Hindu Prayer in Senate

INTRODUCTION TO HINDUISM
by Dr. Zakir Naik

I INTRODUCTION TO HINDUISM:

The most popular among the Aryan religions is Hinduism. ‘Hindu’ is actually a Persian word that stands for the inhabitants of the region beyond the Indus Valley. However, in common parlance, Hinduism is a blanket term for an assortment of religious beliefs, most of which are based on the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita.

II INTRODUCTION TO HINDU SCRIPTURES.

There are several sacred scriptures of the Hindus. Among these are the Vedas, Upanishads and the Puranas.

1.
VEDAS:
The word Veda is derived from vid which means to know, knowledge par excellence or sacred wisdom. There are four principal divisions of the Vedas (although according to their number, they amount to 1131 out of which about a dozen are available). According to Maha Bhashya of Patanjali, there are 21 branches of Rigveda, 9 types of Atharvaveda, 101 branches of Yajurveda and 1000 of Samveda).

The Rigveda, the Yajurveda and the Samveda are considered to be more ancient books and are known as Trai Viddya or the ‘Triple Sciences’. The Rigveda is the oldest and has been compiled in three long and different periods of time. The 4th Veda is the Atharvaveda, which is of a later date.

There is no unanimous opinion regarding the date of compilation or revelation of the four Vedas. According to Swami Dayanand, founder of the Arya Samaj, the Vedas were revealed 1310 million years ago. According to other scholars, they are not more than 4000 years old.

Similarly, there are differing opinions regarding the places where these books were compiled and the Rishis to whom these Scriptures were given. Inspite of these differences, the Vedas are considered to be the most authentic of the Hindu Scriptures and the real foundations of the Hindu Dharma.

2.
UPANISHADS:

The word 'Upanishad' is derived from Upa meaning near, Ni which means down and Shad means to sit. Therefore ‘Upanishad’ means sitting down near. Groups of pupils sit near the teacher to learn from him the secret doctrines.

According to Samkara, ‘Upanishad’ is derived from the root word Sad which means ‘to loosen’, ‘to reach’ or ‘to destroy’, with Upa and ni as prefix; therefore ‘Upanishad’ means Brahma-Knowledge by which ignorance is loosened or destroyed.

The number of Upanishads exceeds 200 though the Indian tradition puts it at 108. There are 10 principal Upanishads. However, some consider them to be more than 10, while others 18.

The Vedanta meant originally the Upanishads, though the word is now used for the system of philosophy based on the Upanishad. Literally, Vedanta means the end of the Veda, Vedasua-antah, and the conclusion as well as the goal of Vedas. The Upanishads are the concluding portion of the Vedas and chronologically they come at the end of the Vedic period.

Some Pundits consider the Upanishads to be more superior to the Vedas.

3.
PURANAS:

Next in order of authenticity are the Puranas which are the most widely read scriptures. It is believed that the Puranas contain the history of the creation of the universe, history of the early Aryan tribes, life stories of the divines and deities of the Hindus. It is also believed that the Puranas are revealed books like the Vedas, which were revealed simultaneously with the Vedas or sometime close to it.

Maharishi Vyasa has divided the Puranas into 18 voluminous parts. He also arranged the Vedas under various heads.

Chief among the Puranas is a book known as Bhavishya Purana. It is called so because it is believed to give an account of future events. The Hindus consider it to be the word of God. Maharishi yasa is considered to be just the compiler of the book.

4.
ITIHAAS:

The two epics of Hinduism are the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.

A. Ramayana:

According to Ramanuja, the great scholar of Ramayana, there are more than 300 different types of Ramayana: Tulsidas Ramayana, Kumbha Ramayana. Though the outline of Ramayana is same, the details and contents differ.

Valmiki’s Ramayana:

Unlike the Mahabharata, the Ramayana appears to be the work of one person – the sage Valmiki, who probably composed it in the 3rd century BC. Its best-known recension (by Tulsi Das, 1532-1623) consists of 24,000 rhymed couplets of 16-syllable lines organised into 7 books. The poem incorporates many ancient legends and draws on the sacred books of the Vedas. It describes the efforts of Kosala’s heir, Rama, to regain his throne and rescue his wife, Sita, from the demon King of Lanka.

Valmiki's Ramayana is a Hindu epic tradition whose earliest literary version is a Sanskrit poem attributed to the sage Valmiki. Its principal characters are said to present ideal models of personal, familial, and social behavior and hence are considered to exemplify Dharma, the principle of moral order.

B. Mahabharata:

The nucleus of the Mahabharata is the war of eighteen days fought between the Kauravas, the hundred sons of Dhritarashtra and Pandavas, the five sons of Pandu. The epic entails all the circumstances leading upto the war. Involved in this Kurukshetra battle were almost all the kings of India joining either of the two parties. The result of this war was the total annihilation of Kauravas and their party. Yudhishthira, the head of the Pandavas, became the sovereign monarch of Hastinapura. His victory is supposed to symbolise the victory of good over evil. But with the progress of years, new matters and episodes relating to the various aspects of human life, social, economic, political, moral and religious as also fragments of other heroic legends came to be added to the aforesaid nucleus and this phenomenon continued for centuries until it acquired the present shape. The Mahabharata represents a whole literature rather than one single and unified work, and contains many multifarious things.

C. Bhagavad Gita:

Bhagavad Gita is a part of Mahabharata. It is the advice given by Krishna to Arjun on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. It contains the essence of the Vedas and is the most popular of all the Hindu Scriptures. It contains 18 chapters.

The Bhagavad Gita is one of the most widely read and revered of the works sacred to the Hindus. It is their chief devotional book, and has been for centuries the principal source of religious inspiration for many thousands of Hindus.

The Gita is a dramatic poem, which forms a small part of the larger epic, the Mahabharata. It is included in the sixth book (Bhismaparvan) of the Mahabaharata and documents one tiny event in a huge epic tale.

The Bhagavad Gita tells a story of a moral crisis faced by Arjuna, which is solved through the interaction between Arjuna, a Pandava warrior hesitating before battle, and Krishna, his charioteer and teacher. The Bhagavad Gita relates a brief incident in the main story of a rivalry and eventually a war between two branches of a royal family. In that brief incident - a pause on the battlefield just as the battle is about to begin - Krishna, one chief on one side (also believed to be the Lord incarnate), is presented as responding to the doubts of Arjuna. The poem is the dialogue through which Arjuna’s doubts were resolved by Krishna’s teachings.

CONCEPT OF GOD IN HINDUISM
by Dr. Zakir Naik


1.

Common Concept of God in Hinduism:

Hinduism is commonly perceived as a polytheistic religion. Indeed, most Hindus would attest to this, by professing belief in multiple Gods. While some Hindus believe in the existence of three gods, some believe in thousands of gods, and some others in thirty three crore i.e. 330 million Gods. However, learned Hindus, who are well versed in their scriptures, insist that a Hindu should believe in and worship only one God.

The major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim perception of God is the common Hindus’ belief in the philosophy of Pantheism. Pantheism considers everything, living and non-living, to be Divine and Sacred. The common Hindu, therefore, considers everything as God. He considers the trees as God, the sun as God, the moon as God, the monkey as God, the snake as God and even human beings as manifestations of God!

Islam, on the contrary, exhorts man to consider himself and his surroundings as examples of Divine Creation rather than as divinity itself. Muslims therefore believe that everything is God’s i.e. the word ‘God’ with an apostrophe ‘s’. In other words the Muslims believe that everything belongs to God. The trees belong to God, the sun belongs to God, the moon belongs to God, the monkey belongs to God, the snake belongs to God, the human beings belong to God and everything in this universe belongs to God.

Thus the major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim beliefs is the difference of the apostrophe ‘s’. The Hindu says everything is God. The Muslim says everything is God’s.


2.

Concept of God according to Hindu Scriptures:

We can gain a better understanding of the concept of God in Hinduism by analysing Hindu scriptures.

BHAGAVAD GITA

The most popular amongst all the Hindu scriptures is the Bhagavad Gita.

Consider the following verse from the Gita:

"Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures."
[Bhagavad Gita 7:20]

The Gita states that people who are materialistic worship demigods i.e. ‘gods’ besides the True God.


UPANISHADS:

The Upanishads are considered sacred scriptures by the Hindus.

The following verses from the Upanishads refer to the Concept of God:

"Ekam evadvitiyam"
"He is One only without a second."
[Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]1

"Na casya kascij janita na cadhipah."
"Of Him there are neither parents nor lord."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9]2

"Na tasya pratima asti"
"There is no likeness of Him."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]3

The following verses from the Upanishad allude to the inability of man to imagine God in a particular form:

"Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canainam."

"His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1[The Principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 447 and 448]
[Sacred Books of the East, volume 1 ‘The Upanishads part I’ page 93]

2[The Principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 745]
[Sacred Books of the East, volume 15, ‘The Upanishads part II’ page 263.]

3[The Principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 736 & 737]
[Sacred Books of the East, volume 15, ‘The Upanishads part II’ page no 253]

4[The Principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 737]
[Sacred Books of the East, volume 15, ‘The Upanishads part II’ page no 253]

THE VEDAS
Vedas are considered the most sacred of all the Hindu scriptures. There are four principal Vedas: Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samveda and Atharvaveda.

Yajurveda
The following verses from the Yajurveda echo a similar concept of God:

"na tasya pratima asti
"There is no image of Him."
[Yajurveda 32:3]5

"shudhama poapvidham"
"He is bodyless and pure."
[Yajurveda 40:8]6

"Andhatama pravishanti ye asambhuti mupaste"
"They enter darkness, those who worship the natural elements" (Air, Water, Fire, etc.). "They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambhuti."
[Yajurveda 40:9]7

Sambhuti means created things, for example table, chair, idol, etc.

The Yajurveda contains the following prayer:
"Lead us to the good path and remove the sin that makes us stray and wander."
[Yajurveda 40:16]8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5[Yajurveda by Devi Chand M.A. page 377]

6[Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith page 538]

7[Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith page 538]

8[Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Griffith page 541]

Atharvaveda
The Atharvaveda praises God in Book 20, hymn 58 and verse 3:

"Dev maha osi"
"God is verily great"
[Atharvaveda 20:58:3]9

Rigveda

The oldest of all the vedas is Rigveda. It is also the one considered most sacred by the Hindus. The Rigveda states in Book 1, hymn 164 and verse 46:
"Sages (learned Priests) call one God by many names."
[Rigveda 1:164:46]

The Rigveda gives several different attributes to Almighty God. Many of these are mentioned in Rigveda Book 2 hymn 1.

Among the various attributes of God, one of the beautiful attributes mentioned in the Rigveda Book II hymn 1 verse 3, is Brahma. Brahma means ‘The Creator’. Translated into Arabic it means Khaaliq. Muslims can have no objection if Almighty God is referred to as Khaaliq or ‘Creator’ or Brahma. However if it is said that Brahma is Almighty God who has four heads with each head having a crown, Muslims take strong exception to it.

Describing Almighty God in anthropomorphic terms also goes against the following verse of Yajurveda:

"Na tasya Pratima asti"
"There is no image of Him."
[Yajurveda 32:3]

Another beautiful attribute of God mentioned in the Rigveda Book II hymn 1 verse 3 is Vishnu. Vishnu means ‘The Sustainer’. Translated into Arabic it means Rabb. Again, Muslims can have no objection if Almighty God is referred to as Rabb or 'Sustainer' or Vishnu. But the popular image of

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9[Atharveda Samhita vol 2 William Dwight Whitney page 910]

Vishnu among Hindus, is that of a God who has four arms, with one of the right arms holding the Chakra, i.e. a discus and one of the left arms holding a ‘conch shell’, or riding a bird or reclining on a snake couch. Muslims can never accept any image of God. As mentioned earlier this also goes against Svetasvatara Upanishad Chapter 4 verse 19.

"Na tasya pratima asti"
"There is no likeness of Him"

The following verse from the Rigveda Book 8, hymn 1, verse 1 refer to the Unity and Glory of the Supreme Being:

"Ma cid anyad vi sansata sakhayo ma rishanyata"
"O friends, do not worship anybody but Him, the Divine One. Praise Him alone."
[Rigveda 8:1:1]10

"Devasya samituk parishtutih"
"Verily, great is the glory of the Divine Creator."
[Rigveda 5:1:81]11

Brahma Sutra of Hinduism:

The Brahma Sutra of Hinduism is:

"Ekam Brahm, dvitiya naste neh na naste kinchan"

"There is only one God, not the second; not at all, not at all, not in the least bit."

Thus only a dispassionate study of the Hindu scriptures can help one understand the concept of God in Hinduism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0[Rigveda Samhita vol. 9, pages 2810 and 2811 by Swami Satya Prakash Sarasvati and Satyakam Vidyalankar]

11[Rigveda Samhita vol. 6, pages 1802 and 1803 by Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati and Satyakam Vidyalankar]

as from the sun." The Prophecy confirms:

The name of the Prophet as Ahmed since Ahmed is an Arabic name. Many translators misunderstood it to be ‘Ahm at hi’ and translated the mantra as "I alone have acquired the real wisdom of my father".

Prophet was given eternal law, i.e. the Shariah.

The Rishi was enlightened by the Shariah of Prophet Muhammad. The Qur’an says in Surah Saba Chapter 34 verse 28 (34:28):

"We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not."

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in Hindu scriptures
by Dr. Zakir Naik

I
Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in Bhavishya Purana

According to Bhavishya Purana in the Prati Sarag Parv III Khand 3 Adhay 3 Shloka 5 to 8.
"A malecha (belonging to a foreign country and speaking a foreign language) spiritual teacher will appear with his companions. His name will be Mohammad. Raja (Bhoj) after giving this Maha Dev Arab (of angelic disposition) a bath in the Panchgavya and the Ganga water (i.e. purifying him of all sins) offered him the present of his sincere devotion and showing him all reverence said, "I make obeisance to thee. O ye! The pride of mankind, the dweller in Arabia, Ye have collected a great force to kill the Devil and you yourself have been protected from the malecha opponents."

The Prophecy clearly states:

The name of the Prophet as Mohammad.

He will belong to Arabia. The Sanskrit word Marusthal means a sandy track of land or a desert.

Special mention is made of the companions of the Prophet, i.e. the Sahabas. No other Prophet had as many companions as Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

He is referred as the pride of mankind (Parbatis nath). The Glorious Qur’an reconfirms this

"And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character"
[Al-Qur'an 68:4]|

"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah, a beautiful pattern (of conduct)".
[Al-Qur'an 33:21]

He will kill the devil, i.e. abolish idol worship and all sorts of vices.

The Prophet will be given protection against his enemy.

Some people may argue that ‘Raja’ Bhoj mentioned in the prophecy lived in the 11th century C.E. 500 years after the advent of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and was the descendant in the 10th generation of Raja Shalivahan. These people fail to realise that there was not only one Raja of the name Bhoj. The Egyptian Monarchs were called as Pharaoh and the Roman Kings were known as Caesar, similarly the Indian Rajas were given the title of Bhoj. There were several Raja Bhoj who came before the one in 11th Century C.E.

The Prophet did not physically take a bath in the Panchgavya and the water of Ganges. Since the water of Ganges is considered holy, taking bath in the Ganges is an idiom, which means washing away sins or immunity from all sorts of sins. Here the prophecy implies that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was sinless, i.e. Maasoom.

According to Bhavishya Purana in the Pratisarag Parv III Khand 3 Adhay 3 Shloka 10 to 27 Maharishi Vyas has prophesised:

"The Malecha have spoiled the well-known land of the Arabs. Arya Dharma is not to be found in the country. Before also there appeared a misguided fiend whom I had killed; he has now again appeared being sent by a powerful enemy. To show these enemies the right path and to give them guidance, the well-known Muhammad (pbuh), is busy in bringing the Pishachas to the right path. O Raja, You need not go to the land of the foolish Pishachas, you will be purified through my kindness even where you are. At night, he of the angelic disposition, the shrewd man, in the guise of Pishacha said to Raja Bhoj, "O Raja! Your Arya Dharma has been made to prevail over all religions, but according to the commandments of Ishwar Parmatma, I shall enforce the strong creed of the meat eaters. My followers will be men circumcised, without a tail (on his head), keeping beard, creating a revolution announcing the Aadhaan (the Muslim call for prayer) and will be eating all lawful things. He will eat all sorts of animals except swine. They will not seek purification from the holy shrubs, but will be purified through warfare. On account of their fighting the irreligious nations, they will be known as Musalmaans. I shall be the originator of this religion of the meat-eating nations."

The Prophecy states that:

The evil doers have corrupted the Arab land.

Arya Dharma is not found in that land.

The Indian Raja need not go the Arab land since his purification will take place in India after the musalmaan will arrive in India.

The coming Prophet will attest the truth of the Aryan faith, i.e. Monotheism and will reform the misguided people.

The Prophet’s followers will be circumcised. They will be without a tail on the head and bear a beard and will create a great revolution.

They will announce the Aadhaan, i.e. ‘the Muslim call for prayer’.

He will only eat lawful things and animals but will not eat pork. The Qur’an confirms this in no less than 4 different places:

In Surah Al-Baqarah chapter 2 verse 173
In Surah Al-Maidah chapter 5 verse 3
In Surah Al-Anam chapter 6 verse 145
In Surah Al-Nahl chapter 16 verse 115

"Forbidden to you for food are dead meat, blood, flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah".

They will not purify with grass like the Hindus but by means of sword they will fight their irreligious people.

They will be called musalmaan.

They will be a meat-eating nation.

The eating of herbivorous animals is confirmed by the Qur’an in Surah Maidah, chapter 5 verse 1 and in Surah Muminun chapter 23 verse 21

According to Bhavishya Purana, Parv - III Khand 1 Adhay 3 Shloka 21-23:

"Corruption and persecution are found in seven sacred cities of Kashi, etc. India is inhabited by Rakshas, Shabor, Bhil and other foolish people. In the land of Malechhas, the followers of the Malechha dharma (Islam) are wise and brave people. All good qualities are found in Musalmaans and all sorts of vices have accumulated in the land of the Aryas. Islam will rule in India and its islands. Having known these facts, O Muni, glorify the name of thy lord".

The Qur’an confirms this in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 33 and in Surah Al Saff chapter 61 verse 9:

"It is He who hath sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it)".

A similar message is given in Surah Fatah chapter 48 verses 28 ending with, "and enough is Allah as a witness".


II

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Prophesised in Atharvaveda

In the 20th book of Atharvaveda Hymn 127 Some Suktas (chapters) are known as Kuntap Sukta. Kuntap means the consumer of misery and troubles. Thus meaning the message of peace and safety and if translated in Arabic means Islam.

Kuntap also means hidden glands in the abdomen. These mantras are called so probably because their true meaning was hidden and was to be revealed in future. Its hidden meaning is also connected with the navel or the middle point of this earth. Makkah is called the Ummul Qur’a the mother of the towns or the naval of the earth. In many revealed books it was the first house of Divine worship where God Almighty gave spiritual nourishment to the world. The Qur’an says in Surah Ali-Imran chapter 3, verse 96:

"The first house (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakkah (Makkah) full of blessings and of guidance and for all kinds of beings". Thus Kuntap stands for Makkah or Bakkah.

Several people have translated these Kuntap Suktas like M. Bloomfield, Prof. Ralph Griffith, Pandit Rajaram, Pandit Khem Karan, etc.

The main points mentioned in the Kuntap Suktas i.e. in Atharvaveda book 20 Hymn 127 verses 1-13 are:

Mantra 1
He is Narashansah or the praised one (Muhammad). He is Kaurama: the prince of peace or the emigrant, who is safe, even amongst a host of 60,090 enemies.

Mantra 2
He is a camel-riding Rishi, whose chariot touches the heaven.

Mantra 3
He is Mamah Rishi who is given a hundred gold coins, ten chaplets (necklaces), three hundred good steeds and ten thousand cows.

Mantra 4
Vachyesv rebh. ‘Oh! ye who glorifies’.

The Sanskrit word Narashansah means ‘the praised one’, which is the literal translation of the Arabic word Muhammad (pbuh).

The Sanskrit word Kaurama means ‘one who spreads and promotes peace’. The holy Prophet was the ‘Prince of Peace’ and he preached equality of human kind and universal brotherhood. Kaurama also means an emigrant. The Prophet migrated from Makkah to Madinah and was thus also an Emigrant.

He will be protected from 60,090 enemies, which was the population of Makkah. The Prophet would ride a camel. This clearly indicates that it cannot be an Indian Rishi, since it is forbidden for a Brahman to ride a camel according to the Sacred Books of the East, volume 25, Laws of Manu pg. 472. According to Manu Smirti chapter 11 verse 202, "A Brahman is prohibited from riding a camel or an ass and to bathe naked. He should purify himself by suppressing his breath".

This mantra gave the Rishi's name as Mamah. No rishi in India or another Prophet had this name Mamah which is derived from Mah which means to esteem highly, or to revere, to exalt, etc. Some Sanskrit books give the Prophet’s name as ‘Mohammad’, but this word according to Sanskrit grammar can also be used in the bad sense. It is incorrect to apply grammar to an Arabic word. Actually shas the same meaning and somewhat similar pronunciation as the word Muhammad (pbuh).

He is given 100 gold coins, which refers to the believers and the earlier companions of the Prophet during his turbulent Makkan life. Later on due to persecution they migrated from Makkah to Abysinia. Later when Prophet migrated to Madinah all of them joined him in Madinah.

The 10 chaplets or necklaces were the 10 best companions of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) known as Ashra-Mubbashshira (10 bestowed with good news). These were foretold in this world of their salvation in the hereafter i.e. they were given the good news of entering paradise by the Prophet’s own lips and after naming each one he said "in Paradise". They were Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Talha, Zubair, Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf, Saad bin Abi Waqqas, Saad bin Zaid and Abu Ubaidah (May Allah be well-pleased with all of them).

The Sanskrit word Go is derived from Gaw which means ‘to go to war’. A cow is also called Go and is a symbol of war as well as peace. The 10,000 cows refer to the 10,000 companions who accompanied the Prophet (pbuh) when he entered Makkah during Fateh Makkah which was a unique victory in the history of mankind in which there was no blood shed. The 10,000 companions were pious and compassionate like cows and were at the same time strong and fierce and are described in the Holy Quran in Surah Fatah:
"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other."
[Al-Qur'an 48:29]

This mantra calls the Prophet as Rebh which means one who praises, which when translated into Arabic is Ahmed, which is another name for the Holy Prophet (pbuh).

Battle of the Allies described in the Vedas.

It is mentioned in Atharvaveda Book XX Hymn 21 verse 6, "Lord of the truthful! These liberators drink these feats of bravery and the inspiring songs gladdened thee in the field of battle. When thou renders vanquished without fight the ten thousand opponents of the praying one, the adoring one."

This Prophecy of the Veda describes the well-known battle of Ahzab or the battle of the Allies during the time of Prophet Muhammed. The Prophet was victorious without an actual conflict which is mentioned in the Qur’an in Surah Ahzab:

"When the believers saw the confederate forces they said, "This is what Allah and His Messenger had promised us and Allah and His Messenger told us what was true." And it only added to their faith and their zeal in obedience."
[Al-Qur'an 33:22]

The Sanskrit word karo in the Mantra means the ‘praying one’ which when translated into Arabic means ‘Ahmed’, the second name of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).

The 10,000 opponents mentioned in the Mantra were the enemies of the Prophet and the Muslims were only 3000 in number.

The last words of the Mantra aprati ni bashayah means the defeat was given to the enemies without an actual fight.

The enemies’ defeat in the conquest of Makkah is mentioned in Atharvaveda book 20 Hymn 21 verse no 9:

"You have O Indra, overthrown 20 kings and 60,099 men with an outstripping Chariot wheel who came to fight the praised one or far famed (Muhammad) orphan."

The population of Makkah at the time of Prophet’s advent was nearly 60,000

There were several clans in Makkah each having its own chief. Totally there were about 20 chiefs to rule the population of Makkah.

An Abandhu meaning a helpless man who was far-famed and ‘praised one’. Muhammad (pbuh) overcame his enemies with the help of God.


III

Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in the Rigveda

A similar prophecy is also found in Rigveda Book I, Hymn 53 verse 9:

The Sanskrit word used is Sushrama, which means praiseworthy or well praised which in Arabic means Muhammad (pbuh).


