Posted by: Sarkozy May 1, 2008
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
Do you know the hidden
reason behind Jimmy Carter's multiple visits to Nepal? Has any former
president visited Nepal so frequently? It was not just aimed to resolve
Maoist crisis in Nepal, rather the flip side of the coin has to do with
taking an optimum advantage of the fluid state of politics in Nepal to
boost proselytizing (conversion). FYI: Carter remained a staunch
Southern Baptist for 25 years. Listen to his remarks: how many times
did he utter "Hindu state" last time while he was in Nepal. His Carter center's Health programs
focussed in Muslim populated African poor countries are also driven
towards that direction: Christian Humanism's garb !!!
The reason I am arguing for the Hindu state is merely due to 2 reasons:
1. Nepal has established precedent of working mutually with every other religions despite being a Hindu State and every other religious communities have felt safe under the Hindu state. It is because Nepal's case is not like fundamentalists. As I discussed in my previous post, we have an example of how the tiniest of Muslim communities are living a happy life in Kathmandu for more than 100 years despite having the fact that Nepal was a Hindu state throughout the history.
2.Since Hindus don't either believe to entice others to change their religion whereas the others do ( such as Christians/Muslims), what can be the consequence? just think rationally. It is mathematically true that if you don't protect yourself from being converted (given the situation that you are vulnerable to convert due to so many constraints ) you are ultimately prone to be either a Christian or Muslim. Isn't it? In a country suffering with a freakin' abject poverty and illiteracy, the missionaries are there day and night with a single aim to convert people of Sanatan Dhama (which is far from any indoctrinated religion) into Christian, by luring and enticing them. Don't we (who are 83%) have right to protect our religion from being frozen into the history by missionaries and proselytizers? We do. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE OF NEPAL REMAINING A HINDU STATE. NEPAL CAN REMAIN WITHOUT the KING THOUGH.
The reason I am arguing for the Hindu state is merely due to 2 reasons:
1. Nepal has established precedent of working mutually with every other religions despite being a Hindu State and every other religious communities have felt safe under the Hindu state. It is because Nepal's case is not like fundamentalists. As I discussed in my previous post, we have an example of how the tiniest of Muslim communities are living a happy life in Kathmandu for more than 100 years despite having the fact that Nepal was a Hindu state throughout the history.
2.Since Hindus don't either believe to entice others to change their religion whereas the others do ( such as Christians/Muslims), what can be the consequence? just think rationally. It is mathematically true that if you don't protect yourself from being converted (given the situation that you are vulnerable to convert due to so many constraints ) you are ultimately prone to be either a Christian or Muslim. Isn't it? In a country suffering with a freakin' abject poverty and illiteracy, the missionaries are there day and night with a single aim to convert people of Sanatan Dhama (which is far from any indoctrinated religion) into Christian, by luring and enticing them. Don't we (who are 83%) have right to protect our religion from being frozen into the history by missionaries and proselytizers? We do. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE OF NEPAL REMAINING A HINDU STATE. NEPAL CAN REMAIN WITHOUT the KING THOUGH.