Fred - Whether a group of people constitutes a target or not, the notion
that they ultimately convert because they're poor, uneducated, lacking
in free will and gullible is still insulting. And all that
smoke-blowing about things being different in the West is precisely
that, blowing smoke. Neither you nor George seem willing to answer my
question: Are the new converts to Islam also poor and uneducated and
gullible, lacking in free will? Or does George's sterling description
of converts apply only to Christian converts?
Viv
Frederick Noronha (FN) wrote:
Just for the sake of a debate:
Viviana wrote:
Personally I'm insulted by the notion that people without formal
education and without money are by definition stupid and gullible, and
I'm surprised that a man of your liberal sensibilities would imply such
a thing. So people convert from one religion to another because they're
poor and uneducated and, of course, have no free will???
Good point (if only from a debating point of view).
Fact is, in an Indian context, the poor *have* become targets and an
eagerly fought-over 'commodity'. They're being torn apart in a
tug-of-war between evangelisers who come from a monotheistic tradition
(and either sincerely believe that their's is the 'one true faith' or
are fuelled by the mighty dollar, or both) and a Hindu upper
class/caste who now realises that numbers mean a lot in a
one-man-one-vote system (but who otherwise wouldn't care to much for
this large, poor segment and surely wouldn't give their daughters in
marriage to them -- a more accurate 'test' for who forms a 'community').
I understand that Islam is the fastest growing religion in America
"Fastest growing" can also mean that it is starting from a very small
base. Take for example: If Rome or Lisbon doesn't have a single
mosque, and then allows one to come up, it's like a huge achievement.
When the second mosque comes up, it's another 100% growth...
It's also a fact that the USofA has been rather restrictive in
deciding what kind of migrants it wants to allow in -- based on
colour, class and education -- which flies in the face of theories of
free markets. (There should be a 'free market' in labour and human
skills too, right?)
are the new converts (in the US) also poor and uneducated and gullible,
lacking in free will?
I do not know what are the motivations why people convert or change
religion in the USofA.
In my college days, I was very touched by the biography of Cassius
Clay aka Mohammed Ali, the world boxing champ. In his case at least,
the change of religion was clearly done as a protest measure, against
what he saw as racism in Christian America. (Much like B R Ambedkar
did in India in the mid 'fifties, in his battle against casteism --
which is increasingly being seen as simply another, maybe even
stronger, form of racism.)
This also seems to be the case of the few White Muslims, who were
found to be taking the side of Al Quaeda or fighting for Iraq.
From half-a-globe-away it's hard to say what makes people change their
religion in the West, and it is probable that these are the
exceptions. In reality, any change of religion involves a mix of many
complex reasons.
I'm one of those wo does not subscribe to the claim that all our
ancestors in the sixteenth century or whenever, became Catholic in Goa
merely because they were threatened and bullied by the Portuguese. I'm
sure a significant section also saw opportunity in doing so. Some
might have just got overpowered by a "superior" and more
globally-dominant worldview (just like the poor India did while opting
for Islam in Mughal-ruled India).
Now, would that amount of "duress" or "allurement"?
We need to accept that conversions are a complex issue, particularly
because there are so many different ways of looking at it.
Non-proselytising religions (specially those with non-Semetic roots,
like Hinduism or traditional Buddhism for example) are bewildered or
threatened by conversions. (On the other hand, it is also probably not
true that Hinduism absolutely doesn't convert. Leaving aside the Hare
Krishnas, even traditional Hinduism has had its own embrace-and-extend
approach towards redefining religious boundaries. Otherwise there
would be no way to explain its growth over such a large area.)
Coming back to the point, the bottomline is just this: we all need to
respect the religious views (or the lack of it) among others, and not
make use of people and logic to support a selfish numbers games.
Currently, that's happening -- on all sides of the 'clash of
religions'! FN