God-like entities that are different from each other, or it is just a question of one group of people seeing multiple manifestations of God while the other see just one.

Also, do not institutionalize Brahmin-Shudra classification in the same form as western slavery. It is far from that for one and second, it was neither in its origins meant to be rigid nor is it rigid today. I can point many things in Christian history that would make it look satanic by today’s standards.

I think my thread makes no doubt of my own beliefs as a Roman Catholic. I think we need to make a distinction here between religious theology and practices. The two are not congruent except of course for the lives of the saints.

I am unfamiliar with Brahmin-Shudra classification but if it does incorporate a belief of inferiority by virtue of birth (caste) then the rationale to slavery is not off the mark.

I think Indians would fit in nicely.....industrious....intelligent....capable....

Asians usually do well here...

Russians do well...

Mexicans can do well, a lot of them do....

I fear Somalians.....

OTOH.....Eritreans and Ethiopians do well, as do Nigerians.....IMO....

"Judao-Christian" is a fantasy- an invented term that has no real relevance, except as an umbrella, today. The Catholics were hated by the Founding Fathers, and their position in society was curtailed. It is amply clear from their writings that many of them did not even recognize Catholicism as Christianity.

They considered Catholics, with their saint-worship and other cultural traits, as polytheistic heretics, and idolaters at the time, and these beliefs continue to this day among large sections of the majority Protestant population. Anti-Catholic riots were common.

The real religion of the Founding Fathers was not Christianity- it was Deism. The common people, largely Christian, were kept from political participation by terms in law that made them ineligible to vote, with this primarily decided by land-holdings, but indirectly excluding a large percentage of those people one would call religious. This was by deliberate design, and not accidental.

Deism is closer to Atheism, than anything else. The common belief is in a non-involving god, who only created the universe and then stood back. At the time, Deism was the Atheism of today. For the Founding Fathers to have even professed belief in this system, with the very limited available scientific knowledge, they'd have been Atheists.

Catholic doctrine of "natural law"? The quote Jefferson made regarding the ancient Common Law, suggests otherwise.

Catholicism is primarily a cult, and is the living extension of the former Roman Empire, with the Papal Office as the progeny of the seat of the Emperor. It is not a coincidence that earlier popes indulged in empire-building, wealth-accumulation, monetizing of sins, and other vile activities, ultimately leading to the formation of debauched aristocratic societies that the Protestants so hated, and the Deists, even more so. The picture is complete, with the papal crown.

As for Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, I know quite a lot about each.

Islam, a corrupted compilation of Christianity and Judaism, mixed with Qureyshi tribal religion, was formulated by Muhammad after he was taught by the heretic Christian monk, Bahira. That said, Islam has very powerful claims against Christianity regarding the alterations of the Bible, and the inclusion, and deletion of verses and gospels from it.

Hinduism is not polytheistic at its core. Polytheism is belief in multiple divine entities, each more or less independent of the other. Hinduism believes in a "supreme soul" that transcends all and is the ultimate arbiter and creator of the universe. As for the caste system, that is as much about Hinduism, as is slavery and racism, about Christianity. In other words, they are both social inventions, birthed by society for the convenience of the few.

Here's a verse from the Bhagavad-Gita:

Nay, Prince!

If one of evil life turn in his thought

Straightly to Me, count him amidst the good;

He hath the highway chosen; he shall grow

Righteous ere long; he shall attain that peace

Which changes not. Thou Prince of India!

Be certain none can perish, trusting Me!

O Prithâ’s Son! whoso will turn to Me,

Though they be born from the very womb of Sin,

Woman or man; sprung of the Vaisya caste

Or lowly disregarded Sudra,—all

Plant foot upon the highest path; how then

The holy Brahmans my Royal Saints?

Ah! ye who into this ill world are come—

Fleeting and false—set your faith fast on Me!

Fix heart and thought on Me! Adore Me! Bring

Offerings to Me! Make Me prostrations! Make

Me your supremest joy! and, undivided,

Unto My rest your spirits shall be guided.

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: IX, lines 117-133.

And regarding polytheism:

I BRAHMA am! the One Eternal God.

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch VIII, line 9

Those who serve—

Worshiping Me The One, The Invisible,

The Unrevealed, Unnamed, Unthinkable,

Uttermost, All-pervading, Highest, Sure—

Who thus adore Me, mastering their sense,

Of one set mind to all, glad in all good,

These blessed souls come unto Me.

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: XII, lines 7-13.

Buddhism at its core, does not even believe in any divine entity. However, altered forms that the Tibetans and other practice, fusing it with their traditional beliefs and Buddhist philosophy, has such elements included.

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"

-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

"When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it."

-- John Adams, from Rufus K Noyes, Views of Religion

"Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents."

-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, December 3, 1813

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."

-- John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion

"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshiped by many who think themselves Christians."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price from Paris, January 8, 1789.

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity."

"Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."

