Sunday, October 12, 2008

Re: [prohindu] "Thou Shall Not Convert"

Victims of faiths

The notorious frauds, named prophets, have invented a new way of making the whole humanity their slaves irrespective of faith. These prophets have converted even their own followers, into their slaves for they have made their fabricated gods unapproachable. Those, who accept the faith of prophets, become the slaves of prophets as the prophets have become brokers of Jehovah and Allah! Prophets alone can meet their gods. Thus the followers of the prophets are slaves of their prophets. By providing incentives of booty and sex, the prophets get killed those who do not accept their faiths. Thus the whole world comes under the control of the prophets. The prophets died and left behind their legacies to clerics and rulers. Why should one believe? Why not one search Ishwar either by Yog or Kundalini Jagran? However, these monopolies of prophets have put the human race at the brink of annihilation like dinosaurs.

This is because if raping women of alien faith is free from blame (Koran 23:6) for Muslims, then how can Muslims refute Christians, who have been commanded to ravish the women of non-Christians before the eyes of the men of the victim women (Bible, Isaiah 13:16)? If those worshipping other Gods save Allah be killed is justified, (Koran 2:191) how can Muslims refute Christians, who have been commanded by Jesus to slay those who do not accept Jesus their king? (Bible, Luke 19:27) If snatching the belongings of other person is offence, why the democrats and P.O.s of judiciary, who snatched citizens' fundamental right to property, (Article 31 - now stands omitted since 20-06-1979) are not dacoits? If property belongs to society, why such society is not usurper? Where is the moral in that society that is owner of the belongings of the haves? Why should we tolerate that Indian Constitution that grants unfettered fundamental right to minorities to slay and rob the people of alien faiths and rape their women? [Article 29(1)]. Governments are duty bound to protect the properties of their citizens. Where is the moral in Article 39(c) of the Indian Constitution that snatches properties of the citizens?

Humanity invented governments to protect the lands, ladies, lives, liberties and labours of the subjects? For the very purposes, every government of the day has deputed judiciary and police. Every government punishes the guilty. Notorious criminal prophets invented religions and dogmas which allow them to subjugate even their own followers. This is because Allah alone can be worshipped, Muhammad is broker of Allah (Namaaz and Koran 2:191 and 21:98) or Jealous Jehovah alone can be worshipped or religion is opium. Thus, these dogmas subjugate one and usurp the belongings of the haves ('KORAN', Chapter 8 (The Spoils of War) Verse 1 and 41) and rape alien women of their choice (Bible, Isaiah 13:15and16) (See Koran, 4:24; 23:6 and; 33:50 and 70:30) and remain scot-free.

No sooner, one accepts Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and Socialism, the criminal activities of murder, plunder, incest and rape of women ceased to be considered crimes instead these crimes turn into the source of sustenance and heaven after death for these criminal democrats, Communists, Muslims, and Christians.

However, in contrast, there is Vedic Sanskriti. It grants liberty of worship of god of one's choice. (Gita 7:21). Supports one's right to property. (Manusmriti 8:308). If one wishes to survive, one has no choice than relinquishing their gods Jehovah and Allah.

Thus the basic cause, i.e. protection of lands, lives, ladies, liberties, and labours of the subjects, for whom the governments were invented and implemented, gets defeated. The snatching of one's belongings, which is a crime, turns into the religious duty of every follower of these criminal religions and first part of the duties of democratic and socialist governments. The followers of these religions, socialists, and democrats find no immorality in snatching one's property, one's women, and killing an innocent.

Gods of Prophets are criminal of a class. Although one has three forums against even dreaded criminal like Doud Ibrahim viz. Society, police and judiciary, one has no forum to complain against gods!

Yours faithfully,
Ayodhya Prasad Tripathi, (Press Secretary)
Aryavrt Government
77 Khera Khurd, Delhi - 110 082
Phone: (+91) 9868324025/9838577815
If you feel that this message be telecasted, donate us. Rush your contribution in the account of Manav Raksha Sangh Account No. 016001020168 ICICI Bank Ltd. Else keep ready for your doom. Remember! Whoever you are, you won't be able to save your properties, women, motherland, Vedic culture & even your infants. Choice is yours, whether you stick to dreaded usurper Democracy & get eradicated or survive with your rights upon your property, freedom of faith & life with dignity?
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 12:28 PM, mrapsc <> wrote:

Thou shall not convert

Saturday, 04 October, 2008 , 02:19 PM

A Christian once approached the Kanchi Paramacharya and expressed his wish to embrace Hinduism. The acharya advised him to stay put in his present path; in the revered seer's world view, one does not have to switch faiths to attain God and can very well achieve the objective through one's own religion. That in a nutshell is what Hindus call secularism and tolerance. Sadly, they have no reciprocal S & T coming their way. Forget a pastor, even the Pope would find it difficult to pass up such an opportunity to add a soul to his kitty. For that is their worldview, ordained by the Book and its authors.

Clearly, the twain shall never meet. It naturally follows that those faiths that aspire to survive, with their religious places and practices intact, will necessarily have to evolve ways to protect themselves from such predators and their natural instincts. The historic track record, however is that, barring Hinduism and Buddhism, scores of faiths and civilisations have been runover by Christianity and Islam, with nary a trace today. Of course, methods vary from visibly violent jihad to virulent but invisible evangelism, but the motives and mindset shine forth like neon signs. To miss it is to have the intellect of a sheep, and incidentally that's what the 'targets' are referred to as.

