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.

[Gengis Khan]

Coversions through fradulent means may be a more "peaceable activity" compared to forced conversions but is by no means more acceptable.

[voletti]

Tks for the ping.

The pope is entitled to his opinion. I only wish the pope's put the catholic housein order and beefup the faith in its heartland where its losing converts to protestantism and islam. Also, the pope could press upon EU govts to allow fasterimmigration of threatened christian minorities in the mideast instead of importing muzlims like they've been doing thus far.

India is secular and will continue to remain so. The anti-conversion bill has its pros and cons and should be allowed to be debated in India in a democratic way.

[starbase]

Coversions through fradulent means may be a more "peaceable activity" compared to forced conversions but is by no means more acceptable.

I gave the example of giving uneducated, superstitious people Tylenol for a headache, then telling them Jesus made the headache go away.

Can you give any more examples of how conversion by fraud can occur?

[MimirsWell]

I think someone needs to explain the anti-conversion bill first. The bill does not forbid people changing their religion. What it does do is to ensure that people's conditions are not exploited by zealous missionaries who try to force/coax/alure poor people to convert to other religions by offering money, threatening force or making false promises. Its sad but true that a lot of Christian missionary work takes place on these grounds. A lot of people convert to christianity not knowing anything about the tenets of the faith. In effect, it actually serves christianity to have this law.

[Cronos]

The VAtican is a st of buildings -- there's no room for another Church, forget about a temple -- it's barely twice the size of BOmbay's Victoria Station.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I certainly agree that example is the best teacher. The 20th centry popes have been good examples; and the counter-examples (e.g. Catholic people cooperating with Nazi crimes in the WWI era) were clearly examples of people acting against the instructions of the popes, the doctrines of the Church, and the precepts and example of the Divine Founder of Christianity.

The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by a Hindu fanatic, and the communal massacres between Hindus and Muslims at the time of the partition of the Indian subcontinent, should not be held as emblematic of Hinduism, any more than the un-Christian behavior of Christians should be held as emblematic of Christianity.

[Gengis Khan]

"Can you give any more examples of how conversion by fraud can occur?"

Here is one:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/050116/139/2j1rp.html

What would you call it fraud, force, blackmail?

[Cronos]

The only arguement made by your side is: "I want to full right to enter your home (even if it maybe against your wishes) also have the right to denigrate and demonise your religion and culture as a form satanic ritual of "Pagans" and I want to have full right to covert you (through whatever means possible) ............. while I will allow no such nonsense on my turf.........because Vatican is a small .....blah blah...."

Nope -- the Catholic Church does not do that -- we don't believe that your gods are true (and you are free to believe that of ours) and we wish to tell you about ours. You have the right to not listen, to ignore, to tell us to go away. Does the Pope say that Hare Krishna's should be kicked out? No. That's silly -- they don't FORCE people to join them. The Church does not force anyone to join them -- give me one example in INDEPENDENT INDIA where the Church has used force to convert. Give me proof for any case where the Church has paid people to convert -- and no, charity is different from bribing..

don't spout rot about the Church asking for I want to have full right to covert you (through whatever means possible) -- the Church wants the right for people to CHOOSE their own religion -- and this is what is allowed in the West, in most of India, but not in SAudia Arabia or Pakistan or Egypt.

As for the term pagan -- look it up in the dictionary -- it means a non-Christian in the narrowest sense. And yes, Hinduism is not christian, hence followers are pagan -- it's not really a perjorative term, just a descriptive one. As I pointed out earlier, the term Hindu is from the Persian term for those who lived int he Indian sub-continent, so saying that all Indians are Hindus int he broadest sense is correct. Don't go nuts.

[Cronos]

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?

Huh? you guys are being illogical -- read the history of the Vatican. When the Western Roman empire fell, Rome came under different rulers for a long time, forcing the papacy to become a temporal power and actually have a large state aroudn ti. but when Italy was formed, the Papal states became part of Italy and the Pope retreated to the Vatican until a treaty was made that gave the Papacy the rights to a little dot of land instead of the Papal states (which covered most of central Italy) -- to give an analogy, imagine that the Chief Priest of Kanshi had set up his own rule over a large area the size of say Delhi to keep the Muslim invaders from conquering and destroyign the sacred temple at Kashi and he had done this before Indian independence. After Indian independence, you know that the Indian government succesfully liquidated all the former princely states (and a good thing too), but it could not liquidate the Kanshi seer's land (because all the hindus in India would find it slightly unnervng), so the governmetn comes to a compromise and tells the Kanshi seer: "Ok, you can keep the temple complex as your own little country, but it is completelysurrounded by India, follows India's laws and everything" ok, followed me so far?

