I am not a christian but am well read on it and other religions. The best thing about christianity is that it has evolved to be by far the most tolerant and most egalitarian. Mostly when i see Asians, even among some of my distant relatives who are christians, i see that Asians simply do not understand the message of Christ. By converting, they retain so much of their bad values that they become a disgrace to Christianity. Some of my christian relatives (Asian) even find socialising in Hindu festivals as an insult. What is the use of becoming a christian if you retain your hate and still think in term of caste system?. Asian people to some extent appear to be unable to handle  their new religion.
The western world has been built on the values of christianity. It is these values that give us our freedom and human rights that we enjoy so much. Come think of it. When the floods happened in PAkistan or disasters happen in other countries, it is the Christian countries who dig into their pockets to help. These people are burdened with debt and lack of a proper job in their country but many do not hesitate to donate to the needy. Do the Nepalese and Indian Christians emulate this aspect of their new found religion?. Negative as i have not seen it. So why are they becoming christians if they cannot be a proper one?. 
I am an agnostic but i do admire the teachings of Jesus and as i try to be a good human being, i try to follow his good message. I have learnt to be tolerant, egalitarian by observing and socialising with some good Christians.
I have not become a Christian as per religion, but i have become a better human being.

 

 This thread has been hijacked by some cut and paste bloke. The only reason why one cannot find such chronological equivalent in Hinduism and others is because they did not record history as well and when they did it was not unbiased. If one does more research one can find so much crimes in other religions too that are really much worse.

They did not use christian calanader does not mean that they did not record their history. The problem is not the record of the history, the problem is wanting to see everything  thgoriugh christian spectacle 

 If one does more research one can find so much crimes in other religions too that are really much worse.

No need to do "more Research". Just few clicks will take you there.(or may be few clicks in internet is "more research" for you)

But which religion has evolved the best to support freedom and tolerance?

Are you sure? or just you are day dreaming? read following

Ireland to clarify abortion rules after Indian woman's death

Reuters | Nov 16, 2012, 04.49 PM IST

 

 

DUBLIN: Ireland's government pledged on Thursday to clarify its abortion laws after an Indian woman who was refused a termination died from blood poisoning in an Irish hospital. 

Thousands took to the streets to protest on Wednesday after news broke of the death ofSavita Halappanavar of septicaemia following a miscarriage 17 weeks into her pregnancy. 

Activists in the overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country, which has some of the world's most restrictive laws on abortion, say the refusal by doctors to terminate the pregnancy earlier may have contributed to her death. 

"I was deeply disturbed yesterday by what Savita's husband said. I don't think as a country we should allow a situation where women's rights are put at risk in this way," deputy prime minister Eamon Gilmore told parliament on Thursday. 

"There is no question of equivocation. We need to bring legal clarity to this issue and that is what we are going to do." 

Irish law does not specify under what circumstances the threat to the life or health of the mother is high enough to justify a termination, leaving doctors to decide. Critics say this means doctors' personal beliefs can play a role. 

Halappanavar was admitted to hospital in severe pain on October 21 and asked for a termination after doctors told her the baby would not survive, according to her husband Praveen. 

The foetus was surgically removed when its heartbeat stopped days later, but her family believes the delay contributed to the blood poisoning that killed Halappanavar on Oct. 28. 

Praveen said he would wait for the results of an investigation before deciding whether to sue, but that Ireland's Roman Catholic tradition appeared to have been a factor in the decision to deny a termination. 

"I am still in shock. It is hard to believe that religion can mean somebody's life," Praveen Halappanavar told Reuters. He said he planned to return to Ireland from India, where he travelled with his wife's body. 

The Irish health authority (HSE) has launched an inquiry which the health minister said must "stand up to the scrutiny of the world." Irish media said Praveen would be interviewed. 

The Indian couple were resident and working in Ireland, he as an engineer and she as a dentist. 

Political storm 

Despite a dramatic waning of the influence of the Catholic Church, which dominated politics in Ireland until the 1980s, successive governments have been loath to legislate on an issue they fear could alienate conservative voters. 

Fine Gael, the senior partner in Ireland's ruling coalition, told supporters before a recent election that it would not introduce new laws allowing abortion during its five-year term, despite pressure from its junior partner Labour to act. 

The government said it had received long-delayed recommendations from an expert panel on introducing new rules on abortion, and would report before the end of the month. 

Four out of five Irish voters support a change in the law to permit abortion in cases where a mother's life is at risk, according to a recent opinion poll. 

But a vocal anti-abortion minority has dominated the debate on abortion in Ireland in the past, with campaigners arguing that the adoption of legislation or guidelines for medical terminations would bring in abortion through the back door. 

In 1992, when challenged in the "X-case" involving a 14-year-old rape victim, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was permitted when the woman's life was at risk, including from suicide. A European court of human rights in 2010 ruled that Ireland must clarify what this means in practice. 

"This is exactly what the (European) court was complaining about ... The court has not said Ireland must or must not have abortion, they said they have to clarify circumstances," said Ronan McCrea, a barrister and lecturer in law at University College London. 

