🏏ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2026: S8 - M45: England vs Pakistan🏏
🏏ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2026: S8 - M46: New Zealand vs Sri Lanka🏏
BARBAAD KARUNGA 25.2
MUKTI SAVES MAIRA 26.2
Jogan Is Back
Birthday Remembrance - Divya Bharti
Sanjay Bhansali health had routine health chkup as per his team.
🏏 ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2026: WI vs SA 47th Match,26 Feb 🏏
🏏 ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2026: Ind vs Zim 48th Match,26 Feb 🏏
Originally posted by: qwertyesque
Indians changing their religion
So your sample size for these Indians is TWO?
to get into main stream in a nut shell.
Is it necessary to change religion to mingle with the main stream and get important political offices like haley and jindal?
What makes you think that they switched their faith because they wanted to "mingle with the main stream and get important political offices"? Or, should that be the debate here? Something along the lines of "Did Haley and Jindal switch faith because they wanted to mingle with the main stream and get important political offices?"
In case you want to read about Jindal's conversion, I can post a link: https://religionnews.com/2015/06/24/5-faith-facts-bobby-jindal-evangelical-catholic/
All hindus who feel embarrassed to demonstrate their hindu religion should be ashamed!!!
Looks like you already assumed the role of the judge, jury and executioner. Firstly, the topic maker himself/herself cannot take a stand in the very first post. You are supposed to object and/or concur with posts that follow, in a lucid manner, thus managing the flow. If you already did take a stand, what exactly are you debating internally for you to post a topic? Or are you here to force your views on others?
Secondly and more importantly, it doesn't matter why Jindal in particular changed his faith. He may or may not have had his reasons. Your "debate" is not about two individuals, is it? If it is about "pride in Hinduism", why do you want to sidetrack that main subject with faulty premises and story-lines that will make us digress from the main subject? Hinduism is too vast a subject to be looked at from the perspective of "Jindal or Haley or Tulsi"
I can tell here what I understand in this topic.
If someone changes the religion, it is because changing the religion makes sense for that person. This point applies to Jindal or Haley or Tulsi. We can't say, 'All hindus who feel embarrassed to demonstrate their hindu religion should be ashamed!!!' The question here is was there anyone who could explain clearly to these persons how being Hindu helps that person and provides a nice way of life for that person. it is possible their parents themselves may not have the idea of all the merits of being a Hindu.
When I was in USA, I used to be in a spiritual group in which Americans also learned the principles of Hinduism in which Americans accepted Devi or Shakti as Divine mother. Are they supposed to be ashamed to change their faith from being a Christian or Catholic? A Westerner only could teach me the real significance of Gayathri Mantra? Isn't it the duty of my parents or the Hindu priests to teach me the significance and the importance of Gayathri Mantra?
As of now, there are so many books from which we could learn, how much God is bountiful. But most of them are based on Bible and what Jesus taught. How many persons could say they understand what is Lord Krishna teaching based on Bhagawad Gita? If many people in India, got converted to other religions, it is because they believed they could get a better lot that way and also based on the promises provided by the missionaries.
Originally posted by: qwertyesque
thats what the debate is about, I took a stand and if it is not clear here it is.. hindus are embarrassed to be proud of their religion and they have to pander to local communities through change of religion or some other way... whereas someone of european descent proudly shows it off.. i hope you understand my stand..I am trying to build a case with two people holding important offices who are indians and couldnt take their oath using their religious books.. you can provide me some more cases where you say thats not true...
Originally posted by: K.Universe.
But that's not how statistical samples work. The sample size is extremely important before you make inferences about large populations based on the sample.
To win the argument, all I have to "point out" is "everybody except Jindal and Haley".
Please familiarize yourself with margin of errors / confidence intervals and confidence levels. With a sample size of 2, with a billion or so Hinduism adherents, my confidence level in the premise that "hindus are embarrassed to be proud of their religion" would be at 0% and I am 0% certain that the premise is true.
Let's just leave it to their choice - seriously we don't know why did they convert and even if it is true - should it matter?
Go to the west and you'll see many not proud of their own religion/culture. This is natural and human, some accept their status by birth and some don't. As simple as that.
Originally posted by: qwertyesque
so much flawed research is done in US today.drug trials with the best possible sample size and mix going wrong... Look at the number of drug recalls... Look at vaccine causing autism.. you see while you are stuck in your confidence intervals and levels..has it occurred that probalistically speaking common sense gateway should be receptive..as well