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.
Does this mean that anyone who converts from one religion to another can be hauled before the court and compelled to prove his sincerity? Who would bring the charges? (I'm astonished! I thought you were opposed to inquisitions!)
"A follower of Christ wants to be happy with you and with God forever."
I dont have a problem with Christians or with God. Not sure what you asking for.
So you're saying that people convert to Christian, load up on material benefits and then convert back to Hindu? From a material point of view, that's profitable to the convert/reconvert and a huge waste of money and effort on the part of the missionary. So, what you're opposed to is crafty Hindus conning and exploiting missionaries?
No, I know that's not your concern. But your argument is all over the place.
Similarly, you have argued both that humanitarian and educational outreach are OK, and that there is no such thing as sincere humanitarian and educational outreach.
You wrote: "Any ways conversion is always about intolerance and denying ones past."
"Intolerance" is a loaded but ambiguous word. Intolerance toward good things is bad; intolerance toward bad things is good. I'm intolerant of slavey, rape, and lynchings. How about you?
You mention without apparent objection that Hindus worship Jesus alongside many other gods. You at least imply that Christianity would be OK if it were preached as a polytheistic religion. But if the Christianity being preached is not polytheistic, you interpret it as imperialistic.
Consider this as a hypothetical: a person could become convinced that all the good things in his or her past could be preserved, and even find a creative and authentic development, in a different religious setting. Hindus who worship Jesus in a polytheistic way, obviously think that their Hindu religious values are expressed and developed through their devotion to Jesus. Such a person could conceivably go from a "polytheistic Jesus" to a "monotheistic Jesus" without demonizing his whole Hindu past: he could see the past as prologue (as do, for instance, messianic Jews.)
I can't see how that could injure you, the seeker's Hindu neighbors, or the secular state of India.
Do you think the 17 million Indian Catholics have the right to practice their religion? Even though it's monotheistic?
Are you against the right of these 17 million Indian Catholics to share the faith with their families, neighbors, friends? You are against organized efforts to spread the Gospel. Are you OK with disorganized efforts?
If what you're trying to do is to defend the human dignity of the ordinary Indian Hindu, then I'm with you.
Well, if GregH is really identical with the ultimate reality, you know, Atman is Brahman and all that, and his conscious personality isn't really real anyway because it is destined to ultimately become one with the impersonal, what is to be upset about?
Cordially,
Woo hoo..Look at this. A State in India proclaims itself as the "land of christ" and bans the film - the Da Vinci Code. Soo much for tolerance and freedom of expression
Read my Post
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1637011/posts
Excerpts
The authorities in the north-east Indian state of Nagaland have ordered an immediate ban on both the film and the novel of the Da Vinci Code.
They have expressed "serious resentment" against Indian censors for allowing the film to be screened.
One of the main slogans of the state's leading separatist group, the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) , is "Nagaland for Christ".
The state government has warned owners of cinemas, theatres and video parlours that under the terms of the Indian penal code, they face fines or imprisonment if they show the film.
And in related news, India tells the Pope to take hike.
India Protests over Pope's Comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5009238.stm
You know what? Take me off of your ping list. I have a feeling if you don't, I'm going to be subject to the fact that you have no unexpressed thought.
And the company some people keep.
Muslims join Da Vinci movie protests in India
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4985370.stm
Yes, and the bannings were wrong. You are once again proving my point that too many Indian states are suppressing religious (or anti-religious) speech. I don't care if it is supressed by Hindu, Christian, or Muslim, in every case it is wrong.
So you're saying that people convert to Christian, load up on material benefits and then convert back to Hindu? From a material point of view, that's profitable to the convert/reconvert and a huge waste of money and effort on the part of the missionary. So, what you're opposed to is crafty Hindus conning and exploiting missionaries?
No, I know that's not your concern. But your argument is all over the place.
You are right its not my concern. I am only discussing the issues involved. My point was that those people who momentarily accepted Christianity are not really Christians and never were at any point of time. You can claim them as Christians.
Similarly, you have argued both that humanitarian and educational outreach are OK, and that there is no such thing as sincere humanitarian and educational outreach.
Definitely not. I have asked you to define as to what according to you should be well within the boundaries and parameters of what in your opinion constitutes "sincere humanitarian and educational activity". You haven't given me any answer yet.
You wrote: "Any ways conversion is always about intolerance and denying ones past."
"Intolerance" is a loaded but ambiguous word. Intolerance toward good things is bad; intolerance toward bad things is good. I'm intolerant of slavey, rape, and lynchings. How about you?
You know very well the "intolerance" I am talking about has to do with the one shown against men belonging to different race or religion. You can very well try to obfuscate the main point by arguing over different connotations of the word but it achieves nothing.
You mention without apparent objection that Hindus worship Jesus alongside many other gods. You at least imply that Christianity would be OK if it were preached as a polytheistic religion. But if the Christianity being preached is not polytheistic, you interpret it as imperialistic.