"The vagueness ... gives excessive scope to doctors to follow their own personal views or it means even if they want to give the treatment, they worry they'll fall foul of the law," he said. 

Halappanavar's death has dominated debate in Ireland's parliament since news of it broke on Wednesday. Her photograph was spread across front pages of all Ireland's major newspapers on Thursday, while editorials demanded action from politicians. 

The fact that she is a foreign national has heightened the government's embarrassment. The story was on the front of several large Indian newspapers and family members were featured on national television. 

The Indian government said on Thursday it deeply regretted Halappanavar's death. "The death of an Indian national in such circumstances is a matter of concern," a spokesman said.

_________________________________

Please do not come to sajha and start advocating religion as a blindfolded person may be it is a good idea to do "more research" before posting somthing. because not all people are vulnarable to propoganda.

The answer is the religion which let you talk about its bad history even while staying in the country which was founded by that religion and established on its ideals by its founders.   

if you are talking about US, FYI I do not live in US. You are so naive that you think everyone who posts in sajha live in US? what do you think?
US was founded by religion ??

The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

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. 

..........
..........
The Declaration of Independence

Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)

However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.

Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our government.

Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author aimed at a future government designed and upheld bypeople and not based on a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all have the natural ability of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Please note that the Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: "Governments are instituted among men."

The pursuit of happiness does not mean a guarantee of happiness, only that we have the freedom to pursue it. Our Law of the Land incorporates this freedom of pursuit in the Constitution. We can believe or not believe as we wish. We may succeed or fail in our pursuit, but our Constitution (and not the Declaration) protects our unalienable rights in our attempt at happiness.

Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.

The Treaty of Tripoli

 

 

Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"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 Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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." 

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.") [Bold text, mine]

Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the American government.

 

Mr. freedom 2012, By doing "some more research" on founding fathers of US , i suspect that you may have fallen  pray to the christian advocacy group.

Please read following.

The U.S. Founding Fathers: Their Religious Beliefs

Sidster,
I am an Agnostic. It is true that people in Asia never recorded their history as well as did the white people. USA becoming more Atheist is not something to cheer about for Hindus and Muslims because Atheists do not believe in God in general, not just the Bible God but neither the hindu god nor the muslim god. These Atheists from the West however had a Christian upbringing and some values which are encouraged from childhood like donating to the poor, adopting kids, making a meritocratic and egalitarian society are encouraged. This is why millions of hindus and muslims still migrate to the West every year.  

Using my analytical brain, i see followers of certain religion failing to make an egalitarian and meritocratic society. Copy Paste bro, isnt it amazing that all the Western countries are predominantly christian and white?. Mass immigration to the West by Asians (hindus. muslims) is a recent phenomenon. And you can relax as you will not be persecuted for showing the bad side of Christianity in the past even if you live amidst them at present. Try doing the same in India or muslim country and speak against their religion and you will wish you had never left the West.

During Xmas here, one Hindu actually put a Hanuman on the Xmas tree at work once. There was one Xtian who got offended. But majority of the workmates actually told her off and continued with the celebration. Even that one was smiling and celebrating later on. This is my actual experience at work. I learnt a lot from that experience.

Actually the most easy religion to criticize is Hinduism for obvious reasons. If i really were to dwell on it, i could write an encyclopedia on it.  

Sidster,
lolz all were Atheists and even the one who objected initially was an Atheist. Seriously dude?. You are in severe denial. But even the Atheists of the West have a Christian upbringing at some stage and some values hold on. What the hindu lady did was wrong. You should respect other peoples' religion. But inspite of the wrong, there was merry making. I was merely highlighting the tolerance.
LOLZ and you bring the KKK on. Ever heard of SHIV SENA?. The only difference is that KKK commits a crime, they get caught and punished my friend. KKK is a minority. SHIV SENA is a majority. 
 

LOLZ and you bring the KKK on. Ever heard of SHIV SENA?. The only difference is that KKK commits a crime, they get caught and punished my friend. KKK is a minority. SHIV SENA is a majority.

Are you finally accepting Christians are as bad as the Hindus? I dont know what else you are saying in the above statement.

 And the IRONY of your priceless discussion of "very tolerant nepal" is next to the other posting " Nepali restaurant serving beef". At the end of the day, NO we are NOT as tolerant as you claim. If you cannot get use to beef in this day and age, then you're in kindergarden of tolerance.

Sidster bro,
this thread (as per the poster and video) is about the hindu intolerence towards christians. So, i made my opinion. i have grown up in the West. I had colleagues whose son/daughter became hindu/buddhist and their catholic mother/father was happy for their choice and talked about it with a smile on their face. Some colleagues asked me nicely about my religion and were keen to learn. So this is not about religion but freedom and tolerance. Religion is a personal choice, even if someone does it for money, it is their choice. 
I never said Christianity is perfect. What i said was it has evolved to be the best supporter of freedom and tolerance. More often than not, Christians succeed in making a meritocratic and egalitarian society.