ss wrote, [on 4/28/2009 5:23 PM]: > For too long I have heard aggressive accusations such as this. Let me state > my > views plainly.
As will I. > "Victimhood" and "pesrecution" and All of "non-us" are against "us" are > a recurrent theme in Christianity and islam. Correction - the Christianty > that > Jesus Christ oiginally fostered was taken over by the Roman empire to create > a Roman chritianity that was later opposed by a mirror image "foil" - that is > islam. All of which has little, if anything, to do with the topic at hand - and the truth value thereof. i.e., is the "accusation" true or not? The rhetorical tactics adopted by you ignore that entirely. > It is a standard tactic among both these faiths to selectively target people > on one side of an existing social divide. For example - conversions are > always aimed at "the poor" or "low caste" people with the ostensible excuse > that these people are being given sympathy and succor that they will not > otherwise get from the unjust society they reside in. You will recall that > Islam in the US was the fastest growing religion in prisons - for the same > reason. I find the use of quotes very interesting in the above. What, exactly, is the significance of "the poor" and "low caste"? Why the quote marks? Are you claiming that the referents of these terms are not really poor or low caste? And what does that do to your argument? Though interesting, this is still an handwaving tactic - akin to the "your fly is open" gambit [1] (sauce for the goose and all that). > What happens after that is that this pre-existing social divide serves as > a "religious divide" so that the Church or some other religious organization > can join the fight and call it "religious persecution". This is politics, not > religion. So? The original claim that started this thread was <quote> Even if the cases are not statistically significant enough prove anything, the very fact that the stories are making the rounds are indicative of the suspicious and mistrustful attitude developing in the community. </quote> It is not clear that your response has (directly, at least) addressed this thesis - except, perhaps, in a "QED" fashion. As a secondary point, I am not sure it is at all possible to separate religion and politics. If there is any point in human history where this has occurred, kindly expand my education. > This is exactly what you have done Biju. You have converted a problem that > affects all Indians into a Islam and Christanity versus others affair in the > post that started this thread. You then ask if migration might be a good > idea. And you have the gumption to turn around and accuse me. May > respectfully suggest that if you have an icky taste in your mouth you ought > to wash your mouth. The first thing this brings to mind, sadly enough, is the Freudian notion of projection [2]. Udhay [1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silk-list/message/28310 [2] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/478472/projection -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
