Frosch (
3 Feb 1995 17:28:31 GMT (Frosch) wrote:

> actually, the confusion of definitions is worse than i had
> picked up in passing. the use of 'african-AMERICAN' to mean
> any person of african descent, i could _just_ manage to forgive

I was talking about Americans.

> as an americocentric slip of the tongue. but using "hindu" as
> a designator of "race"??

I wasn't using "hindu" as a designator of "race". I was using
the statistical fact that not a lot of Africans are Hindu.
Hinduism is not as far as I know a proselytizing religion. It
is much like Judaism in this respect. In particular, at least
prior to the arrival of the British in India Hinduism involved
strictly controlled *hereditary* castes. Brahmins, for example,
were born Brahmins. Hardly an example of the proposition you
seem to be trying to prove, namely:

Hinduism is a religion.

Religion has nothing to do with heredity.

Therefore Hinduism has nothing to do with heredity.

(The middle term is of course the error.)