IV

Muhummad (pbuh) is also prophesised in the Samveda

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is also prophesised in the Samveda Book II Hymn 6 verse 8:

"Ahmed acquired from his Lord the knowledge of eternal law. I received light from him just as from the sun." The Prophecy confirms:

The name of the Prophet as Ahmed since Ahmed is an Arabic name. Many translators misunderstood it to be Ahm at hi and translated the mantra as "I alone have acquired the real wisdom of my father".

Prophet was given eternal law, i.e. the Shariah.

The Rishi was enlightened by the Shariah of Prophet Muhammad. The Qur’an says in Surah Saba chapter 34 verse 28

"We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not."
[Al-Qur'an 34:28]

Faithfulservant3 wrote (fulminated):

"Do you think India, known for its persecution of Muslims and Christians, would allow a Christian prayer to open up its national legislature?"

Inside the Rashtrapathi Bhavan (House of the President), there is small mosque for Muslims to pray. It was done by the former (Muslim) President of India, Dr. Zakir Hussain, and also prayed later by the other Muslim presidents, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, and, last one - Dr. Abulpakir Jainal Abedin Abdul Kalam. Well, thanks to persecution of minorities in India.

How does that stand up with the barbaric Saudi Arabia, that persecutes everyone else who is a non-Muslim for openly professing and practicing their faith ?

With all of the criticism over the response of some Christians to the senate allowing a Hindu prayer to open their session, the following thought occurred to me:

Do you think India, known for its persecution of Muslims and Christians, would allow a Christian prayer to open up its national legislature?

All possible kind of questions asked by non Muslims about Islam answered on below web sites:

ALL MISCONCEPTIONS AND FALSE MEANINGS ARE ANSWERED:

1-www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm (on this site you will get all answers about Islam, CHRISTIANITY, JESUS, JUDAISM , ETHEISIM, HINDUISM and all other religions).
2-www.islamalways.com/
3-www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
4-www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm
5-www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf.asp
6-www.justaskislam.com/index.php
7-www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/Q_LP/ (The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam)

a. All religion have issues because it is in the nature of the human being to deviate froom its divine nature and become demonic - unless restrained with good teachings and practices.

b. Any organized religion with power, money, and organization hierarchy, would lead to corruption and scandals of sex, money embezzlement, and even murder. Though they can not be avoided, the degrees of them should be reduced so that less of them happens.

c. Wish there is a meter that classifies various religious factions by some criteria and meters the problems faced different religious groups.
But hating ALL people of OTHER religions and calling their SAINTS/GODS bad is not a solution. This is nothing but bigotry. And hiding behind anonymous postings is not a brave act.

d.Colonizations, Conversions and Slavery are things that are in History. The terrorism today is the new name for the things mentioned. So is Ethinic Cleaning that was seen in Bosnia, and now being seen in Africa. The issue of Dalits should also be raised to the same levels but wondered why the rest of the world is not noticing their poor plight. I am sure the problem is there and a sad one. Please read William Durant to get a fair and decent idea. But this does not mean that all people from US, UK, Rome, Greece, Persia, India, China and Africa are bad. And all Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Budhhists, and others are bad. Human tendency is to generalize a community based on deeds of a few from any community. That is why understanding history and statistics are very important.

Organized Religion has proven to be bad, and any classification has proven to be bad. Only an individual communication with the Divine, and being Spiritual and following good teachings is important. We should take a syncretic approach, and the best teachings of Christ, Gnostics, Muslims, Sufis, Jews, Budhhists, Jains, Tao-ism, Shinto-ism, Vaishnavies Bhakti, Shaivite Yoga and Tantra (which is more than what meets a western eye), and Vedanta should be followed by all of us.

That means the education should also focus on comparative religious studies and one should follow whatever teachings that suits a person.

Only truth is that we are part and parcel of the same Creator, including the Flora and Fauna of this world.

Lets us for a good beginning, follow the teachings of Christ: "Do not look Me in outside the world, but inside yourself."

And lets be flexible like this: "Worship in any form or kind of any God, is worship of Me."

Lets take a step, and make friends from another community and give out your love and understanding.

Time for me to say good bye to this thread. Did not realize that somewhere you get sucked into arguments though your intentions are noble and kind.

AMEN, AMIN, AUM.

Sudha,

Looks like you are very emotional about the issue and do not see the logic. I am not saying the problem is not there. But I am saying stop beating all Hindus and Krishna. You are venting all your poison on all Hindus and Krishna, which is not good for you or any Dalit or anyone.

How many times I should I am sorry for all the plight of Dalits and also for the miseries of the world. If you think I can change that by me getting crucified, then please go ahead and I would be more than willing. Really I mean it because this is my secret wish to God and I wish there was a magic like this.

All I am requesting is to Stop blaming all Hindus, which sounds all politically motivated rantings, and cursing their God. This is nothing but bigotry and for the same reason you and Dalits have suffered.

One wrong can not be made right by another wrong.
A tooth for a tooth, and an eye for an eye, will make the whole world blind.

Once again, I am sorry for all what you feel. If you think your hatred for Hindos helps your cause, go ahead and feel happy. Your happiness and peace is more important to me - because that is what I have learnt as a Hindoo.

Love
Sunil.

Hey Sudha,

Some people converting from Hinduism to other religions? Not a problem! Good riddance to bad rubbish... And you say you are not a convert. Maybe it is time you convert too, that would help cleanse the religion!

Good-bye!

It seems that only "White skinned people" are blamed for all the evils in the world.

When I read History, I see every race, tribe and kingdom was waging war on others.

When white-skinned americans/british were doing the evil i.e Occupation, I find every other race/tribe/religion/kingdom/nation doing the same evil i.e waging war and occupying other lands.

White-skinned christians were occupying, black african (pagan) tribes were waging wars on one another, chinese kings on other kings, hindu gods/kings on their fellow hindu kings, muslim kings on jews/christians/pagans, pagan kings on others.

So, The evil of colonalism is not just white's fault. Their only weak point is they won wars, while others lost. Poor whites

Sunil,

You assume that I am a christian and you are busy showing the bad deeds of christians and their gods.. It's funny. I don't blindly follow a person just because many follow him. I ask again: where is ahimsa (non-violence) in krishna?

As some one pointed out, there are hypocrites here. They dont allow people of other religions (and their own people) into their temples but cry about a protest on a hindu prayer in american congress.

What a shame.

And.. do you know why dalits convert to other religions?

A thousand Dalits embraced Buddhism a day after Ambedkar Jayanti in Orissa’s Kendrapara district. However, these were conversions with a difference.

The Dalits were shunning hinduism in protest as they weren't allowed inside the Jagannath temple located in the area."Even though we were Hindus we were not allowed inside the temple to worship the Lord. So what is the use of being in this religion? So in protest we have embraced Buddhism," said Kendrapara resident Laxmipriya Mallick.

http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/article/save-temples/barred-from-temple-dalits-convert.html

And.. do you know why some dalits convert?

A thousand Dalits embraced Buddhism a day after Ambedkar Jayanti in Orissa’s Kendrapara district. However, these were conversions with a difference.

The Dalits were shunning hinduism in protest as they weren't allowed inside the Jagannath temple located in the area."Even though we were Hindus we were not allowed inside the temple to worship the Lord. So what is the use of being in this religion? So in protest we have embraced Buddhism," said Kendrapara resident Laxmipriya Mallick.

http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/article/save-temples/barred-from-temple-dalits-convert.html

Sunil,

One word: Pathetic.

I have never said that I am a convert. I do not work for anyone. I work for my fellow dalits.

Your words show your true nature. If you think that the attrocities on dalits are fake, then open your eyes and read the reports from the mainstream media by yourself.

Sudha:

You have not said that you are a converted Christian and the organization you are giving URLs are working with a Christian Organization in India, whose whole motive is to convert the whole continent of India into Christians, and now you need to compete with the Islamists, who are trying to do the same! You are just repeating their brain-washed attacks on Hindus. And this site was not meant for this propoganda. If you had restricted your talk to Dalit's oppersion, I would have respected it. But if you are attacking a well known and respected Hindu God and all Hindus, then I must say you have fallen to the same level of the very people you accuse.

To get rid of one social problem, your are just helping create 'n' number of social problems. Just the history of conversion for last 1700 years, and see if the world has become less safer or more safer.

The same conversion zealots called Gnostics Christians heretics and did a quite a good job of wiping them out and bad mouthing them. They infact tried burning all their books and libraries, and convinced a lot of people for 1700-2000 years that they were wadoo and black magic practitioners, till last few years. The book discoveries has proven them to be all lies.

Similarly, all the attacks on Celtic Worship in name of Pagan Worship has gone the same way and serious scholarship has shown that they were not practitioner of things they are accused of by Christian zealots, e.g. Sorcery, Magic Incantations,etc.

Every society has some bad elements and if someone is exploting it for their political gains, they are not themselves better than the very people they are accusing!

Go ahead and convert all Hindoos, and I bet the world would be only become a worst place, and by then some new religions would have only sprung up, trying to convert the Christians and Muslims!

Have you heard of Neo Paganism and Scientology? Perhaps Dalit and rest of Hindoos should join that so that they do not have to convert again.

Sudha,

I think you are right about Krishna. Please spread the word louder in person to everyone surrounding you and see your own stupidity. I would say please do not. YOu are only going to hurt yourself. And I think generations of Hindus for 5000 years were stupid. And all British Scholars who wrote about him were simply naive and stupid who could not see as wisely as you do.

Now someone would come and say Christ was lusty because he favoured Mary M who also happened to be a ex-prostitute. Did Christ liberate her or was he exploiting her?

The filth is in the eyes of the beholder, I would say. Please liberate yourself and speak good and wise of others, atleast of the saints/incarnations from the past from all religions if expect kindness, respect and love towards your faith and creed. This is my sincere advise to you.

Sudha,

This is very shameful indeed. Do you have statistics of how many poor Hindus who are not Dalits but get killed or bonded because of socio economic reasons? My point is that being Dalit one comes up with a ready-made excuse both for the offenders to have reasons to do something wrong and for the victims to use the "class attribute" to say they are victims because of their class. I am not saying such things do not happen but what you are trying to portray that this is the majority of the cases and this is like an ethinic cleansing of mass proportions. If it is, I am sure this would have hit the world headlines.

India is a country of 1B plus, with a vast region and many different ethinic backgrounds. Yes this is shocking and during my entire stay in India at different places, I never heard about it, except for Bihar where Bhumiars (Landlords) would do this against Dalits, that too in I heard in the news papers once a while. Yes to the victim this is a big deal and they are justified in grabbing the main head lines, and I would do the same.

Having said that, you should not say all Hindus are racist. Its like saying because of all terrorists are from Islam, all muslims are terrorists. Its like saying because a lot of blacks were burnt by some White Supremacists, a.k.a Klu Klax Clan, all Christians and Whites are Racists. Because statitics shows that most of crimes are conducted by lower economic strata people, of who Blacks and Hispanics fall in the majority, that all Blacks are bad, rapists, and thugs. This stereo typing is a tendency of an uneducated amd emotional individual.

What is the fraction of total population are you reporting? I can give the same flip number saying the lower class of Hindus who are not Dalits but poor are also victims of their Socio-Economic Classes. Are they being killed and exploited because they are backward in class but not Dalits? It's a complex question. If one is being killed because one has touched something, then it is a religion based hate crime but if one is trying to organize an union of labourers against the landlord, it is a different matter. Both are wrong but the later can not be just classified as a racial matter - but a socio economic matter where something more is a problem. So one can not say all landlords are racist because of stray incidents like the later one.

After the 911, in the US, many Sikhs and minorities faced the same problem and some were killed. In one of the most safest city in the US, ranking wise 1, a helpless Afgan was killed when she was walking with her children, by some bigot who hated her for she wearing her traditional dress and/or she being a Muslim. Similarly, many Christians were burnt who went against the Roman Church and tried to reform the church. Am sure you know about the Slavery issues in the US, and about the issues of the famouse Irish Belfast bombings that went on for decades till recent. And I am sure you know about Sunni and Shias killing each other in Iraq and Pakistan.

So the point I am making, by attacking all Hindus, you are not solving the problem but increasing the problem for Dalits and creating a very untrue image of Hindus and negative image of India. The US and UK is not known for the incidents which I mentioned. This forum was not about hating religion but showing how orthodoxy in any religion is bad and if orthodox protestors to the Hindu Chaplin Prayers were right or should the prayer been allowed.

Yes it is very terrible that such things are happening to Dalits or anyone in the name of religion, or any other man made reasons.

Think like this, at one time all work harassment related victims were supposed to be females, and any female felt harassed for some reason, could easily label it as a sexual harassement - even if there was no sexual tone to it. And if no male victims were thought to ever exist. But the truth is between the two extremes, and in majority cases female are victims, but as the society females get more bold and liberated, it is natural to see more male as victims.

Please do not get me wrong. I have all sympathies for you and feel the offenders are brought to justice, which I know is pathetic in India. I must admit that. But please do not call all Hindus racial, as it only helps the sterotyping. which Hindus have themselves suffered at the hands of Invaders.

Sudha,

This is very shameful indeed. Do you have statistics of how many poor Hindus who are not Dalits but get killed or bonded because of socio economic reasons? My point is that being Dalit one comes up with a ready-made excuse both for the offenders to have reasons to do something wrong and for the victims to use the "class attribute" to say they are victims because of their class. I am not saying such things do not happen but what you are trying to portray that this is the majority of the cases and this is like an ethinic cleansing of mass proportions. If it is, I am sure this would have hit the world headlines.

India is a country of 1B plus, with a vast region and many different ethinic backgrounds. Yes this is shocking and during my entire stay in India at different places, I never heard about it, except for Bihar where Bhumiars (Landlords) would do this against Dalits, that too in I heard in the news papers once a while. Yes to the victim this is a big deal and they are justified in grabbing the main head lines, and I would do the same.

Having said that, you should not say all Hindus are racist. Its like saying because of all terrorists are from Islam, all muslims are terrorists. Its like saying because a lot of blacks were burnt by some White Supremacists, a.k.a Klu Klax Clan, all Christians and Whites are Racists. Because statitics shows that most of crimes are conducted by lower economic strata people, of who Blacks and Hispanics fall in the majority, that all Blacks are bad, rapists, and thugs. This stereo typing is a tendency of an uneducated amd emotional individual.

What is the fraction of total population are you reporting? I can give the same flip number saying the lower class of Hindus who are not Dalits but poor are also victims of their Socio-Economic Classes. Are they being killed and exploited because they are backward in class but not Dalits? It's a complex question. If one is being killed because one has touched something, then it is a religion based hate crime but if one is trying to organize an union of labourers against the landlord, it is a different matter. Both are wrong but the later can not be just classified as a racial matter - but a socio economic matter where something more is a problem. So one can not say all landlords are racist because of stray incidents like the later one.

After the 911, in the US, many Sikhs and minorities faced the same problem and some were killed. In one of the most safest city in the US, ranking wise 1, a helpless Afgan was killed when she was walking with her children, by some bigot who hated her for she wearing her traditional dress and/or she being a Muslim. Similarly, many Christians were burnt who went against the Roman Church and tried to reform the church. Am sure you know about the Slavery issues in the US, and about the issues of the famouse Irish Belfast bombings that went on for decades till recent. And I am sure you know about Sunni and Shias killing each other in Iraq and Pakistan.

So the point I am making, by attacking all Hindus, you are not solving the problem but increasing the problem for Dalits and creating a very untrue image of Hindus and negative image of India. The US and UK is not known for the incidents which I mentioned. This forum was not about hating religion but showing how orthodoxy in any religion is bad and if orthodox protestors to the Hindu Chaplin Prayers were right or should the prayer been allowed.

Yes it is very terrible that such things are happening to Dalits or anyone in the name of religion, or any other man made reasons.

Think like this, at one time all work harassment related victims were supposed to be females, and any female felt harassed for some reason, could easily label it as a sexual harassement - even if there was no sexual tone to it. And if no male victims were thought to ever exist. But the truth is between the two extremes, and in majority cases female are victims, but as the society females get more bold and liberated, it is natural to see more male as victims.

Please do not get me wrong. I have all sympathies for you and feel the offenders are brought to justice, which I know is pathetic in India. I must admit that. But please do not call all Hindus racial, as it only helps the sterotyping. which Hindus have themselves suffered at the hands of Invaders.

Here's the story of krishna with his 16,000 concubines

A king named Narakasura, was as powerful as he was evil. He would invade village after village and kidnap beautiful women, imprison them and use them for his pleasures. The number he had imprisoned was said to be 16,000. Krishna came to hear of this menace and immediately led a rescue mission. Narakasura was defeated and killed. one of the husband refused to take his wife back saying that she was defiled by another man and he could no longer accept her. One by one all 16,000 made their way back to Krishna. Krishna gave them a good home and the women lived very happily in the palace.

wow. mind-blowing story.

Sunil,

You dont need to ask forgiveness. Just help one dalit. Actions speak louder than words.

I used to think a god is a role-model for humans to follow. Not in the case of krishna.

I doubt whether krishna existed at all. I mean things like whole world was shown in his mouth, killing many people with his chakra, playing with 16,000 gopikas etc.I read about krishna, his acts during childhood and adult life.

For arguments sake, suppose krishna existed.If you read about him, you can see his life is filled with violence, murder, lusts for women etc. Remember krishna killed karna with deceit, krishna left abhimanya at his own peril.

where is ahimsa in krishna? he killed his enemies and friends alike. In my view, he is an immoral person.

3. Dalit beaten to death for praying at village temple
http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2001/149/

4. "This boy represents the 250 million Dalits called Untouchables, who have been told by the upper castes of India that they are less than human. If even a Dalit’s shadow falls on an upper caste person, that person is polluted according to caste rules."

http://www.dalitnetwork.org/

Check out some of the atrocities on dalits by racist upper caste hindus in cities as well as in rural areas.

1. Dalit Killed For Attempting Puja(Prayer) in a temple
http://www.countercurrents.org/dalit-chamaria091003.htm

2. Dalit killed for digging own well
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=8a253bbf-7572-48ec-b333-d93824bc5d48

Subhuman lives

Oppression stalks dalits in India, says Praful Bidwai
http://www.indiatogether.org/dalit/articles/bidwai1002.htm

JUST SOME of the Crimes committed on Dalits from April 2000 to December 2002, reported in National Daily's. Hundreds of Such crimes go unreported.
http://www.ambedkar.org/crime.htm

I am working with my fellow dalits, who have been oppressed by the racist hindus. I believe all are equal, there should be no castes - just human caste. Thankfully, many are coming out from this evil, racist caste system

Alex,

As a former dalit/untouchable/lower caste and ex-hindu, I am speaking from my own experience. You have your own experience with racist whites. I have witnessed, experienced and seen the racist caste system that killed millions and is
killing many at the moment.

And this caste system is prevalent in cities too. For your info, India is more than 70% rural.

You seem so ignorant of the dalits. Let me enlighten you.

"In the Indian caste system, a Dalit, often called an untouchable, or an outcaste, is a person who according to traditional Hindu belief does not have any "varnas". Varna refers to the Hindu belief that most humans were supposedly
created from different parts of the body of the divinity Purusha. The part from which a varna was supposedly created defines a person's social status with regards to issues such as who they can marry and which professions they could hold. Dalits fall outside the varnas system and have historically been prevented from doing any but the most menial jobs."

"An estimated 40 million people in India, most of them Dalits, are bonded workers, many working in slave-like conditions to pay off debts that were incurred generations ago. The majority
of Dalits live in segregation and experience violence, murder, rape and atrocities to the scale of 110,000 registered cases a year according to 2005 statistics"

Alex,

As a former dalit/untouchable/lower caste and ex-hindu, I am

speaking from my own experience. You have your own

experience with racist whites. I have witnessed, experienced

and seen the racist caste system that killed millions and is

killing many at the moment.

And this caste system is prevalent in cities too. For your info,

India is more than 70% rural.

You seem so ignorant of the dalits. Let me enlighten you.

"In the Indian caste system, a Dalit, often called an

untouchable, or an outcaste, is a person who according to

traditional Hindu belief does not have any "varnas". Varna

refers to the Hindu belief that most humans were supposedly

created from different parts of the body of the divinity Purusha.

The part from which a varna was supposedly created defines

a person's social status with regards to issues such as who

they can marry and which professions they could hold. Dalits

fall outside the varnas system and have historically been

prevented from doing any but the most menial jobs."

"An estimated 40 million people in India, most of them Dalits,

are bonded workers, many working in slave-like conditions to

pay off debts that were incurred generations ago. The majority

of Dalits live in segregation and experience violence, murder,

rape and atrocities to the scale of 110,000 registered cases a

year according to 2005 statistics"

Priest bars non-hindus from entering temple

Thiruvananthapuram: The Head Priest of the Guruvayur Temple in Kerala has said that non-Hindus cannot enter the temple.

Priests and religious heads had met in Thrissur on Thursday to discuss who can be allowed inside the temple after the recent controversy around the purification ceremony conducted in the Guruvayur Temple following the visit of Union Minister Vayalar Ravi’s son Ravi Krishna.

The temple authorities had objected to Krishna’s visit because his mother, Mercy, is a Christian and claimed that his visit had defiled the temple, which is the abode of Lord Sree Guruvayurappan.

Over 70 percent of the priests who attended the meeting were against the entry of non-Hindus.

Reacting to the decision Krishna told CNN-IBN: "I am born a Hindu. It is because I belong to the OBC that I'm not allowed inside Guruvayur temple."

Vayalar Ravi, too, had lashed out at the Guruvayur temple management on May 22 for carrying out purification rituals after his son visited the temple.

A similar ritual was performed when Krishna had visited the temple after his marriage seven years back.

"There was a similar controversy when my son got married in Guruvayur. My caste was not allowed temple entry. We protested against it. This incident is shocking. My family is agitated," Ravi had said.

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/guruvayur-priest-bars-nonhindus/41813-3.html

what do you say about this?

In a country where millions go to bed hungry, Rs.1 million worth of food meant as holy offering at Orissa's Jagannath temple was destroyed Friday because a foreigner had entered it - an act seen as defiling the premises.

Priests at the temple in Puri, 56 km from here, also performed rituals to cleanse the shrine after Paul Rodgier, a 55-year-old American Christian, visited it Thursday afternoon.

The priests fined him Rs.209 when he pleaded that he was not aware of any restriction on the entry of foreigners to the temple. Rodgier had reportedly come to the government-run National Thermal Power Corp in Angul district on official work a few days ago.

http://www.topix.net/in/puri/2007/03/food-destroyed-at-jagannath-temple-after-foreigners-entry

If this is the other way around, (Indian not allowed), then we could witness the uproar (just like this blog).

Sudha:

One advice to you, never criticize anyone's accepted incarnated God/Saint but yes you have the right to criticise the people who err on following the teachings of the incarnated God or Saint.

Put yourself in 3100 BC. Children playing pranks like stealing butter from houses of people who love you and adore you when one is 5-9 years old. And when you do not, they feel sad, that you have not come to do that! If you have followed the whole story, you would see the incidences where one member of the household tells Krishna that where the butter is hidden by the other member of the household, and person watching over the butter is knowingly ignoring the intruder! These were all the past times of the Lord as a child.

Bitterness should not lead to cursing any accepted Saint or God of any sect. Its like after 9/11 people cursing Saint Mohammad because of misplaced value of violence in zihad, which first means that one has to conquor oneself first of his or her negative tendencies.

Sudha,

Your experience and experience of Dalits is a very unfortunate one but does not speak of Hinduism as per say. Please forgive those who have given this bitter experience to you. You are as precious as any life on this planet. This is what Hinduism teaches, to respect life, Plants, Trees, Animals and Man alike, but lately it is just following the steps of counter parts of rest of the world. I embrace you with all love and touch your feet seeking your forgiveness. Your are a better person than them and more dearer to God because you have suffered and experienced pain and know what it is.

In fact Krishna says, "Those who see Oneself in Others and Others in Oneself is dearer to Me. Or those who see Me in Oneself and Me in Others, have realized Me." The same is taught in Vedanta. But the sad part is that some human beings with demonic nature do the terrible things to fellow beings, regardless of their religion.

"Na visesJio asti varnanaih sanam Iruhmam idam jagat rahmana purva-srithaam hi karmalhir varnatam gatam" Mababharata."

There is no distinction of castes. This world, which was created by Brahma, was at first entirely Brahmanic, has become divided into classes in consequence of men's works.

But the Priest Class invented the rigidity of "the class system by caste" to perpetuate their Dynastic Monopoly and then people carried to their extremes. It was meant to be "class system by work". Even today, Presidents' sons and wives become Presidents, to perpetuate the dynastic ruling even if they are not competent. See what happened with current president and the Florida voting debacle where another son was the Governor!

We have become a demonic society everywhere. We pen Cows and Bulls in a constrained space where they can not move so that their muscles do not develop so that their meat is soft! We do the same with Chicken for same reasons, and then recyle their droppings in a mechanised conveyor system, to be mixed and fed back by an automatic feeder.

Which religion has forced people to convert by the hand of a sword? Looks at the history of Christinity till late middle century. Look at the history of Islam till now. See wherever the White Christian Colonists went, their the natives were wiped out, if they were not developed in their material civilization, but may have been more spiritually advanced, except for India and China. Red Indians, Maoris, Abrogines of Australia, Native Americans of South America, Blacks of South Africa, and even Arabs today, since for last 100 years the Arab problem has happened because of the divide and conquer policies of Colonists, Imperialists, and Western Industrial Powers.

But that does not mean Christ taught all this. In fact my wish is they everyone really becomes a Christ in practice.

P.S. I do not believe in hiding my identity and saying something. It was a mistake that I did not type my name before posting but one could have traced me as I mentioned URLs regarding similiarity between Krishna and Christ, and Gnostics and Vedenta in other postings, where my name is there.

Sudha wrote to Anonymous:

"Your ignorance baffles me.Hinduism is the most racist religion I have ever seen. It divides people from birth, dividing them into various castes. If you are born in a low caste, you will be treated as an untouchable. They have no rights, not even to drink water from the public wells etc.I was born into a lower caste. I know what it feels like an untouchable. You dont.If you dont believe, just google dalits killed."

On another of Sudha's provocative comments, I had responded somewhat similarly.

As an Indian Christian, now a naturalized American, I must say say emphatically that in my experience of living with Hindus in India or here or anywhere, Hindus are not the most racist people that I have come across. That notoriety goes to the white folks of this world, especially those who enslaved Blacks, Asians and Hispanics.

Sudha appears to have not visited India's cities and its urban centers in recent times. I have. There are no public wells or taps that are forbidden for use by anyone. In the hinterland of India and its villages, it is quite true that there are frequent reports of caste prejudice being alive and well, with the police standing idly by without enforcing the anti-untouchability act which makes such prejudicial acts criminal. That is a problem very similar to some of our police especially in southern states standing idly by when African-Americans or Hispanics or Asians or Muslims in recent days are subjects of hate crime at the hands of a scant minority of white thugs. That does not make the entire white community of the US to be called racist.

I was born into a tiny minority community in India, viz., Christian. I grew up with majority of Hindus, and minorities of Muslims, Jews, Parsis, Budhists, Jains, Dalits etc. I have never felt that I was discriminated against by my fellow Hindus because of my faith. Yes, I have seen some discrimination against Dalits, by Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and even Buddhists not inviting their Dalit classmates to their homes. The non-Hindu (converts to Christianity, Islam, Budhism, Sikh) seem to practice subtly their former caste prejudices despite a change of their faith, especially in matters of matrimonial alliances in case of arranged marriages. That is in some ways similar to the preferences often expressed by white, blacks, hispanics, asians etc to marry their own kind! Fortunately, both in India and the US, inter-racial and inter-caste weddings are becoming more common and accepted by the society as a whole.

If Sudha feels that it is all hunky-dory in the US, as far as race relations and or interfaith relations are concerned, she should utilize her own advice to others and start googling of hate crimes in the US.

Leaving one's faith or one's community in the face of oppression or prejudice is not the answer. There is plenty that is wrong in my church. I stay and fight to rectify as many as I can. I win some and I lose some. But, we are making progress, at least by identifying a majority in our church who are not fudnamentalist who believe that the only way to salvation is through christianity.

Anonymous:

Your ignarance baffles me.

Hinduism is the most racist religion I have ever seen. It divides people from birth, dividing them into various castes. If you are born in a low caste, you will be treated as an untouchable. They have no rights, not even to drink water from the public wells etc.

I was born into a lower caste. I know what it feels like an untouchable. You dont.

If you dont believe, just google dalits killed.

Reg. krishna attracting childern by stealing, it sounds very funny. why would a god attract children through stealing? krishna stole, had 16,000 gopikas (concubines), killed many with his chakra (round axe) and killed through his follewer, arjuna. He is filled with violence and immoral sex -- To call such an immoral person a god is quite funny. gopis(concubines) were symbols of devotees..funny how?

My heartfelt condolences to all the families and friends of those who lost their lives in the recent tragedies in the US! May they all find comfort in their God, if they happen to believe in one, or in whatever gives them the strength to bear the pain. Most of all, may they find people who stand by them, giving them whatever consolation and support they need, as they work through their losses and learn to live with it, to move on in spite of it.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Sudha:

Hinduism is not a religion but a mixture of many many philosphical schools. Like all religions, priest classes get corrupted. Nowwhere the untouchable issue has been mentioned in Vedas, in fact the other day I came across a book on Indian People by John Muir, and it quoted in its heading on the very essence you are touching. The class system was not meant to be as it became and has been seen everywhere in the world, including Egypt and other ancient worlds. What it became was an exploitation of Priest Class to perpetuate dynastic ruling over the masses - for power and financial reasons. This is the sad part of the Indian History.

Regarding Krishna, you are just projecting your views. We all see based on the color of the lens we wear. And science and Quantum Mechanics has proven this. Its like me saying Christ was nudist because I see him like this on the cross. And it will be my mistake. His child hood pranks were for attracting children to Him. His Gopis where the symbols of Devotees with God, where one thinks of himself as God's Lover or God's wife, which even Christian traditions carry and so did Gnostics. And if your curse Krishna, you are cursing Christ, because you should go and read the links I have posted.

For the sake of taking syncretic view between Christinity and Hinduism, I would strongly suggest people to see parallels in Christ and Christna (Krishna) in my postings of the URLs.

And I find Vedanta Philosphy mirroring Gnosticism.

As an ex-hindu, I can say that hinduism is a racist religion, which treats people as "untouchables"/dalits. The caste-system is kiling millions of dalits.

Concerning krishna, he had 16000 gopikas/concubines; that's why you see the girls dancing around an idol of krishna. he was a myth, he used to kill others by his chakra ( like a round -axe). he was a thief as a child. To call kisna a god is funny. the isckon devotees (kisna followers) are involved in a large no of crimes here in India.

Look, for all you guys who don't believe in God thats fine. You don't believe we should pray in government places, that fine. However when you do that you trample on the same first ammendment that is so precious to you. You have no problem quenching my right to free speech and freedom practice my religion. Typical.

For those of you who say God has killed more people blah blah blah, look at history and tell me honestly did God kill those people or did people who were hungry for power and control do that? Were there people who did horrible things in the name of God this is true. But many more did things in the name of greed, lust for power control etc. Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Noriega, Chavaz. The Genocide in the Sudan, China. I could go on but you get the point.

My point is that you are entitled to your own opinion you are not however entitled to the facts.

Fact: The constitution clearly states that the government shall not be in the business of establishing a church. It does not prohibit the the expression of faith in government or in any way say that people of faith should not be involved in government.

Fact: Most, not all of the men who are considered our founding fathers were christian. Judeo-Christian values are expressed everywhere in our founding documents. Look around our museums and memorials in Washington Reference to God are everywhere. Just look around.

Fact: Thomas Jefferson was not against the church or christianity. When he wrote the letter to the Danbury baptists which is where the phrase "seperation of church and state" comes from not, the constitution just days later he attended a church service in the rotunda of the capitol. hardly

Look around...read the books written by the men themselves. They are called autobiographies or read the the documents they wrote during the day in which they lived and then figure out for yourselves whether they were men of faith or not instead of relying on research from wikipedia. Whether you feel that prayers should not be prayed in the senate is fine, but to hide behind a clause that does not exist in our constitution is weak.

I find no problem with what was said in the "Treaty of Tripoli" I don't think our founding fathers were trying to establish a christian nation, but I do believe that their beliefs in God played a role in the way our government was designed to function.

Just my 2cents!

Look, for all you guys who don't believe in God thats fine. You don't believe we should pray in government places, that fine. However when you do that you trample on the same first ammendment that is so precious to you. You have no problem quenching my right to free speech and freedom practice my religion. Typical.

For those of you who say God has killed more people blah blah blah, look at history and tell me honestly did God kill those people or did people who were hungry for power and control do that? Were there people who did horrible things in the name of God this is true. But many more did things in the name of greed, lust for power control etc. Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Noriega, Chavaz. The Genocide in the Sudan, China. I could go on but you get the point.

My point is that you are entitled to your own opinion you are not however entitled to the facts.

Fact: The constitution clearly states that the government shall not be in the business of establishing a church. It does not prohibit the the expression of faith in government or in any way say that people of faith should not be involved in government.

Fact: Most, not all of the men who are considered our founding fathers were christian. Judeo-Christian values are expressed everywhere in our founding documents. Look around our museums and memorials in Washington Reference to God are everywhere. Just look around.

Fact: Thomas Jefferson was not against the church or christianity. When he wrote the letter to the Danbury baptists which is where the phrase "seperation of church and state" comes from not, the constitution just days later he attended a church service in the rotunda of the capitol. hardly

Look around...read the books written by the men themselves. They are called autobiographies or read the the documents they wrote during the day in which they lived and then figure out for yourselves whether they were men of faith or not instead of relying on research from wikipedia. Whether you feel that prayers should not be prayed in the senate is fine, but to hide behind a clause that does not exist in our constitution is weak.

I find no problem with what was said in the "Treaty of Tripoli" I don't think our founding fathers were trying to establish a christian nation, but I do believe that their beliefs in God played a role in the way our government was designed to function.

Just my 2cents!

Look, for all you guys who don't believe in God thats fine. You don't believe we should pray in government places, that fine. However when you do that you trample on the same first ammendment that is so precious to you. You have no problem quenching my right to free speech and freedom practice my religion. Typical.

For those of you who say God has killed more people blah blah blah, look at history and tell me honestly did God kill those people or did people who were hungry for power and control do that? Were there people who did horrible things in the name of God this is true. But many more did things in the name of greed, lust for power control etc. Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Noriega, Chavaz. The Genocide in the Sudan, China. I could go on but you get the point.

My point is that you are entitled to your own opinion you are not however entitled to the facts.

Fact: The constitution clearly states that the government shall not be in the business of establishing a church. It does not prohibit the the expression of faith in government or in any way say that people of faith should not be involved in government.

Fact: Most, not all of the men who are considered our founding fathers were christian. Judeo-Christian values are expressed everywhere in our founding documents. Look around our museums and memorials in Washington Reference to God are everywhere. Just look around.

Fact: Thomas Jefferson was not against the church or christianity. When he wrote the letter to the Danbury baptists which is where the phrase "seperation of church and state" comes from not, the constitution just days later he attended a church service in the rotunda of the capitol. hardly

Look around...read the books written by the men themselves. They are called autobiographies or read the the documents they wrote during the day in which they lived and then figure out for yourselves whether they were men of faith or not instead of relying on research from wikipedia. Whether you feel that prayers should not be prayed in the senate is fine, but to hide behind a clause that does not exist in our constitution is weak.

I find no problem with what was said in the "Treaty of Tripoli" I don't think our founding fathers were trying to establish a christian nation, but I do believe that their beliefs in God played a role in the way our government was designed to function.

Just my 2cents!

nuthin i love more than a joke that really stinks- to high heaven, if you will
exit stage left

Q. What did the Rev. Skunk say to his congregation?
A. Let us spray.

Lepido:

True, you can pray at home or your church. But someone, somewhere in our history, believed that opening prayers were important in group events. Presumably they thought it served an important purpose, as the National Anthem or performing the Pledge do before other events. My guess is all these things serve to instill a sense (or provide a reminder) of what unifies the assembled group. Except in religion, where we are not so unified.

I was in a movie theatre on a military base many years ago, and the anthem was played before the feature. My recollection is that this used to be more common in civilan theatres as well.

i cant remeber when or where i saw this, but it is indelibly etched into my consciousnesssung to the tune of the star spangled banner-

