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
