Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 12/27/2007 7:50:59 AM PST by BGHater
Twelve village churches were burned and ransacked in eastern India over Christmas as Hindu extremists clashed with members of the Christian minority.
One person died and more than 25 were injured in the violence in Orissa state.
It was sparked after Hindu hard-liners objected to the scale of a Christmas Eve prayer vigil, according to the Catholic Bishops Conference in New Delhi.
More than 450 police had to be deployed to quell the violence, which saw groups of Hindus rampaging through villages in the Kandhamal district, burning the mud and thatch village churches.
By yesterday afternoon police said the worst of the violence appeared to have subsided.
However, local Christian leaders accused the state authorities of failing to intervene quickly enough, drawing comparison with the anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002, which left more than 1,000 dead and were state-sponsored according to human rights groups.
"I feel the government has allowed them to continue this sort of thing somehow, because I am afraid they are repeating what happened in Gujarat in the last two-three years," Raphael Cheenath, the Archbishop of Bhubaneswar, the state capital, told local television.
The violence is part of periodic flare-ups between Christians and followers of India's dominant religion who accuse the missionaries of trying to convert low-caste Hindus.
Missionary activity is a source of serious tension in parts of India where hard-line Christian groups talk of "liberating" low-caste Hindus.
Rising anti-missionary sentiment has caused several Indian state governments to pass anti-conversion laws which India's Christians - who represent 2.5 per cent of the country's 1.1 billion population - are fighting in court.
The Sikhs did the same thing - ‘”liberating” low-caste Hindus.’
The Sikhs had a very different history. The first son and first daughter of every Hindu family was given to the Sikh religion so that they could fight the Islamic invaders. Yes, Sikhism has a definite aversion to the caste system but the history and origins of Sikhism are rooted in Hindu opposition to the Islamic invaders.
Big news when a Hindu mob does something, but the media don’t even bother reporting when Muslims do far worse.
Ping... regarding our earlier discussion.
Low caste Hindus, you have a choice. You can believe you are inferior or you can throw off the false religion of the Hindus. Tough choice!
Isn’t it interesting how so much of the world is totally nuts and insane over various religions and belief in so called God’s?
Who has killed the most people, religion or various forms of Marxism and/or socialism, etc?
Or according to the food nanny/fascists McDonalds, Burger King, KFC etc?
And besides George Bush of course.
This is myth. In India muslim an christian also follow cast system. The conversion only makes them anti-national. Pawns in the power struggle.
Primitive beliefs and primitive people in a nation which is a nuclear power.
Damn Hitler and Togo for destroying the English Empire!
India ping
Well, the answer to the question “who has killed more, the marxist/communist team or those fighting for a religion?” would be the marxist/communists by gazillions.
Is a “gazillion” kinda like a Brazilian?
Aren’t they supposed to be peaceful? So much for that.
A gazillion is just a word to indicate that the Communists and Marxists far outscore any religion with regard to war dead. Someone else reading this thread probably has the stats at hand. I just didn’t want the old straw man about the vicious theists to go unanswered. That’s all.
I didn't realize that the country of Togo was a member of the Axis.
Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."
"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"
His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.
Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"
They played their part, but so did the Americans, who hated the British Empire for ideological and practical reasons (It was an economic and political rival on the world stage). Britain was forced to relinquish it’s Empire and it’s position as a rival power to the United States after the war in return for economic, military and political aid. The price Britain paid for US aid in the Second World war was to be reduced to a state of dependence and semi-subservience to the United States.
The irony is, if we had stayed neutral as we could have done during the Second World War (Hitler had no interest in fighting Britain and viewed the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ British as close relatives of the German Volk), we would probably still have had our Empire today...
And the other side would also be informative. I mean: who has built more hospitals, schools, libraries, and universities; who has negotiated more truces and peaces (is that a word?) who has encouraged more research into the natural sciences? (Bear in mind that though Albert the Great thought alchemy was a science, he also said that nothing should be held as true in natural sciences unless it could be verified by experiment. This was a couple of hundred years before Bacon and the Novum Organum.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.