o say can you see? ~
by the dawns early light~
~~~~~~~

sung as-
as we sit here waiting-
for the ballgame to start...

i cant remeber the rest-

i laughed, i cried, it became a part of me.

Jay:

Me: **...what purpose is served by having the national anthem and prayer before an athletic event anyway.**
You: **Captive audience. Both are rituals to remind the participants of what unifies them.**

I don't see it. What unifies me with other fans at a ball game is desire to see the ball game. That's what I bought a ticket for. I can pray at home or at church for free.

**I think I've read that back in the early-mid 20th century, the Pledge may have been done before movies, but that was before my time.**

You've got to be kidding me.

http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cof=GL%3A1%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BT%3A%230000ff%3BVLC%3A%23663399%3BALC%3A%23000000%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3B&domains=www.sacred-texts.com&q=Christna+Christ&btnG=Search&sitesearch=www.sacred-texts.com

Please read the articles on Christna (Krishna) and Christ and decide for yourself how much spin has gone around in name of pushing one religion by the Founding Fathers of Christinity.

Please also read about Nag Hammadi Text which was discovered in Egypt in 1940's at:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Somehow my two postings have gone missing and not sure if they have been censored because of volume or content. Content was nothing but pointing to the texts on which ancient writers have talked on the subject of similarity between Christna and Christ, but Christna is dated around 3100 BC. The content may not be directly related to the subject but it helps those orthodox hecklers of Christian Faith to open up their eyes for some wisdom. Volume wise, I added snippets from different texts. but the content on the topic being so much, the posting became large, and the message I got from the server was it would be published after approval.

http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cof=GL%3A1%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BT%3A%230000ff%3BVLC%3A%23663399%3BALC%3A%23000000%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3B&domains=www.sacred-texts.com&q=Christna+Christ&btnG=Search&sitesearch=www.sacred-texts.com

Please read the articles on Christna (Krishna) and Christ and decide for yourself how much spin has gone around in name of pushing one religion by the Founding Fathers of Christinity.

Please also read about Nag Hammadi Text which was discovered in Egypt in 1940's at:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Somehow my two postings have gone missing and not sure if they have been censored because of volume or content. Content was nothing but pointing to the texts on which ancient writers have talked on the subject of similarity between Christna and Christ, but Christna is dated around 3100 BC. The content may not be directly related to the subject but it helps those orthodox hecklers of Christian Faith to open up their eyes for some wisdom. Volume wise, I added snippets from different texts. but the content on the topic being so much, the posting became large, and the message I got from the server was it would be published after approval.

Too many Christians --- probably others as well --- seem to feel that the mere acknowledgment of dissenting views is an act of disrespect to their G-d. So it is not enough that they can opt out of evolution or sex education (or non-Christian prayers) on behalf of their offspring, they must also prohibit those subjects from being taught to my kids either.
ACT-UP used to interrupt Catholic masses and throw condoms in order to get attention for a variety of causes, mostly AIDS research as I recall. I don't remember many of the groups now protesting things like Hindu prayers in the congress being too supportive of the right of gay activists to disrupt a Christian (albeit Papist) liturgy.
It's been my experience, by the way, that those who have never become familiar with other cultures and views tend to be defensive and easily swayed even on faith issues.

Sorry -- not the Pledge, the National Anthem in movie houses.

"I've never been able to figure out what purpose is served by having the national anthem and prayer before an athletic event anyway. A ball game is not a military event, an exercise in patriotic display, or a religious service. It's a game. Entertainment. You don't sing the national anthem and say a prayer before you play bridge or watch a movie, why do it before a ball game?"

Captive audience. Both are rituals to remind the participants of what unifies them. But in the case of prayers, that does not really apply anymore (if it ever really did).

I think I've read that back in the early-mid 20th century, the Pledge may have been done before movies, but that was before my time.

Public prayer is so much empty talk to make people feel pious. They act the way they will anyway, regardless of prayer. It's an empty ritual, and generally harmless. The biggest beneficiaries are the ones who say the prayers: some are blowhards, others are deeply relgious and have strong convictions about their words. but the words are wasted anyway.

Public prayer is so much empty talk to make people feel pious. They act the way they will anyway, regardless of prayer. It's an empty ritual, and generally harmless. The biggest beneficiaries are the ones who say the prayers: some are blowhards, others are deeply relgious and have strong convictions about their words. but the words are wasted anyway.

I've never been able to figure out what purpose is served by having the national anthem and prayer before an athletic event anyway.

A ball game is not a military event, an exercise in patriotic display, or a religious service. It's a game. Entertainment. You don't sing the national anthem and say a prayer before you play bridge or watch a movie, why do it before a ball game?

Anonymous,

"The participants in the pre-game prayer weren't ostracizing or being hostile or offensive to the writer. They were simply practicing their religion. The negative feelings and defensiveness were all in the head of the writer. Is this what Christianity teaches ... that by simply practicing one's own religion (other than Christianity), you could be offending a bystander?"

While I agree with your general point, what would you suggest if the participants explicitly damned believers in other religions to eternal suffering? Some Christians claim that such statements are "simply practicing their religion."

Viejita:
**Any rule we propose has to make sense if applied to other groups besides ourselves. Again, this is closely to the question on Pagan military chaplains. I continue to be taken aback by those who think rules in a democracy should be different for different people.**

As do I. It brings to mind the oft-quoted line from George Orwell's "Animal Farm."

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Before we go too far criticizing Gary Christenot's narrowmindedness, we need to remind ourselves of his core messge:
"...unless you're ready to endure the unwilling exposure of yourself and your children to those beliefs and practices that your own faith forswears, you have no right to insist that others sit in silence and complicity while you do the same to them."
Any rule we propose has to make sense if applied to other groups besides ourselves. Again, this is closely to the question on Pagan military chaplains. I continue to be taken aback by those who think rules in a democracy should be different for different people.

But Stan your so smart and not bamboozled. How can I be like you?

I asked my children to write an essay on this topic. Sometimes children given a wonderful simple insight to the world problems and I thought I would share this with the rest of you. BTW, this child has had a head injury where he lost 1/3 brain from 3 places 11 years back, and had lost everything you can think of and take for granted, and has undergone 5 surgeries, and countless therapies at home, where conventional wisdom said rules out the outcome we see today. His Glasgow Coma scale was 3, head swollen 5 times, lost all blood to the extent where doctors had to stab his arota to do type matching, and since this happened in India where life is cheap and nursing system apathetic despite Doctors being world class, he was only on saline water support for 2 hours. He had lost his back, neck, left side paralyzed, right eye could not focus, left eye could not process, vision field cut off, right ear blow away, short term auditory and visual memory blown, sequencing and context switching lost, spatial analysis lost, and so on. Still I made him learn skates, both lines and wheelers, swimming and bicycling, and he went to special schools for 4 years and now goes to one of the best schools in California, and gets As and Bs. Thought I will share this background before people read his so called written essay.

Father.

Prayers In The Senate

People are debating on the idea of saying prayers in the Senate. Should we allow
people to say a certain type of prayer from a religion that someone might not believe in?

And if do we say a prayer, from which religion should the prayer be? Think about how
people might feel when a prayer from their religion is not said. If we say prayers from
different religions, we might occasionally forget to say a prayer from a religion. For
example, if we say prayers from all religions except Hinduism, Hindus might feel that the
Senate is racist. Also, if we do say a prayer from another religion, people might not like
it. For example, if a Christian says a prayer in public, people who are not Christians,
might think that the Christian is advertising Christianity. This is why I believe that
prayers shouldn’t be said in the Senate.

If we kept religion out of the government, then the country would be a much
happier place. According to the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, everyone has the
right to chose their religion. If we said a prayer in the Senate, some people might think
that we are trying to convert people into another religion. People might feel that this is
breaking the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. And breaking an amendment from the
Bill of Rights is like breaking the law.

Another reason why prayers shouldn’t be said in the Senate is that there will be
less politics. Also, people won’t make fun of each other. For example, a Hindu priest
came to the Senate and said a prayer. The Christians who were present there made fun of
the priest, and made him feel bad. This could also happen to a Christian, who was
reciting a prayer from the Bible. If prayers weren’t said in the Senate, none of these
problems would ever happen.

Religion is supposed to make people happy. The only way a person can be happy
is when the person makes his or her decisions, without anyone interfering. If we said a
prayer in the Senate, people might feel that the person who is reciting the prayer is trying
to make a decision for them by persuading people to convert into another religion. Problems will arise because of prayers.

The main reason why I believe prayers shouldn’t be said in the Senate, is because Religion always leads to politics. Politics leads to more problems. And problems lead to more conflicts. This is why I believe any kind of prayer shouldn’t be said in the Senate.

By,
Devdutt Srivastava

Notice the language in the preceding post (Letter of the Week) from the evangelical Christian who attended a Buddhist pre-game prayer:

"To continue to stand and observe this prayer would represent a betrayal of our own faith and imply the honoring of a pagan deity that was anathema to our beliefs."

"Yet when placed in a setting where the majority culture proved hostile to my faith and beliefs, I became paralyzed with indecision and could not act decisively to defend and proclaim my own beliefs. I felt instantly ostracized and viewed myself as a foreigner in my own land."

"I didn't have to worry about [my children] being confronted with Buddhist, Shinto, Wiccan, Satanic or any other prayer ritual I might find offensive."

The participants in the pre-game prayer weren't ostracizing or being hostile or offensive to the writer. They were simply practicing their religion. The negative feelings and defensiveness were all in the head of the writer. Is this what Christianity teaches ... that by simply practicing one's own religion (other than Christianity), you could be offending a bystander?

I agree with the take-home message from the writer, but the attitude expressed in the letter is what is truly offensive.

It should tell us something that the religons that have God as the author of proscribing lying are themselves based on lies which are proclaimed by the religions as truths!!

Since lying is bad and goes with most wrong doing then it should be assumed that religions based on lies are a wrongdoing.

If the world would start to realize that we as humans are not too smart and are easily bambozzeled it might help to clear the air and the cobwebs that entangle us.

right of god and right of people.

the right of god by god and for god.
the right of the people for the people by the people.

how to reach the stability point between the right of god and the right of people ?this is the hardest issue and the hardest job in the history of mankind till the last day.
the right of choise was well established by the creator of mankind long time ago ,the proof is manifest clear ,every body is free to belive what soever he/she want to belive even if you physicaly put his body in iron mold ,his heart will still be pumping with what ever he belives in.this right was established by god ,way before the constitution and the magna charta of mankind.
what is the issue then?the issue is who should be superior the right of god or the right of people ?the constitution of god or the constitution of people ?how to please god and also please every body ?or please god only?or please mankind even if that displease god ?to make the balance between the 2 rights, mankind need to go to their creator first then to mankind table of dialogueing .its not one country under god but rather one humanity under the creator of humanity.
so far ,mankind wants to belive in god but no commitment!one tongue in god,s pool and another tongue in no commitment pool.this is exactly like pushing 2 behindes in 1 underwear,usualy bust the underwear and leave the mass behinde of mankind naked on the great plain of life!!!.

We all should know that the History taught by the main stream was written by the people who were the colonist and white people, practising Chritianity. And like all religions and people of different lands, culture, languages, they were good and bad people, and the ratio depending on the "truth" being taught by its religious and political leaders. So there is a joke that the main stream history is nothing but a "white wash"!

People should take the opportunity that is present before us to read the books from the ancients which were not available to us but due to Internet, these books are now available. The serious scholars are above the pettiness of religion leaders and only want to satisfy their quest for the knowledge and the truth - and so they wrote their books with this serious and sincere intentions. And keep in mind, people are capable of faltering, as the knowledge is never complete and we bias our knowledge based on the color of our lens, which is based on our background, cultural, religious, etc. You can read these books at books.google.com, www.sacred-texts.com, www.archive.org and the last one is Guttenberg Project site.

So this is what I have found out in my quest and since some of the things have been mentioned here, I thought I will share it with the folks.

The often quoted principle, "Do unto others, what you would like others to do unto you", is from Hindu Scriptures. Please read Mead and King on Gnostics and they mention this. Also you can read other articles posted by me.

Now on the Mosiac Law, which is basically Ten Commandments, based on Hammurabi. This is one of the biggest mistakes of historians of British times to mispronounce and mis interpret the word. Example I can share with people is a seal to be from Babylonia, which says "unknown" Babylonian Script but if you invert the seal, you will see the remainant of the scripts which were shared by Brahmis/Devanagri of Hindus, Phoenecians, and Tachurians (Xing-Xeng, E of China, above Tibet and South West of Mongolia).

So first lets do basic Linguistic Lessons. Why people were called Hindus. Basically there is a river called "Sindhu" river mentioned in Vedas, which is now called Indus. The western side of the river, would call the eastern side of the people "Sindhus". By the way, the Genetive Case Singular is often "Ah", where h is the Hard Aspirated "h" (in Sanskrit it called Visarga). This sound can become siblants, Palatal "Sh", Cereberal "Sh" and Dental "S", or "ar" sound, depending on how they join to others. So you know how the English genitive of possesive-ness like "Jhon's" could have come up with the "'s" rule.

Anyway, coming back to the main discussion, the western people were always caught up in the tussle between Persians and Indians, though the two were part of the same Parent Branch. They had experienced "Surya" and "A-Surya" split, which I have mentioned in another article. So they could not pronounce the sound "S", and called these people on the eastern side, "Hindus". Now we know that "H" is Guttaral sound and can become "A" sound, if aspiration is taken away.

Now come to the two rivers of Uzbekistan: "Surya Dariya" and "Amu Dariya". "Dariya" in Sanskrit means River. And Surya means "Sun", which Suryas or Hindus were, a Sun Worshipper, which most of the people of all lands and nations were. Please read my other articles. And "Amu" is "Hamu", which is "Somu", meaning Moon. Now this means they are Sun and Moon Rivers, which makes perfect sense.

Now come to Hammurabi. This means Hammu-Rabi. English people often confuse semivowel "v" or velar "v" to "b". And "Rabi" is "Ravi", and "Hammu" is "Sommu". So it is "Sommu-Ravi" king! Makes perfect sense, since the ancient kings would take epithets of Gods, as they would imagine themelves to be the representatives of God or the Chosen ones.

Know if you think this is far fetched, I will shock you further. The Surya and A-Surya split also reflects in Hindu History as Solar worshippers and Lunar Worshippers. Knowing Hammu-Rabi to be a man of wisdom, we can say he was coming out to be a Secular, which is reflected by the codes he has left.

If you think still not convinced, go back to his seals and coins, and see what is usually depicted. They depict Sun, Moon, and Obleisk (which I shall talk about later)!.

Still not convinced, now is the punch line: His father name was Amar-phal, which is Amar-Pal, or Eternal Ruler, Protector, Lord or Husband. The other word is "Pati" meaning the same. In South India we have "Tri-Pati" becoming "Tirupati" and in Libya we have "Tri-Pali" becoming "Tri-poly". The ancient name of Palestine was "Pali-Stan", meaning place of Lord. Please note how many nations even today carry the suffix from Sanskrit called "stan".

Now on Obleisk. This is the symbol of power or Male or Father Principle, which is often called "Phallic Worhipp". Please read my other article on this how the word has become a crude meaning to modern society. Still not convinced, go and see the shape of the Hammu-rabi's pillar and wonder why they show an Obleisk in his coins.

They were basically nothing but Persians/Hindus, since they claimed they were as old as 432,000 years (source William Durant, Our Oriental Inheritage), and this number is very sacred to Hindus as it forms a basis of Hindu Cosmogeny, which predicts the life of Universe, and which Carl Sagan, noted American Astronomer, and Scientist, said, "Only the Hindus came very close to predicting the age of the Universe."

Now you can see how much of History taught is covered up. Go and read books at the sites I have mentioned to know the truth. Do people know that there is a "Shiv Lingam" in the musuem of Vatican? Do people know that the word "vati" means a hermitage where spiritual saints stay. If not convinced, read in PIE Religion as well, if you do not have time. There have been caves where the Hindu Pantheons have been discovered in Italy. I have already talked about Om-Phall-os worship in Greece which is nothing but Shiv-Lingam and Yoni worship. Navel connection just shows the same principle at excellence of creation! In Crete they were worshipping Snakes and mysterious letter "3" which is nothing but "AUM", since Phoenecian and Brahamic script is almost similar, and I have a proof of this where a Cretian Seal has an AUM!

But the Colonist Historians who had won the right to say and be heard, were only Christians, spreading lies, to spread conversion. Read the books I have mentioned in my other articles.

Michael Irvin's 2007 Hall of Fame enshrinement speech.

Jesus. Jesus. Jesus.

Still changing lives. Still mending hearts.

DuckPhup, you're my hero! Stand up and take a bow. (Wild applause from (almost) all corners). Your post was a perfect refutation of Leigh's half-truths and outright falsehoods. I especialy enjoyed it after reading the post on top, coming from a Christian who found out how it feels to have the shoe on the other foot. Well done!

WorldNetDaily
Letter of the Week

Why I'm against
pre-game prayers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 14, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

I was prompted to write and comment after reading the story on the New Jersey football coach that resigned because he was prohibited from leading his team in pre-game prayers.

Let me start by saying I am an evangelical Christian and have pretty hard-core beliefs about the rights of individuals, particularly students, to express their faith, to include religious themes in their school work, to perform Christian-themed music and dramas during school talent events, etc. If a school administrator had ever tried to stop one of my kids from carrying a Bible, participating in voluntary prayer, or openly discussing their faith with another student, I would have sued him back in to the Stone Age.

You might be surprised then to learn that I am adamantly opposed to teachers and other school officials leading students in prayer or the conduct of prayer rituals, even by students, at officially sanctioned events. Why would I take a position that is seemingly so at odds with my core beliefs?

Throughout the vast majority of the United States, most religious practices and beliefs are rooted in a traditional Judeo-Christian belief system. As such, prayers conducted before a football game or at a graduation ceremony, even if so bland and non-proselytizing as to be meaningless, are generally offered in the context of the traditional Jehovah God of the Old and New Testament. However, that is not the case in all corners of our nation.

I had the privilege of serving our nation's Air Force while assigned to Hickam Air Force Base on the beautiful island of Oahu in the beautiful state of Hawaii. Because of the arrangement of military housing in that location, my family and I actually lived not at Hickam near the Honolulu metropolitan area, but at Wheeler Air Force Base in the central part of the island just out side of the small pineapple-farming town of Wahiawa. In Wahiawa we found a small Baptist church that met our family's needs. However, Christians and others from various Judeo-Christian traditions were in the very distinct minority in this little village that was populated predominantly by people of Japanese and Chinese ancestry. Rather than a church on every corner, as is common in the continental 48 states, Wahiawa had a Shinto or Buddhist shrine on every corner.

Because we worked in the youth department of our church and taught teenage Sunday School classes, we were anxious to be involved in the lives of the students we worked with. So we were quite excited to be able to attend our first football game at Wahiawa High School. Upon our arrival at the stadium it seemed like so many other high school athletic events we had been to in many other places. The teams were warming up, the band was gathering, the ROTC was preparing to raise the colors – a pretty typical fall ritual.

Coming from a fairly traditional Southern upbringing, I was not at all initially surprised when a voice came over the PA and asked everyone to rise for the invocation. I had been through this same ritual at many other high-school events and thought nothing of it, so to our feet my wife and I stood, bowed our heads, and prepared to partake of the prayer. But to our extreme dismay, the clergyman who took the microphone and began to pray was not a Protestant minister or a Catholic priest, but a Buddhist priest who proceeded to offer up prayers and intonations to god-head figures that our tradition held to be pagan.

We were frozen in shock and incredulity! What to do? To continue to stand and observe this prayer would represent a betrayal of our own faith and imply the honoring of a pagan deity that was anathema to our beliefs. To sit would be an act of extreme rudeness and disrespect in the eyes of our Japanese hosts and neighbors, who value above all other things deference and respect in their social interactions. I am sorry to say that in the confusion of the moment we chose the easier path and elected to continue to stand in silence so as not to create a scene or ill will among those who were seated nearby.

As I thought through the incident over the next few days I supposed that the duty of offering the pre-game prayer rotated through the local clergy and we just happened to arrive on the night that the responsibility fell to the Buddhist priest. However, after inquiring I learned that due to the predominance of Buddhist and Shinto adherents in this town, it was the normal practice to have a member of one these faiths offer the pre-game prayer, and Christian clergy were never included. Needless to say that was our first and last football game. Although many of the students we worked with continued to invite us to the games, we were forced to decline. We knew that if we were to attend again we would be forced to abstain from the pre-game activity. And not wanting to offend our Asiatic neighbors and colleagues, we simply refrained from attending.

The point is this. I am a professional, educated and responsible man who is strong in his faith and is quite comfortable debating the social and political issues of the day. Yet when placed in a setting where the majority culture proved hostile to my faith and beliefs, I became paralyzed with indecision and could not act decisively to defend and proclaim my own beliefs. I felt instantly ostracized and viewed myself as a foreigner in my own land.

We often advocate the practice of Judeo-Christian rituals in America's public schools by hiding behind the excuse that they are voluntary and any student who doesn't wish to participate can simply remained seated and silent. Oh that this were true. But if I, as a mature adult, would be so confounded and uncomfortable when faced with the decision of observing and standing on my own religious principals or run the risk of offending the majority crowd, I can only imagine what thoughts and confusion must run through the head of the typical child or teenager, for whom peer acceptance is one of the highest ideals.

I would say in love to my Christian brothers and sisters, before you yearn for the imposition of prayer and similar rituals in your public schools, you might consider attending a football game at Wahiawa High School. Because unless you're ready to endure the unwilling exposure of yourself and your children to those beliefs and practices that your own faith forswears, you have no right to insist that others sit in silence and complicity while you do the same to them. I, for one, slept better at night knowing that because Judeo-Christian prayers were not being offered at my children's schools, I didn't have to worry about them being confronted with Buddhist, Shinto, Wiccan, Satanic or any other prayer ritual I might find offensive.

Gary Christenot

Editor's note: Each week, our editorial staff will consider the letters we receive for possible inclusion in our Letter Of The Week section. Letters will be evaluated primarily on content, clarity, and conciseness. WorldNetDaily reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, brevity, spelling, grammar, AP style and foul language.

Leigh's diatribe (AUGUST 5, 2007 8:28 AM) is the most preposterous collection of lies, misrepresentations and misinformation that I have seen in quite some time. I am sure that Leigh does not know any better... this is simply a part of the fabric of lies and revisionist history that is consistently TAUGHT as part of the indoctrination (brainwashing) of christian youth in the USA. Christians rely on their 'trusted' religious puppet-masters to provide them with the 'truth'... and get lies... which they then 'believe'. This is one of the many reasons why religion, in general... and Christianity in particular... is so harmful to humanity and to society... and so dangerous.

LEIGH: "I love how we all "invoke" separation of Church and State like it is "Gospel". See, in America, we don't bother to learn why/where sayings come from. If we did then we would use them correctly. Ok before the hate email starts, except this disclaimer: I am speaking on a fact (do your research, even though it also reflects how I feel)."

No, Leigh... you are NOT speaking on a 'fact'... you are relying on sources that you have been assured are 'truthful'... but your 'facts' are really a web of vile lies, meant to deceive you.

LEIGH: "First, you must remember the United States was founded as a Christian Nation. Our beliefs were based on the Judeo-Christian Doctrine. When the founding fathers came, they were all CHRISTIAN. They set up our rule of law based on the MOSAIC law; for those of you who do not know what this means, it based on the laws of Moses, you know, Jewish guy, 10 commandments, first five books of the Bible, parted the Red Sea, blah blah blah, yeah that guy."

No, Leigh... it was founded upon the secular humanist ideals of the 'Enlightenment' and the subsequent 'Age of Reason'. And while many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christians, the ARCHITECTS of the DOI... and of the Constitution... and the Bill of Rights... were NOT Christians... they were Deists. Several of them, in fact (Jefferson and Thomas Paine, in particular) DESPISED christianity.

Mosaic Law and the 10 Commandments had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the 'law of the land' in the USA. The laws were based upon the Code of Hammurabi (which predates the 10 Commandments by at least 1,000 years), English Common Law, and other sources which included Greek and Roman law. The IDEA for having a 'constitution' came from the Constitution of the Iroquois Confederation.

For a HISTORICAL deconstruction of your lie that the laws of our country are based upon Mosaic Law and the 10 Commandments, see this: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/ten_commandments.htm

For a LEGAL deconstruction of this lie, see this (by a Christian): http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030911.html

LEIGH: "Second, the purpose was to come here to worship freely as CHRISTIANS, as the King of England allowed only ONE CHURCH. The founders wanted to be able to worship as Baptists, Protestants, Quakers etc. The purpose of "separation of Church and state" is so that no one CHRISTIAN Doctrine was enforced. The Founding fathers knew all the people who came from England, worshiped ONE GOD - the God of the Christians."

Yeah... right. Like the Puritans, in Massachusetts: "Between 1659 and 1661 four Quakers were hanged, and many more imprisoned or tortured, for preaching views that contradicted Puritan teachings."

There was also an early Massachusetts law that proscribed a punishment of death for anyone who didn't worship "the Lord God".

LEIGH: "Third, sorry to tell you but the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves at what America has become. They NEVER intend our country to have the "Freedom" of religion as we use it today. They would not accept that this "freedom" included Islam, Hinduism, Buddhist, etc. Let me finish before you send the hate email. You have to remember, the settlers FORCED the Indians to covert in many cases, or they certainly brought the Gospel to them to try to convert them. Why because they felt they should be Christian, sure doesn't sound like this "freedom" everyone runs around quoting. In addition, if they owned slaves, the slaves were FORCED to give up their native religions. Heavens, they burned witches at the stake, even if they simply thought you were a witch. Doesn't sound to me like this "Freedom" everyone talks about."

Yes... quite so... that pretty-well sums up Christianity... spread throughout the world at the point of a sword. Convert or die. However, our Founding Fathers had moved quite beyond that. This is the very mind-set by Christianity dragged the former Roman Empire into the Dark Ages.

"We would be 1,500 years ahead if it hadn't been for the church dragging science back by its coattails and burning our best minds at the stake." — Catherine Fahringer

The 'Founding Fathers' would INDEED be rolling over in their graves... after reading what you have written.

LEIGH: "So, to sum this up. We are a Christian Nation, UNDER the Judeo- Christian GOD, who follow (or should be) the established Mosaic laws, based on the desires of the Founding Fathers who EXPECTED & BELIEVED we were all CHRISTIANS, and wanted us to be FREE to WORSHIP the GOD of the Bible, not the god of the Quran (not the same god by the way) or any other holy book (though many of the founders read the Quran - great piece of literature) you may want to re-read the 1st commandment."

Well... that sums up your collection of lies, misconceptions and misrepresentations quite nicely. In fact, we are a SECULAR nation that happens to have a lot of Christians in it... MANY of whom are actively engaged in a sub-rosa endeavor to overthrow the Constitution and transform this democratic republic into a theocracy. (Look up: dominionism, theonomy, christian reconstructionism) It seems like you might think that is a good idea.

LEIGH: "Face it we are (or at least were at inception) a Christian Nation. KSA & Iran can say they are Muslim, I have no problem w/that, the problem I have is not being able to call my nation what it is, what is was founded as,” One Nation Under the Judeo-Christian GOD". Not being able to worship as a Christian w/out being blasted every 5 minutes by someone who is "offended". Interesting how we are tolerant of every other religion but any thing "Christian" is offensive, talk about double standard."

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." ~ Treaty of Tripoli, 1796

As has been pointed out many times in this thread, 'One nation under God" did not appear in the nation's consciousness until 1954, in the era of the 'Red Menace' and McCarthyism, when it was (inadvisably) added to the Pledge of Allegiance to remind us that we were different from the 'godless' communists. Also... when have you ever been denied your right to go to church and worship as a Christian? I would guess NEVER... unless you regard your right to 'worship as a Christian' to include denying OTHER people to worship (or not) as they choose... and to contimually prosthletize... and to work to insert your beliefs into the public sphere and government policy.

"I am treated as evil by Christians, who claim that they are being persecuted because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do." ~ D. Dale Gulledge

LEIGH: "So I wish you all would use this "separation of Church & State" correctly, but of course you can't it would not fit w/your secularist agenda."

Sorry, Leigh... you are misinformed. You need to quit trusting professional liars as a source of vital historical and scientific information.

Advice:

Seek out historians for information about history... not churchmen.

Seek out scientists for information about science... not churchmen.

Seek out churchmen for information about religion... not scientists and historians... UNLESS, of course, you are seeking information about the HISTORY of religion. In that matter, churchmen are the LEAST trustworthy sources... stick with REAL historians.

The white house has a Menorah (Jewish religious symbol), in it.... yet NO ONE SAYS a damn word about that!

The White house has dual-citizens lobbying government officials (Israel-Americans), yet NO ONE SAYS A DAMN WORD ABOUT THAT!

The White house funds Israel, that has a secret Nuclear program (which is against our policies), yet no one says a world about that!

The White house admits to following the Nohidic Laws (Talmudic Judahic crap), yet NO ONE SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT THAT!

America is a country full of hypocrites, losers, apethitec idiots and dual-citizen-lobbying Jews.

Don't believe me? Check this out!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051206-4.html

The white house has a Menorah (Jewish religious symbol), in it.... yet NO ONE SAYS a damn word about that!

The White house has dual-citizens lobbying government officials (Israel-Americans), yet NO ONE SAYS A DAMN WORD ABOUT THAT!

The White house funds Israel, that has a secret Nuclear program (which is against our policies), yet no one says a world about that!

The White house admits to following the Nohidic Laws (Talmudic Judahic crap), yet NO ONE SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT THAT!

America is a country full of hypocrites, losers, apethitec idiots and dual-citizen-lobbying Jews.

Don't believe me? Check this out!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051206-4.html

The white house has a Menorah (Jewish religious symbol), in it.... yet NO ONE SAYS a damn word about that!

The White house has dual-citizens lobbying government officials (Israel-Americans), yet NO ONE SAYS A DAMN WORD ABOUT THAT!

The White house funds Israel, that has a secret Nuclear program (which is against our policies), yet no one says a world about that!

The White house admits to following the Nohidic Laws (Talmudic Judahic crap), yet NO ONE SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT THAT!

America is a country full of hypocrites, losers, apethitec idiots and dual-citizen-lobbying Jews.

Don't believe me? Check this out!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051206-4.html

The white house has a Menorah (Jewish religious symbol), in it.... yet NO ONE SAYS a damn word about that!

The White house has dual-citizens lobbying government officials (Israel-Americans), yet NO ONE SAYS A DAMN WORD ABOUT THAT!

The White house funds Israel, that has a secret Nuclear program (which is against our policies), yet no one says a world about that!

The White house admits to following the Nohidic Laws (Talmudic Judahic crap), yet NO ONE SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT THAT!

America is a country full of hypocrites, losers, apethitec idiots and dual-citizen-lobbying Jews.

Sunil: There are still remnants today in Japan of the religion that worshipped the penis. The word is not crude, it is a body part. My point was not to denigrate any particular religion, but to capsulize that the concept of "god" changes over the milleniums and is a creation in the mind of humans. No one religion knows the truth about the existence or non-existence of God, although many claim to know.

I think that they should go back to basics: Pledge Allegiance tot he Flag, and then read a paragraph of the Constitution each day. They may then stop ignoring it.

Sunil Srivastava:

Thank you for your excellent post. It is very enlightening indeed. And thank you Washington Post. I love this site, mana from heaven for all truth-seekers.

JD6:

Your ignorance of religion theosphy and ignorance and crude interpretation of the religion of ancestors of Proto Indo European People (lookup in Wikipedia), of which PIE Language and PIE Religion we are mostly part of it. Most probably you ancestors were part of PIE people and Hinduism is the last standing vestiage of that Prototype PIE Religion. So you have just cursed your ancestors and called them stupid.

The ancients worshiped "Male" and "Female" Power of Regeneration aspects that they perceived in Nature and the Divinity, which the Nature is part of it. Like fashion, language, culture, values, science, and art changes with time, religious and ideas on God change, and I will bet you that in future the idea of God will change and the symbols used to represent Him. Please read my other postings.

They ancients would treat Sun as the Male or Father Principle of Divinity. And the Earth as Female or Mother Principle of Divinity. When the Sun would go away to the Tropic of Capricon, the ancestors being Farmers and heavily depended on the mercy of the powers of Nature and specially Sun (read they were very scientific in this understanding), they would envisage that their God, was so merciful that it would come back like a Father in Spring Equinox and Summer Solistice, and shower rains (make love to mother earth) and Earth with it's Female Principle would bring forth its produce and life here on earth would revive. They needed symbols and they were not vulgurs like the today's modern mind and man is (see even today the tribal women are still not shy of revealing their breasts) and were very simple and had no guilt or complex as taught by the Judae Christian Theology on this issue. So the ancients developed the symbol denoting the Male and Female Principles. So this aspect was prevalant all over the world, specially in the Middle East, Europe, India, Greece, Crete, Egypt, Italy, and even Americas. Also people would like to have an Eternal Life and Snake was the symbol of that (because it would shed its skin every year - thus rejuvinate itself). As usual, the symbols sometimes get mixed and true meaings get lost.

The world comes from Sanskrit, which Greeks also took, since they are sister languages, or Sanskrit happens to be its mother language, and they worshiped "Omphallos", which is Om-phall-os.
(If you see where English is spoken with most versatile grammer and expression, then you can say the source of English must be UK, and similarly one can show Sanskrit is more versatile than ancient Greece but still very close).

Now surprisingly, in Sanskrit, the world "Phal" means Fruit, Lingam or Oblesik, and Male Generative Organ. The word "Om" is nothing but short form of "Aum", as the "A" and "U" becomes "O" in Classical Languages like Sanskrit and Greece. Have you ever wondered what the "om" in om-ni-scient, om-ni-present, and om-ni-powerful comes from? It denotes the same aspect of all Powerful God. In Hinduism, AUM or OM is the symbol for the Brahman or the Super Soul. The suffix "os" is coming from Declensions, where it could mean genitive case, and some euphonics combination rules (like in Sandhi of Sanskrit). So it means Fruit of the Supreme Soul, which is what is really the whole life here is in our forms, including the resources on earth, which ancients were taught to respect (read they anticipated the today's Global Warming, which I will talk about later). Sometimes "l" can double in classical IE Languages. Now in the word, "Phallic", it is denoting the symbol of English "ness" as an adjective, since their is a rule which says, you can add "ic" to make it and adjective.

In religion there are two parts: Esoteric meanings for the Priests and the Learned, and Exoteric meanings for the Masses and the Unlearned. Think how many people were educated in the US 100 years back, and in fact how many people are really educated even now. So you can not blame the exoteric and crude meaning being propogated and the modern society calling it a "penis worhsip" in the name of "Phallic Worship". Recent Discovery Channel made an announcement of their findings, that all of middle east had snake worships. So was Sun Worship also prevalant all over the world (Snake mounds, Lingams and AUM signs have been found in the Americas also).

If you look at the symbol of Lingam and Yoni, from the top, it looks like an Electric Terminal of a Circuit Depicted in an Electrical Circuit Diagram, which conveys the same principle, of Postive and Negative Energy Forces. Here the Shiv Lingam is the symbol of Male Principle and Yoni is the Female Principle.

We can not make fun of other people because no one really knows how to really conceive of Him.
The closes concept is that he is the Super Soul and we are part and parcel of Him. Please read my other postings.

Example, what is life. In one of Upnishads, life is called, something that: (1) has motion, (2) replicates, divides or reproduces, (3) ingests food or energy, and (4) excreates or gives out lower form of food or energy. By this defintion we can also call atomic particles having life!

But you do not have to go that far. We know that Ameoba has life. And our bodies have millions cells of Ameoba and they die everytime and are reborn. Does that mean you have died?
You will say no, I am the same Mr. X or Ms. Y. But the truth is that all cells of your body get replaced every 10 years. So are you the body? The answer here can not be "yes" as then your body gets changed every 10 years with all new cells and you have a different body.

So regressing like this, the great Hindu Philosphers came up with the Philosphy of Brahman or Vedanta saying that the whole Universe, what was there, what is now and what would be there, sentinent and in-sentinent, animate and un-animate, what we can see, no matter how far, at microscopic and macroscopic levels, and what we can not see included, is all Brahman or Supersoul, and like Ameoba Cell Bodies in our bodies, and we will never die as we are that Brahman! But our identification of ourselves with body, mind, ego and intellect fools us to believe this physical world to be true and our senses absolutely fine, but science has already shown that we do not see and hear everything! And science has shown there are 16 dimensions. So how can we all be sure of our religions and say, "Yes my way is the right-way, otherwise Amigos, take the High-way." This philosphy was also complemented with Hindu Philosphy that everything is made of the same unit and they called it "Atma" or Soul. Now we all know that most of the Atomic Scientists in early days were from Germany and they still call Atom as "Atm", which is nothing but "Atma", but the Soul. (Please note English comes from Latin, which comes from ancient Greek, and German, which comes from Sanskrit). So you see how scientific it is. In fact the Laws of Conservation of Mass, and Laws of Conservation of Energy, which both laws were later combined by Einstien famous formula of E=MC^2, was first stated by Hindus in their Scriptures, which says Soul or Atma never dies, and it recycles or re-incarnates. So at atomic level we can not argue this. Now in 1989 there was some article about experiments being done by Japanese Scientists in one the Time or Newsweek magazine, which said they were trying to capture some rare atomic particles, called some Fermi Particles, who were travelling for eons, millions of years in the space, and they were seeking out their "identical twin particle" from whom they had seperated millions of years and miles before! So if these particles can have memory, one can still say that the memory is nothing but something made of atomic particles, whether it is an abstract energy or matter, does not matter, as we know they are nothing but same, we can expect Reincarnation at Human Mind Level and Lives!

So how such an ancient religion of Proto Indo European, of which Hindus are the last remants, despite suffering onslaught from Islam and Christian invaders for almost 1500 years, all over the world, and specially in India, be such a primitive religion when most advancement of human mind was achieved by such people? If you do not know, learn on Sanskrit, Mathematics, Science, Medicine, and Astronomy of Hindus.

Only vulgur and un-educated mind can push things like what you said, which the Church Founders have done as a marketing and political spins.

Look at the world today, and the most of the violence has been created by the religion of Abraham, Islam and Christianity, though I will not call Jews being that except for last 60 years, which I guess that they can not help as they are themselves the victims of their travesty and we civilization people have not answered to their needs in rational way, which also taking care of Arabs.

So lets be first Spiritualists and imbibe the teachings of real Christ, which only were preceded by Hindu Scriptures.

Once again, see for yourself:

AUM, AMN, AMEN, AMIN for Hindus, Jews, Christians and Muslims. Not sure about Jews which I know is close to AMIN but have read their earlier language Coptic did not have vowels.

I am copying this from another thread so that people can appreciate what I have found out in my pursuit of the Truth from the Past.

I truly wish if everyone can imbibe the character of Christ and the world would be a better place. Christ in Sanskrit means that one which is to be attracted. Krishna means the same. In fact the ancient name of Christ is still used in India by the name of Isha Mashi, which ancient Isreali's used it. Sadly, even the followers of Christ, had their politics and were envious of Mary's hold on Christ. That is the human nature and all pushers of religion when it becomes a centrally organized religion, where often it has been seen getting corrupted with power, money and sex (not long time back Church could be bribed to wash your sins).

I do not understand why you do not still understand that Hinduism is not a polytheist religion. It is a man made concept and that too show a first division between Persians and Indians, e.g. Suryas (or Devas) vs A-Suryas. This was the basis of a philosphical split but there was still intermingling between the group and no violence was there. In fact most of the Indian Spiritual Saints of Scriptures trace their lineage to the Persian side. This was about allowing iconic worship vs just being a pure worshiper of symbol of one God, called Fire, which Vedas also worshiped as a messenger to God, in sacrificial oblations. In fact the word "Agnus Dei" in Latin in Christinity goes to Agni Dev and symbolizes the same concept. This was the basis of formation of nations called Syria and A-Syria (Surya and A-Surya as prnounced by Arabs even today). Jews got their theosphy from Babylonians, which were ruled by Persians Zorastrians (A-Suryas), and also from Egyptians, which were already influenced by Persians, and before that there were hardly monotheists. Plus they were the nomads who shot off from Babylonia. Their "Coming of Age" Ceremony, where a thread is tied is same as Zorastrians and Hindus. You can call the Suryas as Brahman-ic Religion and A-Suryas as A-Brahaman-ic Religion, e.g. Abrhaham.
