Pope asks India not to ban religious conversions

Hindustan Times ^ | May 20, 2006

[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.

[starbase]

I'm not sure what to think about laws telling people they can't advertise their religions, but I have worked with some Indian guys who told me that the people in the countryside are like people in feudal times, they're completely ignorant.

One guy said missionaries will give a Tylenol to some poor, uneducated guy who was complaining of a headache, then when the headache goes away, they tell him Jesus cured it, so he converts.

I would guess this law is meant to stop overt abuses like that, and other examples of taking advantage of the local people's temporary disadvantage of backwardness.

[Gengis Khan]

Hinduism there is not officially recognised as a religion hence conversion to Hinduism can be conveniently invalidated. An individual's conversion to Hinduism and name change cannot be legalized. Tax-deductable status is not granted to Hindu organizations.

The conversion laws there are formulated make it appear as if conversions are allowed but it is still finely nuanced so as to discourage (and not provided a legal status for) conversions to Hinduism.

[Brian Allen]

<< So how soon can we see a Temple in Vatican? >>

Why don't you ask the Catholics?

I believe the Vicar of Rome is representative of Jesus the Christ, Son of Almighty God. So if you've the courage, take it up with him, why don't you?

His Holiness likely won't tell you "Go to Hell" as he knows all pagans are already en-route to Hell. The Catholics are into saving Hell-bound souls, not pouring kerosene on their inevitable Hell fires, so asking him to chuck up a Hindu deal at the Vatican might be your best chance at salvation.

If Rome's muslims don't get to you before you're saved.

0 <]:^)~<
(Angel)

[Gengis Khan]

"Why should anyone care?"

If you dont then why raise the hue and cry over anti-conversion laws in India?

"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.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1539521.cms

“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,”

"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.

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."

[Aquinasfan]

Hinduism there is not officially recognised as a religion hence conversion to Hinduism can be conveniently invalidated.

How can someone's religious conversion be "invalidated"?

An individual's conversion to Hinduism and name change cannot be legalized. Tax-deductable status is not granted to Hindu organizations.

I don't have any problem with that. And I wouldn't have a problem with India doing the same with Catholics in India. But freedom of conscience should be universally recognized.

[Aquinasfan]

"Why should anyone care?"

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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Vatican City is a very small enclave within the rity of Rome. It is only about 70% as big as the Mall in Washington, DC. It consists entirely of chapels, church administrative offices, and a few apartments.

Now, if you want to talk about the city of Rome: it has the largest mosque in Europe, as well as synagogues, houses of prayer, and temples for believers in literally hundreds of Christian and non-Christian religions.

When the Pope sponsored an interfaith assembly to pray for peace, he welcomed the delegation from India to use a Catholic church building in Assisi for their Hindu prayer service.

As a state, Vatican City also hosts diplomats from all over the world, all of whom are free to practice, display, and promote their religious beliefs within the (tiny) borders of Vatican City or wherever they and their co-religionists reside. No one is restricting them. And no citizen of Vaticam City is denied the right to leave the Catholic Church and join any religion of their choosing.

Which is, you'll have to admit, the point.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The only arguement made by your side is: I want to have full right to covert you (through whatever means possible)... while I will allow no such nonsense on my turf..."

This is a falsehood.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"John Paul ll in New Dehli India at a mass in which he drew parallels between Djwali, the Hindu festival of lights. The mass was punctuated by English and Hindi hymns, traditional dances from across Asia and prayers (to who?) offered in several languages. the stadium service was adapted for Hindu culture, with priests ringing bells and showering petals in traditional temple rituals. He later met with Hindu, buddhist, Sikh, Muslim, Jain, Parsee, Jewish and Baha'i leaders. Nov 7, 1999 "

Denigating and demonizing. Not.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"In March of 1986, John Paul II went to New Delhi, India, the place where the Hindu Mahatma Ghandi was incinerated. He took off his shoes before this Hindu religious monument and stated: "Today as a pilgrim of peace, I have come here to pay homage to Mahatma Ghandi, hero of humanity." (Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, 1986,1)"

Looks like respect to me.

[Gengis Khan]

"If Rome's muslims don't get to you before you're saved."

Hmmmm now you know where the Pope (and people like you) get their lessons on religious tolerance from. Then perhaps the descendents of Mussolini's Fascists supremacists (disguised as Christian radicals) and Muslim Nazis together can form super virulent strain of Catholic-Islamic radical group to start a Crusade-Jihad-Inquisition-Intifada-Pogrom to save the souls from going to hell by quickly sending all of them to heaven.

"I believe the Vicar of Rome is representative of Jesus the Christ, Son of Almighty God. So if you've the courage, take it up with him, why don't you? "

So the Pope has State powers? A Super Church-State? No wonder a Temple is so unimaginable on Vatican's soil.

[thepainster]

Homer: No offense Apu, but when they're handing out religions you must be out taking a whizz.

Apu: Mr. Simpson, pay for your purchases and get out...and come again

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Would it be fairer if Italy lets the non-Catholics have a "special tiny state which houses a handful of buildings" of their own, then?"

This is the remnant of what was once the "Papal States" founded in about 756 A.D., occupying part of central Italy, historically and culturally Catholic for more than a millennium. It's now reduced to an area smaller than the Mall in D.C.

The true equivalent would be Hinduism retaining about 20 square miles of India as a Hindu State, or Islam retaining 20 square miles of Saudi Arabia, or Calvinism a couple square miles of Switzerland, etc, and then petitioning other countries for diplomatic relations.

Let them try it, if that's really what they want. Who's stopping them?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The problem is serious in Italy, for Hinduism is not officially recognized by the government. An individual's conversion and name change cannot be legalized. Tax-deductable status is not granted to Hindu organizations"

I'd certainly argue that this should be changed. Is Benedict XVI opposed to changing it?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"But in Western countries...people are perfectly free to worship (or not) in whatever religion they choose."
"That maybe true for Christians but not so for the other religious groups. Especially those who are not people of the book."

In what Western country are people not free to believe and worship as they wish?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"When this temple was first opened a Pastor objected to idol worship in New Jersey. I will dig out the link. Very recently a hindu temple was vandalized in Minneapolis."

Sounds like freelance animosity to me. Not, I think, related to papal control of New Jersey and Minneapolis; more like the familiar Jack Chick vs Whore of Babylon, Jew vs. Messianic Jew hostilities. Very unattractive, and, as regards the vandalism, illegal.

And how is this related to Pope Benedict's protest against using the power of the state to prohibit religious conversion?

[Gengis Khan]

“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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I haven't heard one voice in favor of forced conversion. The problem seems to be that the Indian governments in question interpret all normal, peaceable mission activities (including works of mercy and educational outreach) as "forced conversion."

Could we have some definitions here?

[Gengis Khan]

"And how is this related to Pope Benedict's protest against using the power of the state to prohibit religious conversion?"

Well Pope Benedict should be more concerned about the hatred and intolerance ailing Christians lands rather than raising the stink every now and then over not having the right to convert Hindus. Everything isnt perfect with Christianity and they are hardly in any position to set a good example.

[Gengis Khan]

"And how is this related to Pope Benedict's protest against using the power of the state to prohibit religious conversion?"

Well Pope Benedict should be more concerned about the hatred and intolerance ailing Christians lands rather than raising the stink every now and then over not having the right to convert Hindus. Everything isnt perfect with Christianity and they are hardly in any position to set a good example.