Next, let's take YOUR question and turn it around: "Should a Church be built in the temple complex?"

And the answer is an emphatic NO. Churchs can be built anywhere in India, Temples can be built anywhere in Italy. But Churchs cannot be built in the temple complexs of India (and no Catholic would ask for that), and temples cannot be built in the Vatican complex in Italy.

understood?

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "Coversions through fradulent means...is by no means more acceptable."

Nobody has spoken out in favor of fraud, which, as far as I know, is illegal everywhere. It would be helpful to the discussion if you would define your terms.

[Cronos]

No citizen of the Vatican should be denied the universal right of choosing the religion of his or her will, or rejecting it outright.

Again guys -- you're being ignorant -- the population of the VAtican is 300 odd: all priests and nuns. the land area is smaller than that of the temple complexes in southern India. In fact, to be analogous, the Vatican IS a kind of Christian religious complex. In ROME, the city surrounding the Vatican, a temple can be built. In ITALY, the Coutnry surrounding the Vatican, temples can be freely built and people can freely convert.

[Gengis Khan]

"Church does not force anyone to join them -- give me one example in INDEPENDENT INDIA where the Church has used force to convert. Give me proof for any case where the Church has paid people to convert -- and no, charity is different from bribing.."

Check post #87.
And that is just one example, there are thousands of such example that go unreported.

[Cronos]

Talking about "religious persecution", there are many Christian counties where the Hare Krishnas get routinely harrassed, tortured, assaulted and their temples are attacked. This is sometimes indirectly done by the government of those countries.

ok -- those should be condemned as well. But to be honest, I've not heard of any cases this century when Hare Krishna's have had temples attacked by the government in Western Europe or North America or Australia or New Zealand.

[Gengis Khan]

"In ROME, the city surrounding the Vatican, a temple can be built. In ITALY, the Coutnry surrounding the Vatican, temples can be freely built and people can freely convert."

Except that............
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1635289/posts?page=88#19

[Cronos]

It helps if someone could get the exact law in question here...I'll decide once I see it.

Quite right. If the law says "you should not hold a sword to someone's head and force him to conert" -- I'll support it (and so would all Catholics -- we have too much experience of persecution in Muslime lands), If the law says you should not bribe or give money to force a person to convert: the question that comes to mind is how do you prove it? If I give a person a book or a medal as a gift when he/she converts, is that bribing?

[AmishDude]

my knowledge I know Italy does not recognize Hinduism as a religion.

You are quite wrong, but I will allow you to do your own research. Hindus receive the same religious subsidy as others, in fact. At least, as of 2001.

If they don't then I wonder why the Pope demands a legal/constitutional right to convert.

He was undoubtedly talking about the Indian constitution and in India both religions and conversions apparently do have legal standing.

[Cronos]

Tiny vatican can definitely make place for a tiny temple

That's analogous to askign for a church in southern India's temple complexes -- a silly thought. Furthermore, you would also say that the temple priests at Tirumala could be Catholics and still stay on the premises and not do any work in the temple -- a very, very silly thought

By the way it isnt just the vatican, apparently a community in New Jersey doesnt want a temple to be constructed. There is definitely a bias against hinduism in the western world

A fear of the unknown, more like it -- but note that the government should come on the side of the builders and say that if it's legal, go ahead.

[AmishDude]

The US has the first amendment. This allows you to say whatever you want and allows the target to expose the speaker's ignorance.

It's a difficult concept, but permitting free speech is not a demonstration of national intolerance.

Of course, if you'd rather have dissenters killed...

[Cronos]

In India we have the Babri Masjid (of the Muslims) on the land of Ram Mandir (of the Hindus). Many other mosques on the premises of temples like Kashi and Mathura.

You're reading but not understanding -- you asking for a temple in the Vatican is like someone askign for a Church to be built in the temple complex at Kanshi or someplace -- a silly idea.

[Cronos]

Also a Hindu temple was firebombed in Matawan, New Jersey in 2001. In 2003 another Hindu Temple in Ashland was vandalized spray painted with hate messages.

Acts to be condemned and considered despicable.