Their is so much similarity between stories of Brhama and Abrahma. Often the religion invents parables as stories of moral value and lessons in faith, and often people take up the names of the characters in the stories, and soon myth and facts start mixing to become religious history, which people from religion call it History, and others call it Mythology (how much of it from Hindu is believed by outsiders and how much of it from Bible is pushed to people as History, like Christmas being the birth date of Christ - read Mead/King mentioned later). You should also read on similarities of history between Krishna and Christ and colonist Britishers in 16 century thought that Hindus had copied the stories, forged all the vast amount of scripture, you can call it an Ocean (before it Bible is a drop in an ocean), spread across the land from Afganistan/Uzbekistan to Burma, and from Kashmir/Tibet/Tachuria to South with so many factions of Brahmins, where there was no communication and transportation needed for such an organized mass effort, and it was famous for its divisive rulers which Muslim Conquerors Britishers exploited. Then how historical sites like Ashokas Pillars and Elephants caves with idols depicting Krishna, and scripts mentioning Krishna, even ome Pillars erected by Greeks, could be fabricated. Please read Anacalypsis by Geofry Higgins.

Please read Books by Mead and King on Gnostics at www.sacred-texts.com and see for yourself how much of politiking went on in first 300 years between founding fathers of Roman Church and the rest of the followers of Christ. How one group was bad mouthed by others, which was believed as the truth, till recent discoveries of Gnostics Books in Egypt, which were burried in farmland to escape destruction at hands of the Founding Fathers of Christianity, which is well recorded. Please read how much of theosphy, icons, symbols were borrowed from Hinduism indirectly and directly into modern Christianity.

We all know how much pillage, destruction of temples and libraries went around the world in the name of Christianity by its zealots who wanted to convert the world to their enlightened religion. How enlighting! And this was repeated by Islam Conquerors, and now same is happening since 9/11 which we call terrorism!

We all know what went on around 1000 AD by the Christian Knights and how Protestants and Catholic fought over what should be in Bible and which language. How many people were put to the stake and how many reformists and translators were haunted and killed?

I was shocked to read the teaching of Jesus Christ were same as what is taught in Indian Gita and scriptures. In facts things like Yogic and Devotional teachings were also there but dropped by Roman Church. That may explain why Christ was missing for 15 years and is said to have visited different spiritual places and temples in India. In fact there is a reference of Christ in Bhavishya Purana and a Kashmir King.

It is a fallacy of human mind to push one idea of Divinity to others. Period. The relationship between God and Individual Soul is a very personal one.

At the core of Hinduism, they tell you to seek God inside you, which is what Christ said, "Do not seek Me in outside the world but inside yourself", which means a process where Jesus became Christ. In Vedanta and Gita, is said the one-ness of Individual Soul with the Universal Soul and where one becomes without perceived duality, without You and Me, without Happiness and Sorrow but with Eternal Peace and Happiness, without Anger and Hatred but with Love and Compassion, and so on.

Hinduism has never bothered to convert anyone. And like all religions, we also have our fair share of problems, but history tells us that most peaceful people have been Hindus. Read William Durant on Hindus in Our Oriental Inheritage.

The shouting at the senate was nothing but highlighting devilish behavior driven by ignorance, superstition, jealousy and politics.

Tell me did Jesus said go and covert everyone in the world and divide the Christians into all the sects, Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Protestonts, Mormons, Lutherians, and so on. Everyone has his/her right to communicate to his/her God, in his and her whatever image.

The journey of Spiritualism happens over the years for many, and concepts change, and no one has a right to force his or her views, and one can only suggest. But the best Church and Temple is in the Hearts of Human Soul! Why encroach on to it with our Filth!!

The User Interface here is very bad and the Posting seems to be hanging when it should give a box saying the message was received. One lands up doing this multiple times, which I did and then there was a cut and paste mistake from where I copied these comments to make it a main thread.

If you are a Theosphy expert, you should know Hinduism does not preach Polytheism but allows multiple forms of Icons as symbols. It preaches one essential essence of Divinity or God Existence with many forms and expressions, and for the ease of Human Understanding, which Christian Theology put them as Angels, representating different powers of the One Being. Symbols are invented to help and later they themselves become the expression of the very thing that the symbol was developed to be used as a "handle to grip" on the "elusive idea" about an entity called God. It is our fallacy to even think of Him as an entity which He is not since He is beyond our senses!

God is beyond 3-dimensional space amd time, and science has come to admit their being 16 dimensions, and He is very well beyond that even! So how a tiny human brain can understand Godhood, and we are like Blind People hitting on different parts of an elephant amd fighting and debating over the description of God Elephant as "Monotheist Trunk", "Polytheist Legs", "Dual Eyes", "Monotheist Tail", "Dualist Ears", "Polytheist Teeth", "Dualist Tusks", "Montheist Body", and so on. And among each categories of 'iest', we still fight what they actually mean! Look at so many division of Churches. Some even worship Madonna and/or Mary as God. Some worship Jesus as God, and so on. Some Christians fight over saying there is only one God and that the is the God talked about in Bible and by Jesus. So that means there was no God before Jesus.

Best part I can quote from Bhagwat Gita, which Krishna says, "Worship of Any Gods(Angels), in whatever form and way, Devotion expressed to them in whatever form and way, is My Worship". Here Krishna is not the Individual God but talking as the Supreme. So far their is principle of Non Violence followed to all living beings, animate and in-animate, which means incuding to plants and nature's elements, any thing is allowed in name of God, so far the thought counts. Do not look at the Gift but at the thought of the Gift.

All serious research into Theosphy and Philosphy perceived to be as original from Jews, Greeks, and Egypts would go back to Hinduism and Vedas.

WHat we call Hinduism is the last remanant of the Proto Indo European religion practised by all Europeans and Middle East People, including Greek, Egypt, Persians, Bablonias, Israelites, and so on.

In fact, the United Nations should declare this religion and its language as the living inheritance of our Human Ancestry. Now DNA study also backs this up, where 40,000 BC North Western of Indian Penisula saw the Indo Europeans passing into Europe.

Only Devils can protest to this Prey to the God which was said in the Senate:

Lead us from the Un-Truth to the Truth, Lead us from the Darkness to the Light, Lead us from the Ignorance to the Engligtment, Lead us from the Death to the Immortality.

Everthing is Brahaman, as per Vedas, was Brahman, is Brahman, and shall be Brahaman. Which means Brahman is the Super Soul and we are just the part and parcel of that.

Love, and Peace to All which are part of Brhaman.

Amen. Amin. Aum.

August 3, 2007 8:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on August 3, 2007 20:13

Sunil Srivastava:
If you are a Theosphy expert, you should know Hinduism does not preach Polytheism but allows multiple forms of Icons as symbols. It preaches one essential essence of Divinity or God Existence with many forms and expressions, and for the ease of Human Understanding, which Christian Theology put them as Angels, representating different powers of the One Being. Symbols are invented to help and later they themselves become the expression of the very thing that the symbol was developed to be used as a "handle to grip" on the "elusive idea" about an entity called God. It is our fallacy to even think of Him as an entity which He is not since He is beyond our senses!

God is beyond 3-dimensional space amd time, and science has come to admit their being 16 dimensions, and He is very well beyond that even! So how a tiny human brain can understand Godhood, and we are like Blind People hitting on different parts of an elephant amd fighting and debating over the description of God Elephant as "Monotheist Trunk", "Polytheist Legs", "Dual Eyes", "Monotheist Tail", "Dualist Ears", "Polytheist Teeth", "Dualist Tusks", "Montheist Body", and so on. And among each categories of 'iest', we still fight what they actually mean! Look at so many division of Churches. Some even worship Madonna and/or Mary as God. Some worship Jesus as God, and so on. Some Christians fight over saying there is only one God and that the is the God talked about in Bible and by Jesus. So that means there was no God before Jesus.

Best part I can quote from Bhagwat Gita, which Krishna says, "Worship of Any Gods(Angels), in whatever form and way, Devotion expressed to them in whatever form and way, is My Worship". Here Krishna is not the Individual God but talking as the Supreme. So far their is principle of Non Violence followed to all living beings, animate and in-animate, which means incuding to plants and nature's elements, any thing is allowed in name of God, so far the thought counts. Do not look at the Gift but at the thought of the Gift.

All serious research into Theosphy and Philosphy perceived to be as original from Jews, Greeks, and Egypts would go back to Hinduism and Vedas.

WHat we call Hinduism is the last remanant of the Proto Indo European religion practised by all Europeans and Middle East People, including Greek, Egypt, Persians, Bablonias, Israelites, and so on.

In fact, the United Nations should declare this religion and its language as the living inheritance of our Human Ancestry. Now DNA study also backs this up, where 40,000 BC North Western of Indian Penisula saw the Indo Europeans passing into Europe.

Only Devils can protest to this Prey to the God which was said in the Senate:

Lead us from the Un-Truth to the Truth, Lead us from the Darkness to the Light, Lead us from the Ignorance to the Engligtment, Lead us from the Death to the Immortality.

Everthing is Brahaman, as per Vedas, was Brahman, is Brahman, and shall be Brahaman. Which means Brahman is the Super Soul and we are just the part and parcel of that.

Love, and Peace to All which are part of Brhaman.

Amen. Amin. Aum.

August 3, 2007 8:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on August 3, 2007 20:16

Sunil Srivastava:
If you are a Theosphy expert, you should know Hinduism does not preach Polytheism but allows multiple forms of Icons as symbols. It preaches one essential essence of Divinity or God Existence with many forms and expressions, and for the ease of Human Understanding, which Christian Theology put them as Angels, representating different powers of the One Being. Symbols are invented to help and later they themselves become the expression of the very thing that the symbol was developed to be used as a "handle to grip" on the "elusive idea" about an entity called God. It is our fallacy to even think of Him as an entity which He is not since He is beyond our senses!

God is beyond 3-dimensional space amd time, and science has come to admit their being 16 dimensions, and He is very well beyond that even! So how a tiny human brain can understand Godhood, and we are like Blind People hitting on different parts of an elephant amd fighting and debating over the description of God Elephant as "Monotheist Trunk", "Polytheist Legs", "Dual Eyes", "Monotheist Tail", "Dualist Ears", "Polytheist Teeth", "Dualist Tusks", "Montheist Body", and so on. And among each categories of 'iest', we still fight what they actually mean! Look at so many division of Churches. Some even worship Madonna and/or Mary as God. Some worship Jesus as God, and so on. Some Christians fight over saying there is only one God and that the is the God talked about in Bible and by Jesus. So that means there was no God before Jesus.

Best part I can quote from Bhagwat Gita, which Krishna says, "Worship of Any Gods(Angels), in whatever form and way, Devotion expressed to them in whatever form and way, is My Worship". Here Krishna is not the Individual God but talking as the Supreme. So far their is principle of Non Violence followed to all living beings, animate and in-animate, which means incuding to plants and nature's elements, any thing is allowed in name of God, so far the thought counts. Do not look at the Gift but at the thought of the Gift.

All serious research into Theosphy and Philosphy perceived to be as original from Jews, Greeks, and Egypts would go back to Hinduism and Vedas.

WHat we call Hinduism is the last remanant of the Proto Indo European religion practised by all Europeans and Middle East People, including Greek, Egypt, Persians, Bablonias, Israelites, and so on.

In fact, the United Nations should declare this religion and its language as the living inheritance of our Human Ancestry. Now DNA study also backs this up, where 40,000 BC North Western of Indian Penisula saw the Indo Europeans passing into Europe.

Only Devils can protest to this Prey to the God which was said in the Senate:

Lead us from the Un-Truth to the Truth, Lead us from the Darkness to the Light, Lead us from the Ignorance to the Engligtment, Lead us from the Death to the Immortality.

Everthing is Brahaman, as per Vedas, was Brahman, is Brahman, and shall be Brahaman. Which means Brahman is the Super Soul and we are just the part and parcel of that.

Love, and Peace to All which are part of Brhaman.

Amen. Amin. Aum.

Hank,

What is "true spiritual nature"? How do you define what is exactly the proper spiritual nature and most importantly the spiritual nature that is "TRUTH"? If so many people have a different aspect of spiritual truths well then it is not really truth at all. Agreed?

Victoria:

You're the greatest. I love your attitude. Do you have an opinion on heaven and hell?

Victoria- Disrespect was not my intent. Enlightenment was my intent. Only when you look at the damage religion has done to the true spiritual nature we are capable of, can you get beyond the need for someone else to tell you who or what god is. More people have been killed in the name of religion than any other single source of killing on the planet, and it continues today. If you eliminate religion, I don't think people would be able to justify within themselvs, strapping on explosives, and killing themselve in a crowded market. It is the lie they have been told about the nature of heaven that compells them to do so. There again, the concept of heaven and hell were invented by man. One to reward for religious compliance and the other to punnish for the man made concept of sin. Right and wrong do not exist in the world, they only exist in our minds. Evil does not exist in the world, it only exists in our hearts, and that is the only place it can be defeated, in your own heart. I believe that true spiritualism cannot exist within the confines of religion. I cannot conceive of a god narrow minded enough to allow the followers of only one religion into whatever our individual concepts of heaven might be. I am certain that my concept of the life after this one is different than yours, but I believe we will see each other there. Peace Victoria.

Very well said Victoria. Thank you.

There is vast wealth and power available to those who start a church. Witness the early Catholic Church and today's mega churches and televangilists, who sit at the right hand of our government. What the leaders of these churches tap into is a need by most humans for simple answers about the origin of life, and consolation and justice after death. This quest is created by the human mind not DNA. Long before Christ some ancient cultures worshipped the penis because they thought it created life. After our puny civilization is wiped out another will take its place and worship another god of its making to answer the same questions.

hank- your perception and experiences of religion widely differ from my own-

far from perceiving it as pitting humans against each other- it has fostered in me a genuine search and realization of the connectedness of humanity-

history has amply proven that when religion is taken out of the equation- men find other ways to impose their wills on others-

hank- very word of ANY kind on the planet was written by humans!

the inspiration or creative source is a different matter-

and as to your contention that the chinese wrote the scriptures being discussed, well- confucionism and taoism maybe- but not abrahamic works.

perverted by the human condition? it IS the human nature to corrupt and be opportunistic-

denying this reality does nothing to tame it- or change it-

we cant prove that there are people who would be more ruthless or violent without what they consider their conscience and fear of god-
ridicule the fear as you will- but only a true fool is without fear-

one thing that the faithful value though is humility-

one has to submit to a greater being than ones own pitiful petty self-

this is the basic humanity that i find missing in these conversations.

the supposition that intellectual superiority goes with rejection of religion- (if thats the case, when i was 15 i read revelations and thought that the thing to be "overcome" stated so many times but never identified in that book , was the need for religion as a crutch- i thought it was a hidden code for the clever to figure out)
but i know that i am more mature and a good deal wiser now than when i was 15.

also faithful on the other side of the coin, seem to suffer from a moral superiority-
just as obnoxious and arrogant as the intellectual kind.

if either of these prides prevent one from treating all others with absolute respect, they are both insufficient ways for humans to interact.

(also, it seems that in your reality- it is ok to demean the religious- isnt there an incongruity in that? i wouldnt presume to call the basis of your thought processes primitive-

so obviously, when we stop "using" religion as a means to hate and demean each other- we instantly create new themes to accomplish that, dont we?

if we are determined to prove our superiority, and our pride and desire to stand out in a crowd are our motivation- we will find any ism, wont we.

even secularism- atheism- etc..etc...

when your personal ideas inspire you to have higher more considerate manners and respect towards your fellow humans- ill consider its validity-

but its just another deconstruction with no crafting of a superior ideology or fresh ideas, which frankly, are tiring in their similarity.

maybe you have something to teach us, but insulting us wont get us to respect your views-

or maybe we have something to teach you- and only respectful interchange will do.

peace all

Well said Hank.

David and John M: God bless you, and as Victoria would say:

Peace!

Oops! Sorry David and John M. I must have drawn blood. We are forgetting our christian principles.

To all of the truly faithful. Religion, all religion is the prime example of human primitiveness and superstition. Religion separates and pits humans against each other and has since humans invented it. Every word in every religious text on the planet was written by humans. More to the point, they were written mostly by primitive humans that thought the world was flat and rested on the back of a turtle. The people that wrote the stories of Jesus in the bible never met or knew him. In fact the first story of his life and supposedly what he said, was written 60 some years after his death. Knowing the humans of today, would any of you take as fact a rememberance of a conversation that you heard about from someone else. Religion was created by humans in an effort to control and manipulate their fellow humans. God never told anyone to create religion. This is not to say that I don't believe in god. I believe that a belief in a power greater than ourselvs is indemic to the human species. It was designed into our DNA, but that pure spiritulism has been perverted by the human condition. It has been subjected to greed, hate, envy, prejudice, lust and every other emotion known to man, and as a result is tainted. We need to evolve from our primitive state and from religion, and realize that who or what ever god is, he, she or it created us all and strive together as kindred souls into the future, and stop using religion as an excuse to hate and demean our fellow humans.

I would think a person with such great intelligence as yourself Rick would be able to come up with a better argument than that? I guess my pre-supposition about your intellegence is just that....a pre-supposition. I've been wrong before....oh well.

Dave and John M.

Yepper, for the bible tells me so.

Dave and John M.

Yepper, for the bible tells me so.

Rick:

Dude, I never heard that children's song until I was already a Christian, probably when I was about forty years old.

Way to think deep, buddy.

The Bible predicts you would act that way, though:

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." - 1 Corinthians 1:18

Dave and John M.

Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so. It appears that ths is the sole foundation of your philosophy, and anyone who can't accept this premise is doomed to roast in everlasting hell. Not very impressive.

Rick:
Any Christian 'denomination' that teaches that there are hoops to jump through to get to heaven is a false religion. It is only by faith in Christ that one can be right with God. That's what's wrong with all religions: they are man-made 'ladders', steps to take to get to heaven, paradise, nirvana, spiritual release, etc. None of them work. We can't work our way to heaven. Biblical Christianity is the opposite of that prideful idea that I am good enough and my good deeds are good enough to march into the presence of God. Biblical Christianity, as exemplified by the earliest followers, involves the humility of knowing I am not worthy and the thankfulness to accept the gift of eternal life given by Jesus.

OH and by the way E Fav,

There is one disease that science cannot cure. That is sin. The only cure is Jesus.

E Favorite,

Studying Christian history by no means validates or destroys Christian theology. Archaeology does not prove that God is real. Archeaology just like any science is debateable just like any area of science. But there is no conclusive proof that the Bible is not historically correct. This does not mean divinely inspired, but historically correct. You must seperate the two.

I still am uncertain by what you mean when you say that God is different now because of scientific discoveries. You said that people would pray only when there was no cure for something and because of that God is only good for curing? I hope that science can find cures. If there was a cure for cancer I still would pray for that cure to work. I may know that there is a definitive cure for certain things that man has found, but how does that exclude God? Is there anything wrong with praying to God whether there is a cure or not? How does the discovery of medical breakthroughs invalidate God? I seem to find any possible excuse from non-believers to exclude God from reality. Just because humans find cures, God does not exist? How is this a logical argument? I hope that we find cures for Alzheimers, cancer, diabetes and the such. That would be great for humanity in general. But how logically does the advancement of scientific knowledge automatically exclude the reality of God?

I'd like to address this question.

"Do you really believe that an infinite and just God would condemn 6 out of 7 souls to burn in everlasting hell?"

Personally, I believe a just God would condemn 7 out of 7 souls to burn in hell. Why not? We all have done things in our lives that are deserving of punishment. I know I am saved because of my faith in Jesus, but I could never say that I DESERVE to go to heaven. I don't. I know of nothing in my life that can come close to the perfection of God. I sin, I sin, and I continuously sin. I hit my knee and said the "F" word. I lied to my friend the other day. I looked at another woman with a lustful eye. I'm an adulterer, a liar, and am unpure naturally in my heart. How many here can say they never lied, cursed, commited adultery (in your heart counts). These are the things that seperate us from God, but worse is when we do these things and think nothing of them. We can try to stop but we can't. I could never bet a million dollars that I would never use a curse word ever again in my life. I could never bet a million dollars that I would never judge another person in my life. I drive to work and see that slow car in front of me and mentally think.."What an idiot!" I don't deserve to be in heaven. None of us do. A just God would condemn us all to hell. We have all broken the moral laws and therefore deserving of punishment. BUT...only a loving God would come down from His throne in heaven to become as one of us to lay down his life for those who are undeserving of His presence. A just God would condemn us all. A loving God has given us a FREE gift that we do not deserve. What greater love is there than One who gives freely to those who are undeserving? It is OUR choice to take that free gift or not. Not God's. You cannot place the blame on God. We ourselves are to blame if we do not want that free gift. Don't blame God for respecting your right to freewill and choice. That's you fault, not His.

Hey John M.

Which of the world's religions call themselves christian but are not?

To: Verse Infinitum:

I enjoyed your excellent post and I could not agree more about the human necessity for unification and understanding.

Again, as someone who is attempting to integrate the essences of the various spiritual traditions and experiences with the radical new theories emerging through theoretical physics and consciousness psychology, I believe the unification of belief systems is necessary now. At a time in human history when the spiritual communities of mankind should be uniting in a pluralistic and ecumenical manner in order for an evolution of consciousness to occur, the many examples of devolution into a selfish exclusion of others can only lead to more discrimination against "other" belief systems.
Of course, religious institutions of many types suffer from the same attachments to a self entity that cause individual humans to suffer on a daily basis. By promoting their self interest, organizations and individuals separate themselves from all "others". Until our species comes to the full realization that we are not autonomous "things" but instead only part of all things (both physically and consciously), we will be sidetracked from the path toward the ultimate goal of universal peaceful collective consciousness existing timelessly in the transcendent ultimate dimension. In other words, if one looks deeply into their existence, one can determine that humans are not separate entities from the rest of the universe. We, as physical beings, are intimately connected to other “things” in the universe. We cannot survive without water, oxygen, vegetables, fruit, etc. and, therefore, we are a “part” of the “whole” Our ability to distinguish ourselves from other humans or animals or plants is an evolutionary strategy for self survival. But when you combine our intellectual abilities of conceptualization with our self awareness, we “create” a complex selfish entity. Within our thoughts over our lifetimes, we create an entity of self that attempts to protect itself from others and attach itself to people and to things. In Christian terminology this selfishness is defined as sin. Selfish acts and thoughts always cause the selfish person to suffer. Also, since in true reality we are part of all things, when we are selfless in thoughts and acts, we are one with God. Is this not essentially what history’s great spiritual teachers were teaching?

To quote the great American Christian minister Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.”

We must continue to strive toward a future of inclusion instead of division in order to continue our quest toward being fully evolved creatures within our universe. While our divisions as individuals and as groups have served our struggles to survive in a hostile world, we have now evolved to the point where we must strive to educate ourselves about our true nature as our great spiritual teachers have attempted to impart to us. If we do not unite together with the understanding of our interconnectedness and mutual interdependence in a rapidly shrinking world, we may not survive. May we one day all find peace in every moment and compassion and unconditional love for all.

To: Verse Infinitum:

I enjoyed your excellent post and I could not agree more about the human necessity for unification and understanding.

Again, as someone who is attempting to integrate the essences of the various spiritual traditions and experiences with the radical new theories emerging through theoretical physics and consciousness psychology, I believe the unification of belief systems is necessary now. At a time in human history when the spiritual communities of mankind should be uniting in a pluralistic and ecumenical manner in order for an evolution of consciousness to occur, the many examples of devolution into a selfish exclusion of others can only lead to more discrimination against "other" belief systems.
Of course, religious institutions of many types suffer from the same attachments to a self entity that cause individual humans to suffer on a daily basis. By promoting their self interest, organizations and individuals separate themselves from all "others". Until our species comes to the full realization that we are not autonomous "things" but instead only part of all things (both physically and consciously), we will be sidetracked from the path toward the ultimate goal of universal peaceful collective consciousness existing timelessly in the transcendent ultimate dimension. In other words, if one looks deeply into their existence, one can determine that humans are not separate entities from the rest of the universe. We, as physical beings, are intimately connected to other “things” in the universe. We cannot survive without water, oxygen, vegetables, fruit, etc. and, therefore, we are a “part” of the “whole” Our ability to distinguish ourselves from other humans or animals or plants is an evolutionary strategy for self survival. But when you combine our intellectual abilities of conceptualization with our self awareness, we “create” a complex selfish entity. Within our thoughts over our lifetimes, we create an entity of self that attempts to protect itself from others and attach itself to people and to things. In Christian terminology this selfishness is defined as sin. Selfish acts and thoughts always cause the selfish person to suffer. Also, since in true reality we are part of all things, when we are selfless in thoughts and acts, we are one with God. Is this not essentially what history’s great spiritual teachers were teaching?

To quote the great American Christian minister Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.”

We must continue to strive toward a future of inclusion instead of division in order to continue our quest toward being fully evolved creatures within our universe. While our divisions as individuals and as groups have served our struggles to survive in a hostile world, we have now evolved to the point where we must strive to educate ourselves about our true nature as our great spiritual teachers have attempted to impart to us. If we do not unite together with the understanding of our interconnectedness and mutual interdependence in a rapidly shrinking world, we may not survive. May we one day all find peace in every moment and compassion and unconditional love for all.

Hey, Rick.

Ummm...NO. I was not imprinted. I became a Christian at age 38. I did some soul-searching, but also some investigating of belief systems and I observed that:
- Jesus is different from any other spiritual teacher
- The Bible is different from any other sprirtual text, AND
- The Christian faith is different from any of the world's religions (some of which call themselves Christian).

So, nothing I believe was "bottle-fed" to me, and, at the same time, I did not make any of my beliefs up myself.

John M:

Thank you for your reply, but why do you think that you know what the creator had in mind for us? Forgive me, but it sounds like you have been imprinted by the belief, as many if not most in this country have, by your childhood indoctrination that: Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so.

To be perfectly accurate the pledge should read:
'One Nation Under Canada' or 'One Nation Between Mexico and Canada"!

Geet Bhatt,

Thank you for your excellent post. It is one of the best on this site and even on a par with that of Verse Infinitum. Also, thanks for the link to:
http://www.theuniversalwisdom.org/hinduism/paper-on-hinduism-vivekananda/. I am now a new member and look forward with great eagerness to being further enlightened.

Rick:

You wrote: "Do you really believe that an infinite and just God would condemn 6 out of 7 souls to burn in everlasting hell?"

Rick, I think my post addressed your question. We are ALL already condemned by choosing to live without regard to what Our Creator had in mind for us when He created us. You have just shown that you, on some level, are playing God by, in effect, telling God what a just God would do and what a just God would not do. So, you are putting yourself in the place of God, which is the very condition I am describing, which will bring His judgment.

The Bible says God doesn't want anyone to go to hell. I believe He cares so much that He came to earth as a perfect man to pay the penalty for my rebellion so I wouldn't have to. He wants everyone to accept that free gift and follow Him, but He gives us a choice.

To Verse Infinitum,

Thank you for your excellent post, best so far on this site. I find it very enlightening.

Senate session started with hindu prayer by chaplain Mr. Rajan Zed, done a good good job on the invitation of the Senate. The prayer is for peace for whole of the world.
Dharam Loonaa
Chandigarh, India

Victoria,

Yes, Gospel music must be studied. I actually teach a history of Rock-N-Roll class at the high school I work. You can't study Rock without studying African Music.

And thank you for the clarification on your Christian oppression. Unfortunately, others still have thr opinion I was addressing. It is too bad that most of those will probably ignore my post.

Thanks again for your insights.

Hello David – I have limited time, so cannot address your questions completely. Though I respect science, it was learning about Christian history (typical human power plays), how the bible was written (typical story telling and typical human error) and the search for historical and archeological evidence (practically non-existent, despite centuries of searching) that made me realize that God was a human construct.

You seem to know what God wants and it’s what the Christian God says in the bible. Meanwhile, others think their God has something completely different in mind.

When I say “what people once thought was God, I’m referring to the things once attributed to God – like weather and medical cures (when there wasn’t much else besides praying that could be done). Now, with modern medical technology, people usually don’t start praying for a miracle until the doctor has run out of treatment options. Occasionally, when a person recovers in this circumstance, God gets the credit. Meanwhile, scientists are studying possible causes for these “miraculous” cures, so more people can benefit. I don’t suppose you’d want scientists to stop this kind of study, Would you? - leaving the cure to God, who currently lets most people die, but occasionally, at his whim, lets some live? With the weather – we can now know in advance that something bad is going to happen and try to evacuate people, thus saving many more than if we left the outcome to God. I doubt you’d want scientists to stop studying meteorology or geology (for earthquake info) because that’s in the realm of God – but that’s what people thought in biblical times. However, it seems that if people are determined to believe in God, they will do so. Thus we have a God who determined the laws of physics, etc., but didn’t tell us about them and let millions of his creatures suffer for centuries. Part of his “plan” if you’re religious, an obvious sign of the absence of God, if you’re not.

PS, JOHN M – I don’t think in terms of everyone having a “right” to go to heaven. I don’t think there’s a heaven or a hell, except here on earth. I’m aware that Christians think that heaven’s an exclusive place. If there’s something else, fine – we’ll all find out what it is eventually. I can’t imagine it being the human construct built on iron age myths and enforced through fear, ignorance, superstition and blind hope. I never thought about that much until I did my own study.

LEIGH – building on your “Christian nation” theme, considering that in the civil war, both the north and the south were Christians, would you say it was a religious war? Even the Revolutionary war would be a religious war, because people are both sides were Christian.

Please consider – religion is not always the primary reason for human conflict or human decision-making. The founding fathers wanted freedom from taxation without representation, as well as freedom of religion (from an already Christian opponent). In the civil war, the North and South had different ideas about slavery. The war was about commerce, states rights and preserving the union.

After a long and refreshing soak in the lake of fire, aka google, I found the lost prayer excerpted below:

---FIUS

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainwp.htm

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved fire sides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

I love how we all "invoke" separation of Church and State like it is "Gospel". See, in America, we don't bother to learn why/where sayings come from. If we did then we would use them correctly. Ok before the hate email starts, except this disclaimer: I am speaking on a fact (do your research, even though it also reflects how I feel).

First, you must remember the United States was founded as a Christian Nation. Our beliefs were based on the Judeo-Christian Doctrine.

When the founding fathers came, they were all CHRISTIAN. They set up our rule of law based on the MOSAIC law; for those of you who do not know what this means, it based on the laws of Moses, you know, Jewish guy, 10 commandments, first five books of the Bible, parted the Red Sea, blah blah blah, yeah that guy.

Second, the purpose was to come here to worship freely as CHRISTIANS, as the King of England allowed only ONE CHURCH. The founders wanted to be able to worship as Baptists, Protestants, Quakers etc. The purpose of "separation of Church and state" is so that no one CHRISTIAN Doctrine was enforced. The Founding fathers knew all the people who came from England, worshiped ONE GOD - the God of the Christians.

Third, sorry to tell you but the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves at what America has become. They NEVER intend our country to have the "Freedom" of religion as we use it today. They would not accept that this "freedom" included Islam, Hinduism, Buddhist, etc. Let me finish before you send the hate email. You have to remember, the settlers FORCED the Indians to covert in many cases, or they certainly brought the Gospel to them to try to convert them. Why because they felt they should be Christian, sure doesn't sound like this "freedom" everyone runs around quoting. In addition, if they owned slaves, the slaves were FORCED to give up their native religions. Heavens, they burned witches at the stake, even if they simply thought you were a witch. Doesn't sound to me like this "Freedom" everyone talks about.

So, to sum this up. We are a Christian Nation, UNDER the Judeo- Christian GOD, who follow (or should be) the established Mosaic laws, based on the desires of the Founding Fathers who EXPECTED & BELIEVED we were all CHRISTIANS, and wanted us to be FREE to WORSHIP the GOD of the Bible, not the god of the Quran (not the same god by the way) or any other holy book ( though many of the founders read the Quran - great piece of literature) you may want to re-read the 1st commandment.

Face it we are (or at least were at inception) a Christian Nation. KSA & Iran can say they are Muslim, I have no problem w/that, the problem I have is not being able to call my nation what it is, what is was founded as,” One Nation Under the Judeo-Christian GOD". Not being able to worship as a Christian w/out being blasted every 5 minutes by someone who is "offended". Interesting how we are tolerant of every other religion but any thing "Christian" is offensive, talk about double standard.

So I wish you all would use this "separation of Church & State" correctly, but of course you can't it would not fit w/your secularist agenda.

I love how we all "invoke" separation of Church and State like it is "Gospel". See, in America, we don't bother to learn why/where sayings come from. If we did then we would use them correctly. Ok before the hate email starts, except this disclaimer: I am speaking on a fact (do your research, even though it also reflects how I feel).

First, you must remember the United States was founded as a Christian Nation. Our beliefs were based on the Judeo-Christian Doctrine.

When the founding fathers came, they were all CHRISTIAN. They set up our rule of law based on the MOSAIC law; for those of you who do not know what this means, it based on the laws of Moses, you know, Jewish guy, 10 commandments, first five books of the Bible, parted the Red Sea, blah blah blah, yeah that guy.

Second, the purpose was to come here to worship freely as CHRISTIANS, as the King of England allowed only ONE CHURCH. The founders wanted to be able to worship as Baptists, Protestants, Quakers etc. The purpose of "separation of Church and state" is so that no one CHRISTIAN Doctrine was enforced. The Founding fathers knew all the people who came from England, worshiped ONE GOD - the God of the Christians.

Third, sorry to tell you but the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves at what America has become. They NEVER intend our country to have the "Freedom" of religion as we use it today. They would not accept that this "freedom" included Islam, Hinduism, Buddhist, etc. Let me finish before you send the hate email. You have to remember, the settlers FORCED the Indians to covert in many cases, or they certainly brought the Gospel to them to try to convert them. Why because they felt they should be Christian, sure doesn't sound like this "freedom" everyone runs around quoting. In addition, if they owned slaves, the slaves were FORCED to give up their native religions. Heavens, they burned witches at the stake, even if they simply thought you were a witch. Doesn't sound to me like this "Freedom" everyone talks about.

So, to sum this up. We are a Christian Nation, UNDER the Judeo- Christian GOD, who follow (or should be) the established Mosaic laws, based on the desires of the Founding Fathers who EXPECTED & BELIEVED we were all CHRISTIANS, and wanted us to be FREE to WORSHIP the GOD of the Bible, not the god of the Quran (not the same god by the way) or any other holy book ( though many of the founders read the Quran - great piece of literature) you may want to re-read the 1st commandment.

Face it we are (or at least were at inception) a Christian Nation. KSA & Iran can say they are Muslim, I have no problem w/that, the problem I have is not being able to call my nation what it is, what is was founded as,” One Nation Under the Judeo-Christian GOD". Not being able to worship as a Christian w/out being blasted every 5 minutes by someone who is "offended". Interesting how we are tolerant of every other religion but any thing "Christian" is offensive, talk about double standard.

So I wish you all would use this "separation of Church & State" correctly, but of course you can't it would not fit w/your secularist agenda.

To John M. and David,

The world population is currently about 6.7 billion. Roughly 1 billion of us are muslim, 2 billion christian, and 4 billion other.

Most of us hold religious beliefs of some faith that were acquired at a very young and impressionable age.

Do you really believe that an infinite and just God would condemn 6 out of 7 souls to burn in everlasting hell?

E Favorite:

You seem to think it is unkind for God to send people to hell just because they did not believe in Him or because they believed in some other god.

I liked David's response to you. I would like to add something else.

I think your assumption seems to be that everyone, especially a good person, has the right to go to heaven, if it exists. This assumption makes you think God is unjust for turning away people who did not follow Jesus.

This line of thinking does not line up with what God has revealed in the Bible. NO ONE deserves heaven. NO ONE deserves to spend eternity with God. We ALL have decided to live our lives for ourselves, and not for our Creator. We have ALL set oursleves up as our own god, deciding what to do with our lives, putting our own needs first, and deciding for ourselves what is good and what is bad.

So, as David said, God is just turning away people who chose to live their lives apart from Him. We have all done it, and the result of that decision is an eternity apart from God.

The only way to get right with God is to accept Christ's death for my sin of rebellion. If that doesn't make sense to you, that's okay, because you're not God.

So, if you start with the assumption that we all have the RIGHT to go to heaven, you will not understand God's plan of salvation, because you will never see a REASON for salvation. It's really a pride thing. If we think we are good enough to go to heaven, we are far from getting there. If we think we ought to be able to decide who God is, we are far from actually knowing him. But, if we humbly call out to Him and ask Him to help us in our hopeless situation, I cannot believe that He would not answer that prayer and reveal Himself. Hey, He did it for me!

E Favorite,

Thanks for the response. You brought some questions that should not be taken lightly concerning Christianity. You have very valid questions regarding God. I would like to expand on them more as well, even though I know the question at hand is not directed towards Christianity I feel compelled to answer what I can.

"David - I know your God offers salvation to everyone, but it's my understanding, from having been raised Christian, that if you don't accept that offer (or even if you never hear about the offer), you go to hell. So while you may not personally be offended by people who don't accept your God and you may even respectful of them, your god is not. He ultimately has a serious punishment in store for them, correct? Just because they picked the wong God, or no God at all."

I believe God will reveal Himself to everyone, some way or somehow. He has revealed Himself to you since you have claimed to be raised Christian. You chose to not accept Him. That is your choice. Since you choose not to accept Him, you should not be upset when He obliges to give you the freewill not to and since you choose a life seperate from Him, it is YOUR choice to have an eternal life seperate from Him, not His. I hear the same many complaints about God. How can a loving God send anyone to hell? It's not His choice. It's the individuals choice. What it boils down to is freewill. God wants true love, not a robotic love that He could have created us as. I can't force my wife to love me. She loves me freely. That is true love. God expects the same. So if we do not love God, then why should we be upset that He doesn't want us around for eternity? Concerning those who chose other gods. That's exactly what it is....a choice. Their own decision to reject Christ and choose another. That does not necessarily mean that that person has not been offered the choice in Christ, right? Instead they rejected Christ for a god that suits their likings. Their choice. Not God's.

"As for atheists knowing there's no God -- no-one knows for sure, but it doesn't seem very likely, I don't think, when you consider that so much of what people once thought was God is now explainable natural phenomenon. When I think of about things for which there is currently no explanation, I don't assume it must be God -- I assume it's something humans haven't figured out yet, that they may someday. That's the way it's gone so far"

I'm not sure what you mean by what people once thought was God? Most Christians will agree on God the Creator. Just because we have the knowledge to explain certain aspects of science does not mean that God does not exist. If God created everything, then the laws of physics and science should be added to His credit, right? I'm not sure why it is important or how it's even credible to argue that God does not exist because we have knowledge (or theories) about how the universe came to be. God of course is a supernatural being, but it doesn't mean that all laws of science are required to act supernaturally. Not so. Couldn't you agree that a Creator HAS to be supernatural to create the natural? I know you say that there are certain things that cannot be explained and you do not say God must have done it. That is reasonable. But just because humans figure out more about science and how things are done naturally, why does that automatically exclude God? I see nothing wrong with believing in God and believing He made things naturally occur. In fact, I think they go hand in hand.

"As for thinking something is nonsense – you don’t have to know everything to realize some things don’t make sense. For instance, if someone told me an apple came loose from a tree and went up into the sky instead of falling to the ground, I’d know that was nonsense, even though I may not understand exactly how gravity works"

There used to be a hill where I live called gravity hill. We would stop the car facing down hill and put it in neutral. The car would then begin rolling UPhill. This is the truth. I can't explain it, but it is the truth. You may call this non-sense, but I promise you I'm not lying. Now someone told me that this hill existed. I didn't believe it until I saw it for myself. Of course my pre-suppositions wouldn't allow me to believe it. But it was real. I thought I knew enough to discredit this claim. I was wrong. If you make the absolute statement that there is NO God, you must be able to back it up with "I know everything". What may be what seems absolute knowledge to KNOW for sure of something can turn around and let you know that you do not know enough. Especially when it comes to an absolute statement as "there is no God".

Now, I'm not sure if you consider yourself atheist or agnostic, but if you base your beliefs on science alone, then by definition "atheist" is not logically possible. I would like to know the real reasons why you do not believe in God? Thanks E Fav.

and dont forget gospel music which morphed into blues (and jazz) which morphed into rock and roll...

YDEMOCRAT- i hope its possible to make a statement without any implicit accusation against any ideology- i think this is the statement you thought might be a denigration of christianity?