-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831. One might expect a modern defender of the Evangelical to play with the meaning of "Christianity," making it refer only to a specific brand of orthodoxy, first sentence quoted in John E Remsberg, Six Historic Americans, second sentence quoted in Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15

With all due respect rather than stitching together some random quotes, it would be more informative to closely and diligently follow the train of argument of reputable historical scholars who have intensely studied this subject. Here is an eye-opener from one of the most celebrated writers on the subjects and winner of the Templeton Prize.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDliOGUzMjJkNmQ3ZjI4Nzc3MGRlYTg2NWNiMjBmYjA

The article hardly points out the real and deep suspicion of the Catholic Church that the Founding Fathers had. It indulges in “Christian PC” white-washing, making non-existent umbrellas in order to group Christians as some sort of united force, whereas in reality, each denomination fundamentally contradicts the other, especially with regard to the Protestant majority of America versus the Catholic heirarchy of a large part of old, oppressive Europe that they left behind.

This country was populated by religious refugees, so to speak, in those days. It does not take too strenuous of an intellectual exercise to realize what the early immigrants held in contempt- it was the Catholic Church, and similar entities.

And for the record, those were not “random quotes”. Those quotes were from private letters, more reliable as an insight into the minds of the Founding Fathers than public rallying cries by their political alter-egos.

Of course no one disputes the anti-Catholic impulse both at the founding stage and well onto the 20th century. This had more to do as you concede with hierarchical religious structure than with core belief systems. But one must look to serious peer evaluated scholarship on the faith of the founding generation and as the article puts it, this includes the faith and religious avocation of the the dozens of religious ministers who were co-signers to the declaration and the constitution. The beliefs and acts of Washington, Hamilton and others is not “Christian PC whitewashing” simply because the historical record is not aligned with your point of view. The article draws attention to some of the foremost historical scholarship on this issue to buttress its conclusions. These are not opinions drawn from an assortment of disparate quotes.

For sure, it would be an absurd stretch of the imagination to say that the faith of the founding fathers including the people of the states who ratified the constitution, would embrace Hindu “deistic” beliefs of polytheistic gods some incarnated as monkeys, baboons, and gods with elephantine trunks. To-date no scholar of repute has seriously contended that the pantheon of Hindu gods were part of the belief structures- direct or by extrapolation, shared by any of the Framers or the people who ratified the constitution. Whatever differences that did exist among the Christian sects- Protestants, Episcopalians, Methodists, Calvinists, Quakers, Evangelists, Baptists, Anabaptists, Pentecostalists, Catholics and even street preachers, they shared in common a tradition of Biblical worship. This much is irrefutable even among ardent secularists.

Of course no one disputes the anti-Catholic impulse both at the founding stage and well onto the 20th century. This had more to do as you concede with hierarchical religious structure than with core belief systems. But one must look to serious peer evaluated scholarship on the faith of the founding generation and as the article puts it, this includes the faith and religious avocation of the the dozens of religious ministers who were co-signers to the declaration and the constitution.

No one disputes the anti-Catholic "impulse" and yet, you persistently want to believe that they held Catholicism in high esteem? They most likely hated it more than Hinduism, or even Islam.

The beliefs and acts of Washington, Hamilton and others is not “Christian PC whitewashing” simply because the historical record is not aligned with your point of view. The article draws attention to some of the foremost historical scholarship on this issue to buttress its conclusions. These are not opinions drawn from an assortment of disparate quotes.

Washington was a Deist. Look up the definition. Deism is not Christianity.

For sure, it would be an absurd stretch of the imagination to say that the faith of the founding fathers including the people of the states who ratified the constitution, would embrace Hindu “deistic” beliefs of polytheistic gods some incarnated as monkeys, baboons, and gods with elephantine trunks.

The oversimplification of Hinduism aside, let's hear what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the topic:

[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom ... was finally passed, ... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion^*, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.

-- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

* The "holy author" was the Deist god, not the Christian god.

If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, "that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it."

-- Thomas Jefferson, in a reply to John Adams' letter, quoted by Joseph Lewis in his address "Jefferson the Freethinker," delivered at a banquet of the Freethinkers' Society of New York on the evening of April 13th, 1925, at Hotel Belleclaire, 77th Street and Broadway, New York City, in honor of the 182nd anniversary of the birth of Thomas Jefferson.

If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814, using the term atheist to mean one who lacks a god belief, not one who is without morals, as was a common use of the term in Jefferson's day

That said,

To-date no scholar of repute has seriously contended that the pantheon of Hindu gods were part of the belief structures- direct or by extrapolation, shared by any of the Framers or the people who ratified the constitution.

The Deist god is not the Christian god.

Whatever differences that did exist among the Christian sects- Protestants, Episcopalians, Methodists, Calvinists, Quakers, Evangelists, Baptists, Anabaptists, Pentecostalists, Catholics and even street preachers, they shared in common a tradition of Biblical worship. This much is irrefutable even among ardent secularists.

"Common tradition of Biblical worship".

LOL, and that's what sent the Protestants packing for the New World, literally kicked out from Europe for their beliefs.

If this constitutes "Biblical worship" then they are more unlike than otherwise.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That said, what is Catholicism? Worship of humans, a borrowed god, dead body parts, casting demons out of skulls, and various other blends of hired and invented superstition:

Of course the secularization during the Age of Enlightenment tamed Catholicism to its benevolent form of today. The hatred of this Church by the Founding Fathers was not out of the blue.