Wow, Do you not know that the commission has the power to recommend sanctions against countries that they dont consider as "free", and that definition of "freedom" is upto them, apart from a token muslim, the rest is made up of christians. Also why does the state department fund christian evangelical organizations like world vision? Separation of Church and state?
How many countries have been sanctioned for not being Christian, by the commision? Since it is entirely made up of Christians, as you point out, they have a Christian agenda - that's what you are implying, right? So which country have they sanctioned unfairly? For advancing Christianity? India? China? Saudi Arabia, where Christians cannot build a church or pray openly?
Please - do tell me.
If none of these countries have been sanctioned, despite the commission being full of christians, then maybe they are not trying to spread christianity?
Yes, I believe Bible Belt has no role to play in US politics. And In God we trust.
OK, seems like you really do not understand statecraft. I'll be patient.
Of course christians have the ability to influence politics. How? By their voting rights. In India, hindus have that power, and in many constituencies, muslims have that power, and in many others, Sickhs have that power. But that doesn't mean that India is a hindu or muslim nation - the state itself is neutral.
Now listen carefully - or better yet, read the first amendment and its interpretation slowly and carefully:
Separation of church and state means that congress (govt) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
In simpler words, any law promoting or impeding a particular religion, is unconstitutional. That is all it means, and that was one of the most important ideas to evolve in modern times.
The bible belt or the cow belt in India having voting rights, and therefore collective bargaining power, does not in any way undercut the separation of church and state.
Most religious freedom related issues are fed by reports of how many evangelical groups have converted how many 'non-believers'.[/B]
Oh is that so? You know I was talking specifically about the commission for religious freedom. (Because another member specifically asked me about it.) Could you show me any of its reports that discusses how many non believers have been converted? Or any other govt funded report?
Anyone preventing missionaries from converting is deemed as 'threat to religious freedom'. Try mass converting the same in church-strong areas of US without a racist right wing christian redneck attempting to blow you up as a "Satan's child", [/B]
You base this statement on previous data? Have there been many such instances of "rednecks" blowing people up as "satan's child", for converting? Has there been five such instances? Three? One?
The west isn't as 'open' as it may seem to you.
[/B]
It is a lo more open than the east.
Or at least, most countries in the east, including India.
The freedom to practice religion here is several orders of magnitude greater. This is undeniable.
Even satanists have erected statues for baphomet on govt property, and can openly practice their religion.
As just one example, the famous biologist and atheist PZ Myers once made a video recording of him spitting out a communal wafer (supposedly the holiest of the holy things for Catholics.) That is supposed to be so great a sin that only the pope can forgive that act. It was one of the worst form of blasphemy, akin to burning the Quran is for muslims. And what happened to him? Nothing. He has his freedom of expression, which he used to demonstrate his contempt for Catholic beliefs. The video is still online. What would a similar open, deliberate act of blasphemy against hindus or muslims in India lead to? At least a jail sentence for "hurting religious sentiments".
The moment started right from colonial era in India where Christian fanatic and racist researchers like Sir William Jones, Herbert Hersley and others of the British empire merged the theories of race and tribes, isolation of Indians on that basis and implanting Christianity through covert means by subtly using local elements and accidental commonalities, started.
Sure, no disagreement on that. But the topic here is the amount of religious freedom in the west and in India, today.
Everybody - hindus or muslims or christians have greater freedom to practice their religion as they see fit, here and in most developed countries in the west.
If you are willing to have a positive discussion on this, I am more than happy to take it up separately. with evidences. This never directly affected my people, but the Church's brazen meddling in my region and creating pressure groups against Buddhists, Hindus and local spirituality using foreign funding, is a big big problem and has caused problems in my region.
Again: The church's meddling in your region may be true, but that's not my point here. It is not about the openness of christianity versus hinduism I'm talking about, or what missionaries or hindutva groups are up to.
The point is about how much freedom of religion, and seperation of church and state, exists in the west, as opposed to India and many other countries in the east.
Khair.