~~~~~~~~~~~ i said-
the disappearance of islamic influence among slave populations was due to forced conversion to christianity
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i guess it is implied that the enforcers of the conversion were (un)christians.
but that has no bearing on christianity-

i also wrote this on a post before that one
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
just for the record- im not a christian but mudslinging doesnt help the conversation

August 4, 2007 1:47 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

efavorite- but dont forget the most important thing of all- according to the same christian tradition, only god judges- humans are not in a position to do so-
i think david is doing a good job of following that precept-

peace all

did i thank wiccan for correcting me before?
thanks wiccan for the link

Victoria,

You are welcome. I appreciate that information. Most of my knowledge of the Africans brought as slaves revolves around Afro-Cuban music and Jazz. Those musical styles were influenced mostly by African tribal religion and not Muslim ideology. I had never heard of the Muslim influence on the Africans brought as slaves before now. I would guess they were not in the New Orleans area very much.

On another note, you have not directly stated (although others have), but have intimated that somehow Christianity itself is to blame for the oppression done by Christians. To blame the ideology for errors caused by individuals is not logical. By this same notion, I could blame atheism for Communistic oppression or Islam for the radicals who subvert their religious teachings. It is true that many Christians have indeed been un-Christian, but Christianity itself, and the teachings of Jesus Christ, should not be blamed for the evil actions of men.

E Favorite,

Two things
1) Not all Christians believe that you are comdemned to Hell if you don't have a chance to accept Christianity in this life. There are those who accept that God is loving and just and has provided a way for the dead to be redeemed. I can tell you more if you wish, but it should move away from this post.

2) Be careful what you call non-sense. Did you think about the fact that there was a tornado raging when the apple went into the air instead of falling to the ground? Just because man can explain it, doesn't mean that God didn't create the ability for it to happen.

David - I know your God offers salvation to everyone, but it's my understanding, from having been raised Christian, that if you don't accept that offer (or even if you never hear about the offer), you go to hell. So while you may not personally be offended by people who don't accept your God and you may even respectful of them, your god is not. He ultimately has a serious punishment in store for them, correct? Just because they picked the wong God, or no God at all.

As for atheists knowing there's no God -- no-one knows for sure, but it doesn't seem very likely, I don't think, when you consider that so much of what people once thought was God is now explainable natural phenomenon. When I think of about things for which there is currently no explanation, I don't assume it must be God -- I assume it's something humans haven't figured out yet, that they may someday. That's the way it's gone so far.

As for thinking something is nonsense – you don’t have to know everything to realize some things don’t make sense. For instance, if someone told me an apple came loose from a tree and went up into the sky instead of falling to the ground, I’d know that was nonsense, even though I may not understand exactly how gravity works.

David makes an excellent point.

There is a difference between respecting someone's right to whatever they believe, and agreeing that their belief system is just as valid or true as mine. How can I believe what I believe and also believe that someone who believes the exact opposite is also correct?

So, I agree that the appropriate Christian response is to insist that everyone have the freedom to believe what they choose to believe. But, to be true to my belief system, I would naturally believe that their belief system is not accurate when it differs from mine. And, I also have the right to believe that. It doesn't, by the way, mean that I am intolerant, bigoted, or narrow-minded. It just means that I really believe what I believe.

I also love what David said about my God welcoming anyone who would come to Him. My faith is not exclusive; anyone can have what I have. But, the truth is that anyone who wants to know God has to get to know Him on HIS terms, not on their own terms. The invitation goes out to all, but it must be on God's terms. We cannot blaze our own path and expect it to lead to the God we have been avoiding.