But to the basic question: How do Hindus who want to remain Hindus respond? Some tips are on offer from various vested interests. Needless to add, the captains of the conversion brigade would want no response but simple surrender. Secular politicians, for instance, would prefer Hindus to have more doses of the tranquiliser called tolerance and remain sedated so that they, the politicos, that is, can build up their minority vote bank, the only bank that never fails. For much of the media and intellectual elite, primed by McCaulay, even the slightest resistance to conversions is a betrayal of their liberal character even if their conscience, if only rarely, tells them otherwise; they feign sleep without sedation. And for most of the educated middle-class of Bharat conversions do rile and revolt; but coy inhibitions rule and in any case, who has the time and mind to speak up or act? Let down by the State and ostracised by society, it is the poor Hindus w ho are most vulnerable; while many gullible ones do 'cross' over, the multitudes, though mute, have remained immune to missionary mischiefs and stuck to their traditional gods. And of course, the other extreme response is what we are witnessing now in Orissa and elsewhere; the Bajrang Dal brand that none can subscribe to. Apart from the incongruity of their acts with the law of the land, burning down churches is a futile exercise. They simply can't keep pace with the planting that's going on and also the media multiplier effect would make even one ravaged prayer hall seem like hundred, in Basha style.

Convert me if you can, challenged Gandhi. Swami Vivekananda's well thought out and well articulated arguments against conversions will sadly be deemed communal rantings in today's milieu, but their relevance is most striking. To get more contemporary, Swami Daya-nanda Saraswati treats conversions as the worst form of violence; In his view, you cannot convert someone without belittling his faith and that cuts at his core being. He also dubs conversions as a human rights violation as it interferes with an individual's right to 'continue' practising his own, natural religion. But let's not invoke such profound beings to fell a petty albeit potent mentality. There are enough arguments within the realms of elementary common sense to effectively counter, both intellectually and at ground zero, the scourge of conversions.

The biggest cover for conversions is the Right to Religious Freedom enunciated in the Constitution. But by elementary English grammar, the right is for 'me', in first person singluar; now how can an evangelist exercise my right? But their flippant claim is that right to convert 'others' is Constitutional. The misinterpretation and misuse of the Constitution is not just on that count. The Constitution categorically says that the right to religious freedom is subject to 'morality and public order'. The assumed right to convert all and sundry would fall flat on these counts too. Conversion disturbs all the 'order' that a peaceful land and a peace loving person would value: the social order, the demographic order, the political order, the family order and of course, law and order! An individual too goes completely out of order, with his self, with his near and dear, his ancestry and his own lifestyle, all in turmoil. One cannot find a more disruptive phen omenon of life and community, nay, the country itself, than conversion.

We move on to morality, the bedrock of the Bible. Now is it moral to employ questionable means like lures and inducements to bring in the crowd? Again, the preachers claim Christianity to be true religion and the only path to salvation. Can't a such 'truth' to stand alone without the aid of merchants of faith scouring and scavenging the earth for vulnerable folks in distress? Does it have to be purveyed in the market as a sin-cleaning soap to be dumped on unsuspecting soul-sellers? Hinduism too preaches but the idea is not to get converts. Again, conversion by a process of evaluation, which is perfectly fine, is very rare. The evangelists smartly claim that most conversions are voluntary. But mass conversions do happen. Now how is it that a few hundred people have a conscience upheaval at an appointed time? It is also no coincidence that only the poor, the sick and those in the lower rungs of society are ripe targets for conversion. Obviously the indu cements and indoctrinations are camouflaged well to skip the law's eye but obvious enough to catch the potential convert's! The reality is that evangelism is big business today. There's nothing even remotely secular or spiritual about it. But to cut a long story short, conversions can be deemed unconstitutional! And even if granted, the right to preach and poach cannot be superior to the target's right to protect and preserve his beliefs.

Then there is this bogey of minority rights. Does it not offend common sense to say that the minority has the right to become the majority, which in effect is what the vociferous and articulate Christian clergy is claiming through the right to convert'? Again, how can they claim to be minorities when the entire might of global Christianity, its organised international institutions, endless funds and now the European Union itself is sponsoring them? Also, the converts in India have Hindu ancestry and are very much sons of the soil. Granting that one can change one's faith, can one also convert from being a majority to a minority suddenly? Again, attacks on any place of worship have to be dealt with under law; the crime does not get any worse just because the target is a minority place of worship. But such perversions of minority rights are rampant.

Guess what's the Pope's biggest bother today? Christians converting to Islam in Europe! To hear some eternal pearls of wisdom on the ills of conversion one can just tune in to him. The hypocrisy would be apparent. For while the resourceful reverends would happily harvest neighbours' fields, it's taboo for others to graze on their own pastures. I rest my case. Amen!

e-mail the writer at
(Courtesy: Talk Media)

__._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) Start a new topic
One strong Hindu can change the thought-current of the whole world...
Hindus should have fearlessness,the first prerequisite of a spiritual life.

To Post a message, send it to:
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
Yahoo! Groups
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use Unsubscribe

Visit Your Group
Yahoo! Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Y! Messenger

PC-to-PC calls

Call your friends

worldwide - free!

Dog Fanatics

on Yahoo! Groups

Find people who are

crazy about dogs.



No comments: