Posted on 05/19/2006 6:12:50 PM PDT by nickcarraway
India has responded with diplomatic equanimity to Pope Benedict XVI's seemingly provocative remarks condemning attempts to ban religious conversion in certain states.
The pope had told India’s new ambassador to the Vatican, Amitava Tripathi, on Thursday that the country should "firmly reject" attempts "to legislate clearly discriminatory restrictions on the fundamental right to religious freedom". He had also taken note of the "disturbing signs of religious intolerance which had troubled some regions of the nation".
New Delhi responded on Friday with a statement, reiterating the constitutional "freedom of conscience" and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion. "It is acknowledged universally that India is a secular and democratic country where adherents of all faiths enjoy equal rights," said a foreign ministry spokesperson.
It was the pope's second declaration this week in defence of religious freedom in countries where Christians are a minority. In India, the statement comes in the backdrop of Rajasthan planning to become the sixth state to enact the anti-conversion law the pope was referring to. Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Orissa already have laws that bar conversions but allow re-conversions to Hinduism. Jharkhand has declared its intention to enact a similar law.
The BJP-ruled Rajasthan, however, has not been able to convince Governor Pratibha Patil to give her assent to the Religious Conversion Bill. She returned the bill making a point similar to the one made by the pope -- that its provisions would affect the right to freedom of religion.
The BJP has often attributed attacks on Christian missionaries, including the murder of Graham Staines in Orissa, as reactions to their proselytising. During his recent Bharat Suraksha Yatra, BJP president Rajnath Singh had described proselytising "dangerous" and asked all BJP-ruled states to enact a similar law.
Absolutely.
Ironic, given all of the generalizing you have been doing in your own posts.
By individuals? I know that some homosexuals are subjected to hate crimes in America, so what's your point? That there are intolerant people in the world? Oh, the world is full of them! Staring with those who claim to be victims of intolerance.
I too know for fact that there are intolerant people in the world. Just that there some people here who have a hardtime beliving that Christians too are capable of religious violence.
Russia does not subscribe to relative truths when it comes to religion, Gengis Khan. They are not ashamed to say that salvation comes only through Christ and not through pagan cults, pantheistic and relativistic religions, etc.
Post #338 says it all there is to say. Indians are not ashamed to speak the TRUTH either.
We ARE talking about the country where all manner of animals walk all over the place, leaving their calling cards everywhere, aren't we? We're talking about the country where Muslims and Hindus still kill each other, right? The place with thousands of dieties and a caste system?
I suspect the India you have in mind is the one you wish existed.
In case you dont know, all manner of animals walk all over the surface of this planet, including Homosapiens and of course some Neandertals who leaving their calling cards everywhere on FR bothering to talking about a country they know nothing about.
I dont want to be drawn into a lengthy discussion here, but I'm an Indian Christian and can vouch no one is persecuting all christians.
The country is rather divided into two segments - haves and have nots.
Religious violence occurs, but its mostly a Hindu-Muslim thing. Never heard of Christian-Hindu mob violence in mainstream India.
I dont know why some people are intent on provoking a fight between Hindus and Christians.
Just practice live and let live, stop name calling and such childish behavior.
Bashing the Pope? I think India must cut off all ties with Vatican and the Pope
Frankly, I dont know what that will achieve. It will serve only as a reactionary response and validate his statements about India being a repressive state.
I guess he was misinformed about India by some of his advisors.
Also, India has a much more deadly problem on her hands, far more potent than everything else - Maoists.
Even Islamic terrorism pales in comparison to them.
Better concentrate on that rather than unnecessarily provoking a conflict.
India could go Nepal's way, looking at how successful they've been over there.
"As I have said before and repeat it for the umpteenth time. And expostion of the tenets of ones faith is no crime and voluntary acceptance of another religion is no crime either but proselytization as a systematic and organised activity is unacceptable."
I'm curious as to why it is unacceptable. That seems to be something that has not been explained very well.
"It is the judiciary's business to ascertain if the conversion is indeed genuine and not simply a scam as is the case with most of the Christian conversions in India."
How can the judiciary tell someone why they converted? The judiciary cannot see into that persons heart. As for your assertion that "most" are caused by some sort of scam, I'd like to see hard facts on that.
So maybe your government should do something about the poverty? And I find it hard to believe that no conversions are sincere. Sorry, I just find that hard to believe. And missionaries target the poor because they need the most help.
Look I live in India and know more about the conversion activities taking place in India. Here people have also seen the ugly side of Christianity in addition to the good side.
Ok. So? There are good and bad people in every religion. Hindus as well.
In that case why do they start praying to their old idols back again. They were not fully baptized I guess.