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

YDEMOCRAT- thank you for actually reading what i posted-
amazingly, it is actually true.
it doesnt seem to be any great secret in some african american communities- but seems to come as a surprise to many americans of other ethnicities. there was even a muslim african prince taken slave.

now i detest wikipedia in general, but people seem to consider it valid- i put it in because it is a notoriously islam-bashing site, and if even they have this information- being so unfriendly to islam in general- no one can complain that the source is questionable-

from wikipedia-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Slaves
Estimates of the percentages of Muslim slaves as a total of the whole vary from 10-20%.[2] More than 50% of all slaves brought to America came from areas under the influence of Islam.[4] Muslim slaves first arrived in what is now the United States during the 1520's. These were the Senegambians, who were known to believe in Allah and abstain from beer and pork.[3] Two of the best known early Muslims are West Africa slaves: Ayuba Suleiman Diallo, who was brought to America in 1731,[3] and Omar Ibn Said in the mid 19th century.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

the disappearance of islamic influence among slave populations was due to forced conversion to christianity.

surely no one is willing to refute this?
it's not exactly a secret, though generally an ignored fact by historians.

luckily, many slaves became literate and wrote their own history or we may not ever have been aware of these facts.

I remember the "One Nation Under God" posters Paul Krassner put out, as it were, in the 1960s. Uncle Sam being buggered by Jehovah. They were a lot more pious than all this selfserving horsesh!t.

Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita said, "Whatever deity or form a devotee worships, I make his faith steady. However, their wishes are granted only by Me." (Gita: 7:21-22)

I am very glad a Hindu chaplain opened prayer because that shows the openness and tolerance of a new age. However, I do believe that religion and politics won't mix well until we live in a genuinely tolerant world.

It is extremely necessary to have a more profound outlook on life. The Hindu chaplain said:

Let us pray.
We meditate on that transcendental glory of the deity supreme who is inside the heart of the earth, inside the life of the sky, and inside the soul of heaven.
May he stimulate and illuminate our minds.
Lead us from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light.

First of all, I think this is spiritually uplifting and should be recognized by all tolerant people: positive and powerful words. Life is too short to fight amongst one another in mere religious squabble. One must be able to see the positivism and strength of any religion and must realize God to have no boundaries.

Hinduism believes in one God to be the supreme "everything" in the universe. Whether you worship Christ, or the Buddha, or Allah, or Krishna - God is one and the same, and He will come to you in that form and give you peace. Just as all streams and rivers lead to the mighty ocean, so too do all paths eventually lead to God.

For more insight onto what Hinduism truly is -

http://www.theuniversalwisdom.org/hinduism/paper-on-hinduism-vivekananda/

I'm not an American citizen, but this whole discussion is ridiculous. The US is one nation under one president, but under one god??? This is one big joke. The US is a multi-religious society, with faiths believing in one god, and faiths believing in many gods, as do the Hindu and the Pagan faiths.
Be aware that the original American religions were pagan, as were all the ancestral religions of the Indian tribes. Christianity is pure african import and not American at all.
Anothyer thing is it is indeed the government not to interfere in religious matters, but also religions not to interfere in politics. Indeed we call this the separation of state and religion.
That is why Bush is so wrong. He has to be the president of all Americans, but he is not.
It is my belief that no prayers should be done in any political meeting. We have religious meetings to do this.
Fact is, in Europe no prayers are done during political meetings.
Maybe the US should take note.

I'm not an American citizen, but this whole discussion is ridiculous. The US is one nation under one president, but under one god??? This is one big joke. The US is a multi-religious society, with faiths believing in one god, and faiths believing in many gods, as do the Hindu and the Pagan faiths.
Be aware that the original American religions were pagan, as were all the ancestral religions of the Indian tribes. Christianity is pure african import and not American at all.
Anothyer thing is it is indeed the government not to interfere in religious matters, but also religions not to interfere in politics. Indeed we call this the separation of state and religion.
That is why Bush is so wrong. He has to be the president of all Americans, but he is not.
It is my belief that no prayers should be done in any political meeting. We have religious meetings to do this.
Fact is, in Europe no prayers are done during political meetings.
Maybe the US should take note.

Yes E Favorite. My faith is in the Christian God. I never mentioned others of different faiths, I only mentioned Candide who was so quick to determine that those with faith are holding their faiths in "non-sense".

you said,

"that's pretty broad. There are so many expressions of faith. Is yours Christian - offering salvation only for those who say they believe in a certain god? and damnation for those who don't?"

The Christian God offers salvation to everyone. Your asking or deteremining the wrong question. The question is not whether God offers salvation to a certain few, it is that God gives salvation freely to those who want it.

To answer the question proposed on here about the Hindu prayer, I'll give my opinion. Of course opinions are debateable and with reason to be so.

I believe we all have the right to choose which religion we believe in. My God gives us the freewill to choose. If this is a right that is given to everyone in the U.S. then so be it and a Hindu prayer in senate is just an expression of the freedom of religion. Does it mean that it is the right way or not? That is up to the individual. But it offends me not.

Back to the other point. Some call those with faith, such as Candide, a faith in "non-sense". How would Candide know that our faith in God is "non-sense" if Candide doesn't know everything? Can one really make a determination that faith is faith in "non-sense" unless they knew every possible thing in the universe? I seem to find that it is a lot harder position to hold as an atheist than as one with faith. In other words, it takes a lot more faith in being an atheist than one who has faith in God. Reason being is that those with faith in God admit to not knowing everything in the universe. Atheists claiming there is no god or gods have to claim that they know everything in the universe to make such a claim, otherwise how do you know there is no God?

david, you say, "I choose faith."

that's pretty broad. There are so many expressions of faith. Is yours Christian - offering salvation only for those who say they believe in a certain god? and damnation for those who don't?

Or is it something else, with another promise?

Do you ever wonder about the people who choose a different faith with the same fervencey that you choose yours? What happens to them? Are they all wrong? Just as wrong as people like Candide who choose no faith?

Candide,

"Faith is belief in non-sense?"

Ignorance is the belief that you know everything.

I choose faith.

Victoria,

I am pretty sure that most of the Africans brought over believed in tribal Gods and theologies.

Now, the rest of your statement is pretty good, but the idea of Africans brought as slaves being Muslims is not correct. There may have been some, but most were not. They mixed their tribal religions with Christianity as a result of this, but that is far from Muslim.

Faith? What is faith? Belief in nonsense, that is what faith is.

Wise up, guys and gals.

metaphysique of food eating.
mankind is food eater. his/her big mouth is wide open around the clock till the last day in need of filling ,only at the grave hole,mankind say no more.every food eater is mortal and every mortal is food eater.what is the significance then?the significance is,the food eater is not never not equal to the eternal who supply food and he is free from need.

please, vote for sending the senators back to the school of monotheism.

after a seconds thought, it occurred to me-

how do you imagine that america got to be such a rich country?

one of the indisputable facts is that american wealth was built through the sweat and blood of african slaves who were forced to come here and work against their will, many many who were muslims.

without this base of free labor, the wealth building in this country would have been much slower- much less-

it might not even have been presently attractive enough for you to leave your homeland, and emigrate here, where you enjoy the abundance and liberties built on the broken backs of slaves.

and they never did get their 40 acres and a mule either.

so while your busy waving the flag in one hand, and your fist in anger and fear in the other, learn about how this great country developed politically and materially.

DEB, as always, read and learn-
some of your misconceptions can be cleared regarding religion and the formation of americas constitutuion-

from john adams-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"U.S. treaty signed by President Adams. In 1797 the United States entered into a treaty with Tripoli, in which it was declared:
"As the government of the United States IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity [sic] of MUSSELMAN . . . it is declared . . . that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." This treaty was written under Washington's presidency, and it was ratified by Congress under John Adams, signed by Adams.'
```````````````````````````````````````

take a look at this link-
http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8363

wiccan- thank you for the link- its doubly impressive as warith deen is the son of elijah muhammad(who founded the nation of islam) but refused the mantle of leadership for the NOI, instead becoming a compelling speaker for islam.
(ive seen him speak many times, and often one of a handful of white faces in a sea of african american faces, and rarely have i been in the company of such consistently gracious and peaceful peoples)


deb- as always, you take any given subject, no matter how unrelated, and use it as an excuse to denigrate islam.

as for secularism in hinduism, lets not get started on manu's laws, ok?

try to stay on topic

Hindus are part of America. They should have the right to participate in all aspects of American society including opening the US Senate with their prayer. To deny that is to deny a part of America.

This acceptance should extend to all other religions in America including those that are for whatever reasons disliked.

Hindus are part of America. They should have the right to participate in all aspects of American society including opening the US Senate with their prayer. To deny that is to deny a part of America.

This acceptance should extend to all other religions in America including those that are for whatever reasons disliked.

For ANYONE to open the senate or the house with a prayer is the height of hypocracy. Nothing this senate or house does, or has done for a long time has anything to do with god.

For ANYONE to open the senate or the house with a prayer is the height of hypocracy. Nothing this senate of house does, or has done for a long time has anything to do with god.

To the other Daniel posting, you might want to slightly change your name as I am posting under the same name and do not want to get confused with you. I was here first I believe-although I suppose that makes no difference in the internet world right? Thanks a lot.

Daniel stated:

"then obviously what becomes good primarily is the perpetual advancement and evolution of the human race in the absence of God (biological view ascendant) and what becomes evil is all which would compromise this advancement."

In your athestic state, would homosexualtiy be evil as it does not advance the human race. In fact, it ends it.

Just a thought. (BTW, I am a strong Christian who believes that all should be free to "worship [or not worhsip] how where or what they may"

Victoria-

In 1992 a Muslim delivered the invocation in the US Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warith_Deen_Muhammad

Long time coming, long time ago.

Victoria:

You are a Muslim(ah). However, I am sorry to say, that it is true that Islam calls for slaughter and genocide of unbelievers (Christians, Jews - People of The Book) and surely pagans and polytheists (Hindus). I cannot fathom, if Thomas Jefferson were alive, how would he rationalize allowing a Muslim Chaplain read Quran (009:029), (005:033) (047:004) that are the very antithesis of Freedom of Speech and Religion (Bill of Rights - 1st Amendment) ?

Try to understand the chasm of difference that exists between Islam and US Constitution.

Hindu prayers, on the contrary, is extremely secular and even the arch orientalist, Prof. Samuel P. Huntington admits this innate seculartist streak of the Hindu culture, in his book: THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS.

Comments ?

- thanks for reading.

Deb

Victoria-

In 1992 a Muslim delivered the invocation in the US Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warith_Deen_Muhammad

Long time coming, long time ago.

FIUS- it wasnt exactly a recommendation- its been 20 years but as i recall it was a stretch and trying to construct a scientific spiritual system out of hinduism-
as alot of the information was subjective, it realy isnt reproducible in any way.

the title was catchy for the purposes of this conversation

dr shankar- the senate has not invited any muslim prayers to open it.

just for the record- im not a christian but mudslinging doesnt help the conversation

FIUS- it wasnt exactly a recommendation- its been 20 years but as i recall it was a stretch and trying to construct a scientific spiritual system out of hinduism-
as alot of the information was subjective, it realy isnt reproducible in any way.

the title was catchy for the purposes of this conversation

When I read the statements and protests of Hindu prayor in the senate floor, I am compelled to think few points. No one are Hindus in the USA citizens of this great nation? If so they are part of this society, they how is that fundamentalists are questioning their right to represent in the senate floor. Second, does our constitution recognizes the USA a theocratic state? If it is a theocratic state recognized by the constitution, is it based on Christian fundamentalist beliefs or Unitarian beliefs? The question if it is a theocratic Christian fundamentalist state, what is the status of nonChristians or non fundamentalists in the nation?
If the US senate could invite Islamic, Christian and Jewish religious leaders, leaving out Buddhist or Hindu prayor deliberately constitutes religiious discrimination.
My answer to the people who question the monotheistic credentials of Hinduism should look at their own backyard of trinity in Christianity and if they ever try to understand Hindu Philosophy of Shankara, it is the most monistic faith in the globe and it is more than Islam and Christianity. All Hindu philosophy says is God is one but people can perceive him as they perceive spiritually and alas Hinduism is a spiritual democracy unlike some spiritual dictatorships who define what other's spiritual experience should be.
Next point is whether the USA is a secular democracy. In a secular nation, government should play the role of referee. Secularism is not atheism as fundamentalists want us to believe. Secularism literally means government does not take the side of any religion. By inviting Zed for a Hindu prayor, senators have just done that , they upheld the constitution of the USA.

Last is Hinduism oppressive ? But then Christians kept millions of people in slavery while professed to be very devout. I am sure bible did not say that or profess that. Catholics slaughtered Aztecs and Incas in the name of religion, often with the tacit appoval of Pope of that time, then we cannot say Catholic theology preached that. Religions quite often are not really involved in oppression, people are. One should look at Upanishads for Monistic spiritual experience and if they are ignorant of that and claim religioius mumbo jumbo of superstious Hinduism as Hinduism are servig only thier ignorance

Calvin walker - people like you scare me.

My nation (and yours) was founded on the basis of FREEDOM of religion - to practice a religion or not

Yes it did violate One Nation under GOD. Our nation, My Nation is founded under the freedom to worship GOD without persecution, not hinduism which is a pagan religion of persecution and bondage. When our elected officials agee to this for the sake of "political correctness" our nation has sunk to a new low.GOD SAVE AMERICA, she needs YOU!

Yes it did violate One Nation under GOD. Our nation, My Nation is founded under the freedom to worship GOD without persecution, not hinduism which is a pagan religion of persecution and bondage. When our elected officials agee to this for the sake of "political correctness" our nation has sunk to a new low.GOD SAVE AMERICA, she needs YOU!

Elizabeth:

Responses are below

---FIUS

"ACCORDING TO YOUR POST: THERE IS ONLY "THE SCIENCE" & " CHRISTIAN SCIENCE" ."

--- I believe I meant to say that there was only "The Science", a term used by Richard P. Feynman to describe the physical sciences. I'm sorry if I was misleading.

"Well, I have good news for you: There is "Religious Science" check out the text book authored by Ernest Holmes"

--- I cannot find this book on Amazon. Can you post the ISBN? (Yes Victoria, I found your book ISBN: 0766131130; I will check it out)

"CHECK OUT THE BOOK......YOU MIGHT BE PLEASANTLY SURPRISED.........ESPECIALLY IF YOU KEEP AN OPEN MIND"

--- I will try especially hard.

,.....if not.........well, you can continue on with your Religion of choice....and no one will (bad mouth) you.

--- Thank you

A quick note:

god, religion, and faith comprise a trinity of a different color.

god may well be a Godelian proposition about the universe which cannot be proved one way or the other by applying the tools that the universe provides. I tend to think mere existence is all that really matters, though it is hardly a rigorous proof of anything. But my intuition tells me it is the key to god-nature. Meantime, I'm content to wait to meet my Beatrice or dissolve into quanta, whatever the case may be. I hope to get at least another decade or two out of these old molecules.

Religion and Faith are just bad politics and I won't discuss them except to point out where abandoning them will empirically improve the experience of existence. I'm not a scholar in any way shape or form of anything, especially not of religion and faith, so I can't argue fine points of theology or its history. I only know they are wrong. That darn intuition again, but this time corroborated by mountains of empirical evidence.

--FIUS

Daniel,

Your quite wrong about the Trinity. The Trinity is monotheistic. I'm not catholic so I can't speak for them about Mary, but the Trinity is ONE God. One. Monotheistic. The Trinity is the One God manifested in three persons. Not three seperate Gods. Kind of like time. There is past present and future, but it is still time. If I crack an egg and put the shell in one bowl, the yoke in another and the whites in another, how many eggs do I have?

We live in a world of trinities. Why is it so hard to understand the Trinity?

Philosophy rather than ritual should be at the center-stage of religion. Meditation and readings on Advaita are the traditional paths to Hinduism taught by my Guru. Forced rendition of a stanza in the midst of most interruptions, as I have seen in TV recordings of the incident in the US Senate, has hurt my personal sensibilities as a descendant of more than 35 generations of practicing Hindus.

I've just perused briefly this discussion, and I have 2 brief remarks:

1) Hiduism is a monotheistic religion. There is a supreme being, Brahma, who is by definition beyond any human description, and therefore is not worshipped. What most people believe to be many gods in the Hindu religion are just manifestations of the unmentionable Brahma: Visnu, Shiva, and Brahma (the same name as the supreme being, which does not help in clarifying things). Furthermore, each of these three manifestations has its own further manifestations.

2) Christianity is NOT a monotheist religion: Christian people worship a trinity - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And to top it all, the Catholics worship the Virgin Mary...

well since its hinduism on discussion theres also the science of religion by paramahansa yogananda

The Hindu prayer was beautiful. And I have to agree.

If we must have prayer before the Senate, then everyone must have an opportunity to offer their own brand of prayers. And all members should be required to attend all the prayers as a sign of respect for all faiths. After all, even members of those faiths outside of the 'mainstream' are Americans, constituents- and voters.

I'd have no problem taking out the government's public displays of piety altogether. I tend to think those who represent the best examples of what their religion(s) could be are the ones who don't display it publicly but who truly live it in what they do.

I will believe that this country is truly pluralistic when an atheist, Hindu, Pagan or Buddhist can give a blessing/meditation/moment of silence in public and not be attacked for it. When the media doesn't find anything to report, attack, or marginalize in these types of situations. The Hindu prayer is a small step in the right direction. It just took far longer than it should have. How many more moons do we have to wait before others in our country are equally represented?

Here's an idea for a newly revised pledge:

"..one nation, Under Canada, Above Mexico.."

Aaron Zisser - Hello - haven't seen you in a while.

When you say, "true religiosity is about embracing others, love, etc., not violence, exclusion, hatred" - I wonder - do you think a person can have all those traits without being religious? I do. If you agree, then what distinguishes "true religiousity" from a person who is the same, but not religious, and what is the value of being religious if you can be the same without religion?

Thanks - I hope you get back this way to address this.

To: Faithless U S
FIUS

ACCORDING TO YOUR POST: THERE IS ONLY "THE SCIENCE" & " CHRISTIAN SCIENCE" . Well, I have good news for you: There is "Religious Science" check out the text book authored by Ernest Holmes ..His text book is very interesting and his "words of wisdom" are practiced by people all over the WORLD. His messages are practical and "OPEN AT THE TOP". His book was written in early 1900's and he lectured for many years, until people began to ask him to have a regular church.........he did and the message was simple and did not (bad mouth) ANY RELIGION.
Ernest believed that GOD belongs to EVERYONE....
CHECK OUT THE BOOK......YOU MIGHT BE PLEASANTLY SURPRISED.........ESPECIALLY IF YOU KEEP AN OPEN MIND,.....if not.........well, you can continue on with your Religion of choice....and no one will (bad mouth) you.

It says "one nation under God" it did not say whose God. As far as I'm concerned, we're all Americans and the word God covers us all the same way the word nation covers us all.

I have a deep respect for religious people, although I take a much more secular/metaphorical view of "God." It is because of my respect for religiosity (and true religiosity is about embracing others, love, etc., not violence, exclusion, hatred) that I believe that prayer in a place like the Senate is simply inappropriate. If individual Senators want to get together in a prayer circle, the same way that students can do so on their own in public schools, fine.

But, next best is to have different religions represented. Contrary to some of the comments, it's not about having ALL religions represented. What matters is the effort and respect demonstrated by including religions other than just Judaism and Christianity. Nor is it important what the Senators' religions are. The Capitol is not the Senators' building. It is all Americans' building, and the prayer is not for the benefit of the Senators but rather a means of sanctifying the important work of democracy, which belongs to everyone, not just to the Senators.

Maureen Clyne:

Very well written. Thank you Maureen for such a beutiful posting.

Maureen Clyne:

Very well written. Thank you Maureen for such a beutiful posting.

Maureen Clyne:

Very well written. Thank you Maureen for such a beutiful posting.

To Maurine Clyne:

Thanks for the excellent post. Very enlightening and the best so far. I think the Hindus got it right.

When researching history of Middle East as suggested to me by officials and arabs alike, I found history of crusades intriguing in as much that our so called leaders ignored negative effects of churh/state empires leading to self-destruction. And that nazi movement followed same course to its own demise. And yet there are periords whereby ismaelis and isrealites and/or Knights Templar worked hand in hand advancing society through architectural, mathematics and astronomy while actually protecting common holylands from invasion.

I cringed one day upon hearing someone asking the Holy Spirit to guide the United States Senate. However I did not turn on the computer and rifle off an email. Senators have a right to pray in public or private domain as they see fit. I caught Senator Bryd of West Virginia giving a wonderful sermon/speech prior to Easter Break one year. And yet I felt a boundry encroahment when entire federal government got caught up saving a shell of a human being trying to deny the right to die, the last stage of life itself, (hint-hint).

I myself much prefer Divine Providence as suggested by Founding Fathers and reflected through the Great Seal of the United States. While those of us not priveledged as elitists or One-Percenters are having problems pursuing happiness because fuel costs are so high or that we cannot afford healthcare for our children, I somehow feel that negativity inflicted upon our society on whole has been brought upon ourselves by egomaniacs with inferiority complexes.

My suggestions are to stop playing God or stop looking for God because he ain't the one who is lost. One could say that prayers like "May God continue to Bless this Nation" are akin to the "blessings" given to us by Osama Bin Laden. Be careful what you ask for in prayer, you may just get it.

That's my story and I am sticking to it. Thank Divine Providence that pursuing happiness through vicarious pleasures afforded by the internet is cost effective and realtively safe for most users. Now where was I, oh yea, contra-intelligence as it relates to the old adage "The Truth will set One free".

E=MC squared plus tax...

To Johnny:

Beautiful job with the reference there. We have to start putting these Christian extremists in their place. If they want to go the "Westboro Baptist Church" way about, let them do it, but let's keep them in check.

The "One nation Under God" was put in place 1958!! I hardly consider Eisenhower a "Founding Father". And if we are "One Nation under God", then I gather God must be pretty pissed at this nation for...oh...I don't know...Being the last Westren nation to abolish slavery, breaking every bit of decency with the Native Americans, toppling democratic goverments we do not like, star wars we do not need, and so on and so forth.

These are the exact same type of poeple that nail Jesus to the cross, shot Gandhi in the chest and Martin Luther King in the head. They are, in my opinion, the true Agents of Satan..if there is such a thing.

Tibbsj -

Where do you get this stuff?

Are you giving a sermon, maybe?

How are non-believers trying to destroy your faith?

I agree, it's good to believe in something - I believe in many things - democracy, love, compassion, quality health care for all, public education, etc.

If you want to believe in an invisible God and myths from 2,000 years ago, go ahead, but please go easy on the rhetoric of how important this is. You have no evidence that God has done anything you credit him with.

Tibbsj -

Where do you get this stuff?

Are you giving a sermon, maybe?

How are non-believers trying to destroy your faith?

I agree, it's good to believe in something - I believe in many things - democracy, love, compassion, quality health care for all, public education, etc.

If you want to believe in an invisible God and myths from 2,000 years ago, go ahead, but please go easy on the rhetoric of how important this is. You have no evidence that God has done anything you credit him with.

We are one nation under GOD, for this is true. GOD has blessed America with the children of many Nations. And with this, we as American's must realize that this country could not continue to be is we give in to the evil that are trying to destroy the root of America (our faith) in GOD, for GOD is of many religions. Let us not stray from what we were taught to believe for beief gives us hope and without hope we shall become of those with no emotion and conscience. Let us not be lead down a dark path where the darkness is there only for the consumption of hope, love and peace.

Let not our faith be destroyed because of none believers. To beieve in something is a hell of a lot better than believing in nothing.

Last month a Hindu chaplain opened the U.S. senate with prayer. Some critics say that violated "one nation under God", others church-state separation. What do you think?

Wonderful question. My understanding of the problem is that the Constitution allows for a diversity of religions and expects religion to be subordinate to a vague notion of state. Or to put it another way, Christianity may have been the dominant religion at the time of the writing of the Constitution, but the Constitution allowed for a multiple religious understanding, various practices of religion, and religion as a whole sphere of life subordinate to a nascent concept of state separate from religion.

We are still in this rather confused and inarticulate position. We have people wanting the Constitution firmly underpinned and in fact subordinate to Christianity (even though there are diverse types of Christianity) and others wanting a greater diversity of religions and really at bottom having the Constitution on their side. And of course we have still others pushing for a state above all religions, striving to clearly articulate and separate state from religious practice--even to the point of an atheistic state. We have to examine minutely all these stretches and pulls, warps and woofs, centripetal and centrifugal forces,--and evolutionary forces as well according to political history and even the biological sciences.

Roughly speaking at present we have the U.S. trying to honor as many religious practices people bring to the nation, but no doubt we are aware of religions potentially conflicting, centrifugal forces overwhelming the diversity allowed and even promoted by the Constitution. In reaction to this we have attempts to return to "Constitutional originality" (whatever that means. The Pope? The Roman empire? God himself as known by Scalia?) as well as attempts to just smooth the whole process over by sheer economics--a world of plenty resolving differences. Perhaps best of all we have the centripetal movement of trying to distill the essence of what will remain from religion as state continues to separate itself from church and we in fact move more and more into examining the position of atheism in respect to religion in totality.

In fact I believe eventually economic forces as well as the natural tendency of the human mind will remove the particular aspects of religions and we will be left with "aspects in common" and comparative religion and science.

For example I simply observe that no matter how well atheists attack religions, no matter how much reason is brought to bear, we are left with the essence of people hoping in some fixed point to existence which they call by such names as alpha and omega and which to them represents the absolute (absolutely pure and fixed) good which they cannot find in existence. If atheists want to go further--and we will in fact grant them here that they have irrevocable proof of no God--and decisively split state from religion, separate church from state and leave church decisively behind, they are compelled to give us a total vision of state separate from church.

My belief is the atheist position leads to:

1) Physically, a world of pure flux, no fixed point, the big-bang happening over and over or something--a world of movement only. No unmoved-mover, God, to existence.

2) No absolutes of good or evil--which is to say good or evil only attaining relative levels of purity and always being transitory, never becoming permanent states.

3) We can see from the above two points that this has profound implications for politics. Just a couple of the points as I do not want to dwell here on atheism and just want to point out all the angles to the conflicts between religions and trying to separate state decisively from religion and leave religion behind. A) One political implication is that we observe that for all the anti-individuality of religions the atheist state eventually is the individual subordinate to the collective for the following reason: religions for all their anti-individuality tend to allow for individual salvation even if the whole human race perishes--which is to say as long as one is good it matters little ultimately if everyone else is bad and the human race is wiped out. Not so in the atheistic state. In the atheist's world, the individual is expected to ensure that the collective continues because there is no salvation for man except he go on--keep the human race going. This is not to say atheism is anti-individuality--on the contrary, expect the biological sciences to make a hard push to create quality human beings--but that ultimately the individual is subordinate to the collective in the atheist's world. B) We can see that in the atheist's world if there is no God--no fixed point, existence is all flux--and no absolutes of good or evil, then obviously what becomes good primarily is the perpetual advancement and evolution of the human race in the absence of God (biological view ascendant) and what becomes evil is all which would compromise this advancement. We would expect in the atheist state firmly separate from church a world of immense responsibility and pure process--the constant attempt to invent more and more responsible and capable individuals, and to invent better and better and more conducive to mind pleasures to ease the mind from the no doubt often crushing responsibilities.

I write these words to just show that we have to examine each religion. Then we have to ask what happens when this or that or all religions mix. Then we have to ask what happens when we move to rationality and try to get above this or that religion. Then we have to ask what happens when we try to get above them all. Individual church. "Churches" conflicting. States above church. State above church. None of this will be easy. Welcome finally to the birth of true American philosophy.

This is just like the question on military chaplains. Either the government includes all sorts of blessings or no blessings at all. I wish someone would have told me when we were converting to a theocracy so I could have moved away.

Actually we are not one nation under God. We are one nation. If you insist on keeping religious language in the Pledge, then we are one nation under many gods, goddesses, and other deities, as well as one nation under no gods, goddesses, or other deities. But that's really amouthful, especially for those kindergarteners trying to memorize it. One nation is much easier for them to remember and to pronounce.

That said, if Congress is going to insist on invocations, then they are right to bring in clergy from all faiths, and they must as well be open to non-deist/atheist invocations.

I see no problem with openinig a Senate session with prayer from a Hindu, or a Muslim, or a Jew, or one of any faith. Such is not inconsistent with one nation under God.
I do, however, feel that a policy which excludes a member of any faith from opening a session with prayer is bigoted, and cannot be defended under the Constitution.

agree with poster below -- if you're truly devout and sure of your faith, you may feel embarrassed to parade your God in public.

As other here have made clear, there is no "One Nation Under God" to violate, if in violating something, we a priori transform that "something" into law. The "under God" phrase was a McCarthy-era paean to the conceit that America is better because Russia is "godless" and we're not.

Which probably came as a big surprise to God during those years, but I digress.

I would just as soon the Members of Congress looked to their moral virtues in private rather than making a public show of their piety with opening prayers et al. It's not only unconstitutional; it's tasteless.

As other here have made clear, there is no "One Nation Under God" to violate, if in violating something, we a priori transform that "something" into law. The "under God" phrase was a McCarthy-era paean to the conceit that America is better because Russia is "godless" and we're not.

Which probably came as a big surprise to God during those years, but I digress.

I would just as soon the Members of Congress looked to their moral virtues in private rather than making a public show of their piety with opening prayers et al. It's not only unconstitutional; it's tasteless.

"Under God" has no place in the Pledge of Allegiance. "In God We Trust" has no place on our money. Both of these imply that one has to believe in God to be a patriotic American. No American is under another American's god, and no American should trust another American's god.

The notion of Rajan Zed’s prayer violating the “national motto” of “One Nation Under God” strikes me as ridiculous at a couple of different levels. This statement was added during the Cold War era (1956) to separate America from the God-less communists; and the Christian right uses it as though it was the “national motto” adopted by Founders to justify their argument of America as a “Christian nation.” By doing so, they ignore the fact that E Pluribus Unum--“Out of many, (is) one”--adopted in 1782, still remains the motto of the U.S. government for most of our history. This original motto reflects the pluralism--religious and otherwise--that has characterized this nation since the settlers first arrived on these shores.

At another level, Rajan Zed’s prayer was attacked because of (willful?) ignorance of Hindus believing in “Gods” not “God.” I know many Hindus are offended by this characterization because of the many systems of thoughts in the religion and many Hindus are monotheists who believe that Brahman is the Supreme Being and the intermediary deities are conduits to it.

So, if we're going to have prayers in the Senate, let's not have a dubious religious test based on fuzzy notions of American history or world religions.

Anon: "But we have to understand the principles and the purpose of One Nation Under God. We have to understand the founding father's whole purpose for that."

Check your history books, hon. "One nation under God" is not in the Constitution, and was not the creation of the Founding Fathers. "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's as a way of "reminding" the American people that "God is on our side" at the beginning of the Cold War. It had everything to do with nationalism and nothing to do with faith.

First of all, The United States motto, 'One Nation Under God' was not written by the founding fathers as the first opinion at the bottom is poorly mistaken. It was added to the pledge, which was written in 1892, in 1954. Do your research.
I firmly believe in seperation of church and state. Although this incident wasn't really that big of a deal I believe that NO FORM of prayer has it's place in government affairs.

I have just about had it with the American main-stream christianity!

First of all, why is Congress or any other Government institution opened with a prayer?????

What about separation between church and state?????

Why can they (the upper Government hierchary pray out loud) yet prayer and any other religious symbols are forbidden on public property, i.e. schools, courthouses, etc.

What the heck is up with that?????

Not that I want prayer anywhere, other than in the respecive churches or homes!

GOD ALMIGHTY, strike them all where the sun doesn't shine!

Has there ever been an invocation before Congress by a Native American religious leader? And if not, why not? Surely that is a diverse group that has the right to offer a prayer.

everyone needs to read autobiography of a yogi and calm down Jesus would approve of this prayer

My dear Anonymous,

Your Fundamentalist lens distorts the words of the Constitution and Declaration of Indpendence to fit your ideological presuppositions. Those who wrote the Constitution chose the word "Creator" rather than "God" or "Christ" specifically to avoid any suggestion that they favored one religious tradition (i.e. Christianity) over any other.

This country's founders remembered the European bloodbaths of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, and knew all too well that Government sponsored/endorsed religion can only lead to violence and tyranny of the few over the many. (Please see, "Taliban, the")

And before spouting off about another religion, please educate yourself. "Hinduism for Dummies" is a good starting point.

Hinduism is a polytheistic tradition, in which, ultimately, there IS only one God. But that God (sometimes known as the Para-Atman, Brahman, Isvara) is infinite, beyond all limitations and boundaries, including those of language. Hinduism's myriad deities simply represent various aspects of the One, because no single aspect can possibly contain the totality of the infinite God. And yet, regardless of which individual deity you invoke, you do so knowing that it simultaneously represents the One.

From this perspective then, the Christian God and Christ are just two more avatars or aspects of the One in addition to all the others.

Jenn: quick correction. Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, who is in turn one of the three "Tri-Murti" or "Three Faces of God" - Brahma (creation), Vishnu (sustanance), Shiva (destruction). There's also the Divine Mother Shakti who in some cases replaces Brahma as the creative force.

Vishnu takes an incarnation whenever sacred teachings are in danger of being lost. Vishnu's two most popular avatars are Krishna, (He of "Bhagavad-Gita" and "Mahabharata") and Lord Rama, hero of the epic, "Ramayana".

Judy: Huge difference between Catholic saints and Hindu deities. Saints are holy humans who connected with God in some way during their Earthly lives through visions, conversations, etc. But they are not divinities or forms of God. Only Jesus and the Holy Spirit are part of God.

Hindu Deities are actually a part of God (or the Para-Atman or Brahman - whatever you want to call it).

Concerned/Liberated Christian: Religious rules are created by humans. Politically, the caste system kept the ruling Brahmin class in power. But it also had roots in polytheistic philosophy - just as the whole of a human body is made up of individual parts (feet, legs, hands, etc), so is the whole of God made up of individual souls. Castes were originally considered to represent humanity's parts and I guess somebody had to be at the bottom.

Cow worship: Cows are revered because Krishna was a cowherd and because cows are the keepers of the philosophers stone. The Sanskrit word for cow, "Go" also means "knowledge," or "sacred treasure." Krishna is called Gopala - herder of cows or knowledge, also Govinda - finder of cows.

As for the Hindu prayer, which is a famous quote from the "Upanishads", why not?

Are Christian Fundamentalists so insecure about their version of God that a Hindu prayer in the US Senate threatens His very existance and theirs?

"Truth is One, paths are many." - Swami Satchidananda

Much ado about nothing!

About 1.8 million people in United States are of Indian origin, most of them hindu.

They have the right to practice religon they believe in, however in good faith the prayer has to reflect some thing mentioning humanity, peace and love to keep neo-conservitives calm.

Its true Muslim, Jews and Christians all have faith with lot of similarities and trust in one God ( christian version is trinity ), for them hinduism is a strange phenomenon. They have 30 million Gods and and some of the religious practices un acceptable.
Since Hindus are part of this society so its ok for a hindu prayer in a US government building? NO, because US has a secular governmet and personal beliefs are not to be practiced in a government building.

About 1.8 million people in United States are of Indian origin, most of them hindu.

They have the right to practice religon they believe in, however in good faith the prayer has to reflect some thing mentioning humanity, peace and love to keep neo-conservitives calm.

Its true Muslim, Jews and Christians all have faith with lot of similarities and trust in one God ( christian version is trinity ), for them hinduism is a strange phenomenon. They have 30 million Gods and and some of the religious practices un acceptable.
Since Hindus are part of this society so its ok for a hindu prayer in a US government building? NO, because US has a secular governmet and personal beliefs are not to be practiced in a government building.

Government is synonymous with ceremonial pomp. Why this event should cause even a blip in anyone's blood pressure is beyond me.

This had to be a staged outburst, perhaps some kind of immolation-lite pact, so these goofs can say they've been Jailed4Jesus or wear some other badge of courage.

Now would be a good time to note that in any non-Western country the poor darlings would be executed and made into real, grown-up martyrs. So I guess these hardcore faithful will just have to butch up and suffer our grudging tolerance, even if we can't give them our respect. Such a light cross to bear, for your lord and master, no?

Aside from being genuine candidates for the looney-bin, what these nutballs are guilty of is abominable manners. So abominable it in fact that it discredits their faith better than Hitchens, Harris, or Dawkins ever could.

Embarrassing, though? Perhaps not. Public displays of ill-mannered idiocy are what makes this country what it is. Even a mannerless wanker such as I am allowed to post!

Embarrassing, though? Perhaps so; the US used to pride itself on intellectual agility, education and innovation. Now all we do is act up, shout down, or pass out at touchy-feely concerts. O God what hath the 60s wrought?!

Oops, wrong trip.

Still after my initial reaction, I went in search of any constitutional support for an opening prayer, and, gee Wally, you know what? I sorta didn't find any.

So I have no idea how the custom came into being. I don't know and frankly I don't care.

A custom becomes customary, because it has been rendered harmless-- it could just as well be called a commencement address or a keynote speech. It's a good time for the faithless to slug down more coffee or study a paper or otherwise prepare for the real business of the day.

A duck looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck-- I know a good many ducks, and this sir, is no duck...

I'd prefer there to be no opening prayer, but why squawk about harmless customs when perfectly insane and harmful laws await debate?

Now about that Intelligent Design crap being put in science textbooks.... Per RPF, there is only "The Science", not "Christian Science", not "Islamic Science", nor any other "kind" of science--just the science, and she won't be fooled or fooled with ....

Oops, trippin' again.

---FIUS

Anonymous: "When they came up with these terms they were Christian men and followed the teachings of Christ. Therefore they are referring to the One Creator God."

No, they weren't.

Treaty of Tripoli (1796), Article 11: "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

Anonymous: "When they came up with these terms they were Christian men and followed the teachings of Christ. Therefore they are referring to the One Creator God."

No, they weren't.

Treaty of Tripoli (1796), Article 11: "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

My neighbors are Hindu. Good, gracious and peace loving people. And I am glad to see they had a voice in Washington who expressed this peace.

But as with all religions, there are flaws in the foundations of Hinduism.

e.g.
Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders/foundations of said rules of life.

Senators represent the people of this country! And are there any Hindus in this country? Yes, how about over two million! So, what is wrong in having a Hindu priest deliver a prayer? Or is it too much for your bigoted mind to accept?

Simple question:

Are any of the 100 US Senators Hindu? If not, why would we have a Hindu leading them in prayer?

Let's keep it practical!

Let's at least get the fundamentals of Hinduism correct. The Supreme Spirit In Hinduism is Brahman. Krishna is an avatar (god come to earth in human form) of Vishnu, who is the god of you maintains the universe and comes to earth when good and bad get out of balance. Siddhartha Gautama Buddhu (The Buddha who started Buddhism) is another avatar. I've never heard Jesus described as an avatar, but I think it could be seen as analogous. There are multiple gods and goddesses in Hinduism, but there are many saints in Christianity and as a non-Christian it all seems the same to me. Many of the founding fathers were theists and didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. I don't see why it is preferable to have a Catholic priest officiate rather than a Hindu priest. Seems the same to me.

Jonny,
I agree with most of what you've said and, of course, spit in the general direction of Anonymous. BUT there was no call for a shot at homeschoolers. Get with the times man, homeschooling's not just for the religious anymore. I know you didn't mean anything by it, but I just wanted to take the chance to correct an outdated assumuption.
thanks.

thanks anonymous- i hope others here take a look at your site- i may bookmark it.

peace

The Constitution is not a religious document. Nor does it speak that we are a Christian Nation. In fact the first amendment states :

*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*

No law respecting an established religion..., says to me that we are not to give a higher level of respect to any one religion.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..., says to me that allowing the Hindu chaplain to open senate (to which I assume he was invited to do) was allowing free exercise. Self explanatory.

The Declaration of Independence states:

*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.*

The important part in this statement is..that they are endowed by their creator. The key word here is THEIR. Meaning yours, mine and theirs.

The Pledge of Allegence states:

One nation under God.

Under God. Not the one and only God, not the christian God but just God. Yours, mine and theirs.

Personally I am an atheist. I have no God. Except maybe the ciggarette god that gets me through each day a little more sane. I don't push my god on everyone else. Sure, my god kills. So do and have the other ones. You think my god is stupid? I think yours is too. So, I guess we can call it even.

I do, also, believe in the seperation of church and state. And this is a prime example of why. To confusing you say. Your right it is, and therefore should be eliminated from government.

My god is just as important to me as yours is to you. There are laws prohibiting my god. So should there be for yours. You just choose to ignore yours or at the least muddy the water. I on the other hand will be fined for ignoring the laws for mine.

When watching the news clip of the opening Hindu prayer for the senate. I was appalled, embarassed and then disgusted by the protesters. I had to turn towards my ciggarette god to calm me.

Yes there are rights for protesters. I am quite sure there are more important things to protest against. Just ask Phillip Morris.

Praying by anyone about anything over the grubby, grabby, earmarking miscreants of our congress has to be a good thing.
The only thing as ugly as "only mine" religious
fervor is "eveything's mine" of our legislators.
We could wish the FBI had more to do than search the houses and refrigerator-freezers of our elected.
Like, maybe pray more, different religions; it couldn't hurt.

Victoria --

Peruse:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html

I understand that you were offering refutation of Anonymous' preposterous assertions. Good for you.

Peace

Praying by anyone about anything over the grubby, grabby, earmarking miscreants of our congress has to be a good thing.
The only thing as ugly as "only mine" religious
fervor is "eveything's mine" of our legislators.
We could wish the FBI had more to do than search the houses and refrigerator-freezers of our elected.
Like, maybe pray more, it couldn't hurt.

johnny- give me an example-

it is a case of something being said so many times that people begin to believe it must be valid-

im not arguing for an inclusion of religion into government- that would be disastrous-

but some people seem to think that is what the constitution advocates.

im happy it is interpreted that way- but i think youll find that the idea is to keep one religion from taking judicial precedence over any other-

which is the exact opposite of claiming america is a christian nation.

theres room enough for us all here.

i was just stating facts, not practicing jurisprudence.

i have to say, i think WAPO is trying to separate the different religious discussions into different boxes-

the new format will limit conversations to its adherents and detractors, and i think little else.

so johnny- i was commenting on anonymous's post that our founding fathers "purpose" of one nation under god.

which occurred in 1955.

anonymous seems to think that means charlton heston on a throne with a long white beard (and a gun in both fists) hee hee

sorry, poetic license there

peace

Is a prayer delivered to a non-existent god even a prayer? From the perspective of the "Christians" in Congress, did the prayer even exist? If one has a monotheistic religion, then a prayer to some other god is no prayer at all, but just meaningless words.

If you believe that the prayer of a Hindu is to another god besides the One God, then, by definition, you are not a monotheist.

"One Nation Under God" is NOT "A Nation Under One God." We are a nation whose laws are subservient to divine (natural) law. A Hindu prayer in Congress does not violate "One Nation Under God" but expresses a different understanding of the divine or natural law.

Prayers delivered in our Congressional chambers are not spiritual events, but political ones. And from a political perspective, a follower of Hindu is represented in the Congress as are Jews, Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Wiccans, Druids, and Druze.

Because all prayers delivered publicly in Congress are political and not religious, the church-state separation issue is irrelevant.

Victoria said --
"anonymous, heres some homework, find separation of church and state in the constitution-

you cannot- its not there"

And yet over 200 years of court decisions -- and, as mandated by the Constitution itself, the COURTS decide constitutional issues, not shamans or witch doctors -- AFFIRM the First Amendment as constitutionally mandating the separation.

Let the Jews in the Senate bring in bulls and sheep for sacrifice. Let the Christians crucify any hapless homeless man they find. Let a few Christian deviants, like Mormons, be burned alive. Let the Hindus and Muslims in the Senate execute one another. All this would be a truly religious way of opening a session of the world's greatest deliberative body.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

-- Treaty of Tripoli, approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, ratified unanimously by the United States Senate, 1797

anonymous-

amazingly, in 2007, there are still people who believe that separation of church and state is codified in the constitution.

madison stated-
" SECTION 15, Because finally, 'the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his RELIGION according to the dictates of conscience' IS held by the same tenure with all his other rights. If we recur to its orgin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consider the 'Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as THE BASIS AND FOUNDATION OF GOVERNMENT,' it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

madison was one who was credited with interpreting the constitution to separate church and state-
but, as you can see, the idea was that ALL RELIGIONS be permitted to be practiced.

as madison stated above, religion is the dictates of the conscience- NOT- religion is the basis of the governmemt, and specifically NOT christianity.

in god we trust-

from a christian site-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Legislation approved July 11, 1955, made the appearance of "In God We Trust" mandatory on all coins and paper currency of the United States. By Act of July 30, 1956, "In God We Trust" became the national motto of the United States.

Several years ago, the appearance of "In God We Trust" on our money was challenged in the federal courts. The challenge was rejected by the lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the case."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

this is a really tired conversations on these boards-

so a quick google will offer the same information.

anonymous, heres some homework, find separation of church and state in the constitution-

you cannot- its not there

I guess it depends on what the meaning of "Founding Fathers" is. If you're talking about the Puritans of New England, who established their own theocracy and felt free to banish, torture, or kill anyone who didn't agree with them, yeah, I guess they'd be the "Founding Fathers". But if you're talking about Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Hancock, etc., then they're totally off-base. Most of those Founding Fathers were Deists and/or Masons, who believed that God started things moving, but it was up to Humans to save ourselves.

So weary of the fundy Christians' lies about the Founding Fathers:

____
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
____

Tell me -- why are fundy Christians always the FIRST ones to trash the 9th Commandment?

Well, Annonymous,thank you for proving the previous posters' points. First, typically all of the Hindu gods are regarded as being manifestations of the one god Krishna (sort of like Jesus and the Holy Ghost being manifestations of JHVH, ya know, God). So even if you want to cling to your "freedom of monotheistic religions only" paradigm, you will have to work a tad harder.

And everyone please recall, the One-Nation-Under-God thing is *recent* and not of our founding fathers. "Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954 as an anti-communist technique. "In God We Trust" was added to currecy in 1837 because of fears of the nation being shattered by Civil War. These are *not* founding principles, and we would not be turning our backs on the origins of the nation to remove them...in fact, it would be more in keeping with the founding.

This controversy over the prayer exposes the lie used to justify having prayer in a governement setting at all; namely that as long as other denominations are represented, then there is no establishment of religion, so it's O.K. Ah, but that only gets to apply to the Christian denominations (most of which would not be fond of our Deist Founder's personal beliefs). So, actually, we aren't alright with other faiths being represented. Therefore, allowing one faith but barring others is in fact an implied state-sanctioned faith. You cannot be intellectually honest and say that the elevation of Christian sects over others implies no church-state connection.

anonymous said:

"But we have to understand the principles and the purpose of One Nation Under God. We have to understand the founding father's whole purpose for that."

The Founding Fathers never proposed such a bird-brained idea. Were you home-schooled, perchance?

"Violated 'One Nation Under God'" ??? Who writes this idiotic garbage?

The separation of church and state is enshrined AS LAW in the 1st amendment.

'One Nation Under God' is a bit of propaganda and nothing more.

Is there any greater example than the fuss raised
over a Hindu prayer as to why prayers in public
schools is a bad idea?

Is there any greater example than the fuss raised
over a Hindu prayer as to why prayers in public
schools is a bad idea?

First:
The Church State Separation WAS NOT intended to keep the church out of governmnet but more so to keep the governmnet out of the church. Meaning that while a church is preaching or teaching their beliefs, it wasn't the governments responsibility to tell them what they could or could not talk about or do during their worship services.

Second:
I don't know the Hindu religion/belief but if they don't believe in the God that is the meaning of One Nation Under God then why are they allowed to be there. First we have to find out what the term One Nation Under God is meaning. When they came up with these terms they were Christian men and followed the teachings of Christ. Therefore they are referring to the One Creator God.

Third:
Everyone who is voted into the Senate has their own religion or non religion. So what are they going to do next, have a representative from every religion praying in the Senate? It's already confused now. When you have all of this type of Spiritual Battling going on, it is causing SPiritual Warfare. You can't Worship 2 Gods. You are either for him or against him. So when you have all of these different spirits in one room, it's causing turmoil and they don't even realize it.

So Basically NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO on the prayers of other religions. I am not a bigot, I love all. But we have to understand the principles and the purpose of One Nation Under God. We have to understand the founding father's whole purpose for that.