If you dont then why raise the hue and cry over anti-conversion laws in India?
I meant, "Why should anyone care about your opinion. Give us..."
"Give us a compelling argument in favor of the law."
This is a ruling from the Supreme Court of India ans is more than a compelling argument.
Again, why should I care what the Supreme Court of India thinks? I'm only interested in their reasoning. Of course, the practical implications of their rulings have significance.
“What the Constitution grants is not the right to convert another person to one’s own religion, but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets,”
What's the difference? This makes about as much sense as US Supreme Court decisions.
"According to the SC, organised conversion, whether by force or fraud or by providing help or allurement to persons, taking undue advantage of their poverty and ignorance, is anti- secular.
Of course conversion by force is wrong. But what is "conversion by fraud"? And conversion by "providing help... to persons, taking undue advantage of their poverty" is wrong? So Christians should stop aiding the poor? This is a disgraceful and evil decision. These judges would have closed down Mother Theresa's ministry.
The court had said respect for all religions was the essence of our secularism, whereas religious intolerance constituted the basis of planned conversion. Given this, conversion cannot be a secular activity."
I have no idea what this means.
“What the Constitution grants is not the right to convert another person to one’s own religion, but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets,”
What's the difference? This makes about as much sense as US Supreme Court decisions.
Makes perfect sense to everybody except those who believe "conversion" is always done through exposition of ones religion's tenets or those who believe that force or enticement is just another way of explaining the doctrine of ones religion. India's laws guaranties all religion will have the right to practice their faith, but it will not enact or repeal laws so as to give undue advantage to any one religion, allowing them to make use of their abundant resources and the readiness to use whatever means to force or lure the needy to accepting their harmful doctrine.
"According to the SC, organised conversion, whether by force or fraud or by providing help or allurement to persons, taking undue advantage of their poverty and ignorance, is anti- secular.
Of course conversion by force is wrong. But what is "conversion by fraud"? And conversion by "providing help... to persons, taking undue advantage of their poverty" is wrong? So Christians should stop aiding the poor? This is a disgraceful and evil decision. These judges would have closed down Mother Theresa's ministry.
Mother Theresa's ministry was genuine charity and so it was allowed. Seems like you have confused between aiding and frauding. Get back to me when you are able to figure the difference.
The court had said respect for all religions was the essence of our secularism, whereas religious intolerance constituted the basis of planned conversion. Given this, conversion cannot be a secular activity."
I have no idea what this means.
It means conversion is always about intolerance. If you can tolerate the religious ethos of Hindus then there is no reason why you would want to covert them into Christianity's straight-jacket.