Its not my business to decide what exactly the Christians should or shouldn't be allowed to preach. My demand is that foreign missionary activity must be curbed or at least strictly monitored. They must not be allowed to encroach upon the private space or offend the religious sensibilities of people of other religious groups, or be allowed to actively involve in proselytization activity. And mostly importantly the Judiciary will arbitrate every individual cases of conversion to ascertain if they are indeed genuine coversion and not simply a racket.
Consider this as a hypothetical: a person could become convinced that all the good things in his or her past could be preserved, and even find a creative and authentic development, in a different religious setting. Hindus who worship Jesus in a polytheistic way, obviously think that their Hindu religious values are expressed and developed through their devotion to Jesus. Such a person could conceivably go from a "polytheistic Jesus" to a "monotheistic Jesus" without demonizing his whole Hindu past: he could see the past as prologue (as do, for instance, messianic Jews.)
I can't see how that could injure you, the seeker's Hindu neighbors, or the secular state of India.
As I said, I have no problem with genuine conversion. It is immaterial how you came to the conclusion, but if you believe that Jesus can be your only Saviour and you sincerely believe yourself to be a Christian, the anti-conversion laws isn't likely to prevent you from converting. The anti-conversion laws are not meant to suppress the freedom to choose ones religion.
You can think of the anti-conversion laws as a kind of "consumer protection"
(BTW Hinduism isnt really polyethisic, it is actually very much monotheistic. Its a religion of contradictions.)
Do you think the 17 million Indian Catholics have the right to practice their religion? Even though it's monotheistic?
I think everybody has the right to practice their religion. I never said anything to the contrary.
You are against organized efforts to spread the Gospel. Are you OK with disorganized efforts?
Not if they are actively proselytizing, irrespectively of whether organized or disorganized.
About time India grows a spine.
Evidence, please. I very much doubt this. I was at a Hindu festival in San Francisco a couple of years ago and there were friendly, smiling Hindus all over the place offering me delicious samosas and sweet, milky tea and inviting me to learn about and join in their religious practices.
I second that. Hindu religious preachers are very much disallowed from entering the US. Find out for yourself how many Hindu religious preachers (and I dont mean H-1B workers) are there in the US. So much for your religious freedom. As with all Christian countries, they want to Evangalize the non Christian countries in the name of religious freedom but will allow no such nuisance on their own turf. This is just plain double standards so typical of the west.
Always? You presume a bit much FRiend. Your example of what you think Christianity should do is ridiculous. Your example would have it cease to be Christianity and morph into something else entirely. You have checkmated nothing, other than your own opinion that Christianity should go against what it's founder stated Himself. That makes no sense whatsoever.
This doesn't follow logically. In order to prove that the ICE discriminates against the immigration of Hindu religious preachers, you would have to show that such such preachers applied for visas and were turned down because of their religion. This is nonsense. Visas can involve major hassles for everybody, and the legal path to U.S. citizenship is frustrating as hell for everybody --- and that's not just for Hindus.
In fact, this is one of the big gripes I have against the U.S. immigration system: they make it so flippin' hard for people who are trying to immigrate legally, that it practically provokes people into try to get in illegally.
I repeat, that'd not just for Hndus. It's for Ethiopians and Englishmen and Chileans and Canadians, Baptists and Brahmins and Muslims and animists and atheists like Christopher Hitchens. It's maddening. It's irrational. But it's not anti-Hindu.
You wrote: "As with all Christian countries, they want to Evangalize the non Christian countries in the name of religious freedom but will allow no such nuisance on their own turf."
First, the USA is not a "Christian" Country. We operate under a secular constitution, just as India does, and religious discrimination is illegal.
Second, Christians and non-Christians who want to actively recruit new members in the USA will find no legal barriers whatsoever. Why do you think the Muslims have such a robust rate of growth in the USA? Because (1) proselytism is fully protected under freedom of of religions, of speech, of the press, and of association, and (2) the Muslims take full advantage of this.
Hindus are not stupid. You can compete in the marketplace of ideas. You can preach, you can publish, you have access to radio, TV, and Internet. India has the biggest motion picture industry in the world. Take advantage of it. Get out there and win hearts and minds! Namaste.
This is nonsense. The pope is alluding to a human right which is found in the Indian Constitution. If it is a casus belli for the pope to advocate freedom of speech, of religion, of press, of association which are already in the Indian Constitution, then India would be war war with its own stated principles. But it is not a casus belli. It is a reminder that Indian citizens have the right to adopt, practice, advance, propagate, retain or change their religious beliefs and affiliations.
This is no territorial claim on the part of the poppe and poses no threat to the Indian state.
You want to know whats in the constitution? Read this
The Supreme Court in India has made a clear distinction freedom of religion and conversion. What the Pope is demanding is a special extra-constitional right. Conversion is akin to cultural invasion and the Pope's statement is to be interpreted as hostile intent. India must snap all ties with Vatican.
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.