Fully baptized? Doesn't work that way. If they return to Hinduism (sp?) their baptism is still valid. They can reject their faith if they like, but they are still baptized. There are no "half-baptisms."
They were always Hindus for ages.
People can change.
Any ways conversion is always about intolerance and denying ones past.
Intolerance? How so? Not believing something does not mean you do not tolerate it. Denying ones past? No. If a Hindu convert to Catholicism said, "I was never a Hindu" then that would be denial. But if he says, "I was Hindu but now I am Catholic" then all that means is he changed his beliefs. There is no denial of his past there. Just a change of what he believes now.
Hindus dont object to worship of Jesus, Hindus also worship Jesus, just that they dont start breaking their idols, insult Hindus as pagan demon worshippers, deny thier own past, change their names to western ones, wipe out every sign of their ancient culture, heritage and ethos.
Wipe out their ancient culture, heritge and ethos? Do you know anything of the Eastern Catholic Churches? They are fully in union with Rome yet they retain their cultures, and even their own methods of worship. Certainly they believe in one God, but that is what Christianity is.
This is not religion but a form of fascist straight jacket that must be stopped.
It most certainly is not. It is a person saying, "I no longer find truth in this religion. I now find it in that one, so I am now a member of that religion." Why is this so horrible to you?
Will you be saying that if we decide not to export our jobs to you anymore?
The word you're looking for is "Neanderthal." Learning how to spell it before using it would be a good idea.
No not really.
Nationalism is good, but combined with a narrow sectarian appeal is not good and that is what I am objecting to.
'Before India's independence , majority of hindus who converted were high caste. They did so to curry favor with the british rulers - for professional/material advancements'
Wow.. that is a huge generalisation. So you know personally many of those who converted and their reasons for doing so?
'Post -independence it was only the lower castes who converted - because of basic material rewards provided by the friendly missioanries - say a bag of rice. '
This is so ridiculous .. i dont know what to say to such rubbish.
'As I said , you only have half knowledge about India - there is a stricter 'caste system' among christians in India than aming hindus. '
Again thats a stretch, you dont see caste based violence among Indian Christians and casteism while it exists is not a part of the religion . However as you may like to deny it,Caste is a part and parcel of Indian hindu society and the role of upper caste hindus in perpetuating it and its history, no matter of revisionist history can change that.
'Hindus are not all bad and christians are not all good. Life is not so simple.'
I didn't say it is, it is you who is making broad generalisations and assumptions.
Hinduism is everything but Narrow. The one encompasses all.
'It does not matter what younsay or your friend says - there are studies which disprove the whole Aryan origin theory. Infact it was British historians who started the Aryan crap , which was swallowed lock, stock and barrel by certain high caste hindus , because it made them seem superior. Same way as certain white americans consider themselves superior to african americans. '
The Aryan origin is very much a widespread theory accepted in commond Indian folklore etc . The North-South divide, the caste based discrimination in the past had their theories on the Aryan origin concept, it is being conventiently blamed on British by present day Historians , but the facts suggest otherwise.
'Inter-caste marriages are very common today. It is seen as an advantage to have a lower caste spouse '
Oh please.. again this is a case of an exception being passed of as common occurence. It remains in the society a shame for a High caste boy or girl to marry someone of a low caste and even Indians who have migrated to the west follow it with a passion. Just visit any matrimonial site, the caste preferences usually are very clearly mentioned, it is entrenced in Indian society even though you may deny it.
'Well, then you can stop wasting energy objecting to Hindu Nationalism.'
Nationalism combined with a narrow definition of a religion is objectionable. Hinduism is not narrow as India being a big country is a clear example of that, but the kind followed by the likes of RSS is.
Me A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N. Anyways nice to know that it is jahwbs that are driving this anti hindu tirade.
'Those who converted to x'tianity during british/portuguese rule were mostly high caste hindus. They are called 'mangalore' christians and 'goan' christians. They are relatively well-off , highly westernised , and some even peak english at home. '
Oh please...it is pretty sure that you were not around during that time and you sure are no expert on the reasons of conversions, it is just more of your empty assumptions.
Speaking about Beggars, where do you see more of them? Near a temple or a church? Its the former isn't it? Cows roaming in the streets, garbage infested plague ridden cities, slums like dharavi etc.. these surely are not christian strongholds or even areas but more likely Hindu areas.
Again from your posts I detect a sneering condascending attitude towards low income,caste Indians, to a Christian it does not matter what he does, whether it is a sweeper etc. No wonder so many of them are abandoning such as a casteist society in droves, the upper caste racist bigots seeing the lose of their power base are against it and are no doubt behind these stupid laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.