• In Nepal, Hindu religion has never influenced the legal system like in Christianity or in Islam; it is more a ritual practice which doesn't impose others to follow the same. No fundamentalism was ever get encouraged in Nepal. It remained Sanatan Dharma.
  

• No rules from Dharmashastra as in Islam have ever come into force.
  

• If you see UK, USA and many other developed countries, they revere their religion (Christianity) in national level (see US constitution).They take oath of Bible while getting into office. But have you seen anyone in Nepal taking oath of Gita? It is such a liberal practice in Nepal: it could have been made taking into account that there are multi-ethnic, religious people in Nepal.
  

• Hinduism as practice in India and Nepal are different. Nepal's is much unique that accommodates all. In Nepal, it is ritual based, not a doctrine based. The Gurung, Magar, Rai and other communities who are said to be non-Hindu Janajatis also celebrate Dashain but not as a compulsion. But do they celebrate Id-Ul-Fitra just because they are living in Arghakhachi or Nepalgunj? or can Muslims celebrate Dashain as Gurungs do? If anyone questions: Rai and Limbus celebrate Dashain because of Hindu's pressure, thats never the case in Nepal. Is any Newar Buddist barred from visiting Pashupatinath? whereas a Muslim is barred or a Christian is barred, because without doing so, they could not be controlled in the wave of proselytizing in the past. My point is Nepal's Hindu practice is ritual based, not a doctrine based.
  

• As we see, the Hindu population in Nepal is decreasing due to Christianity they have missionaries to change religion, but do we ever think to change other's religion? Have you ever done that? But ask a Muslim and you will get answer about how many non-Muslims has s/he already converted into Muslim. same in Christianity.
  

• Early in its history, in the absence of other competing religions, Hindus considered everyone they came across as Hindus (Sanathan Dharm) and expected everyone they met to be Hindus. Hindus have never done business of religion. Hindu view of religious freedom is not based on the freedom to proselytize, but the right to retain one’s religion and not be subject to proselyzation. Don't we have the right to protect our religion from being proselytized?

• since we don't believe on conversion of other's religion but others (such as Muslims and Christians) do and they are financially better off, we are always vulnerable to sell our faith (as is seen in remote villages of Nepal), Should a state do justice to Hindus who are 83% in protecting their religion or should it be a witness to a rampant annihilation upon Hindus by Christians in the name of religious freedom and secularism?

• If Hindus were intolerant and suppressive of other minorities of Nepal, how could Muslims in Kathmandu remain safe and secured, up keeping their religious freedom in the heartland of Hindus for more than 200 or so years? If Hindus were suppressive, they could have swept Muslims' identity into dust. Did they do that? And again, it is not wise to compare the Hindu Muslim politics of India with Nepal. Nepal's is an exemplary case of religious harmony which was possible due to its being a Sanatan Hindu state.
  

Sarkozy:
You facts are all wrong. Under present constitution, churches are not allowed to be even made in Nepal. All the churches today in Nepal are under people's name as private property. The church i used to go is under a group of people's name and church as an institution is not allowed to be formed in Nepal first of all.

Also, when you pride yourself so much about your culture and heritage and at the same time fear that people will leave everything, their culture, identity and all for money? Would you convert if i give you some money? That's what you seem to be implying here. Learn to respect other's religion and respect their roots then people will automatically respect you and your religion.

I am a Christian and and i understand my roots and for me it does not matter whether the country is Hindu or secular, whether we are majority or minority. Christianity is all about faith and i know what i believe in and nothing can change that for me.

Jharekopaat, Christians believe in religious co-existence - really???

Jharekopaat,

I applaud your recent comment. It sounds great!

Sheetalb,

I don't think Nepal still bans (after house declaration 2 years ago on secularism) on the Christianity and buliding up of the churches. If the state actually banned, it should have been illegal way back. I support that they should be allowed. But my take on the entire posting is that as long as the Evangelists and Mulsims are driving their proselytizing efforts (in converting others' religion with various means--power, money, and enticements, and which is a reality as well) Nepal should remain a Hindu state to protect the culture of her majority of citizens, but still should allow others to operate their religious functionaries as long as they guarantee that they don't convert others by external means.

In your next question: I would not convert myself because I think I am educated and financially better off than most of our folks in the remote villages. But all are not necessarily like me. Those poor people who are illiterate and are living in abject poverty might convert if an evangelist comes and offers them a handful of amount or enticement or threat or any other means. I would appreciate every christians living in Nepal if they had had belief like yours: "Christianity is all about faith", but the irony is that your so called "Tycoon Exporters" and sponsors of "Religion" are exporting faith in the way that McDonnald expotrts franchise! Are you aware of that? Do you believe that Faith can be exported like BigMac?