Replies

I am amazed you cite the last article. Do you really think it makes your point?

The most interesting thing about the article is that the author takes almost 1800 words and 133 lines to prove that the adult victim was involved in proselytizing, then points out later in the article that attempting to cause someone to convert to another religion without registering is illegal, and that Staines had not so registered.

The author goes on to say, "In a word: conversions were taking place; this had caused tensions; so much so that a Hindu group had decided to try and get them back into Hinduism.".

Elsewhere in the article: "....Staines and his associates are left free to go on converting Hindus to Christianity."

And: "tensions mount because of conversions.... But our institutions -- the Minorities Commission and the police being representative in this regard -- even in retrospect assert the fiction that there was no tension between Christians and non-Christians."

The point seems to be that Graham Staines was converting people to Christianity and brought it on himself, and if the authorities had enforced the "freedom of religion" act (which could also be called the anti-proselityztion act), the murders would never have occurred.