[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "Imam Syed Bukhari of Jama Masjidh (the imam of all Shia Muslims in India) has an agenda to make India a Muslim majority Islamic republic in another 50 years time (with the Islamic flag flying over Delhi)."

Ah, but there's the difference. The Imam wants to make India an Islamic republic. His religion obliges him to do this, because it has been from the beginning, and is now, a political movement. He wants Muslims to rule all nations of the world under Shari'a law. However, the Pope has no territorial ambitions. If he did, he'd be sitting in his tiny (0.44 sq km) Vatican principality plotting the takeover of, say, the city of Rome: or, my God! Everything from St. Peter's to Castel Gandalfo!

You wrote: "He may believe its his divine right or whatever but for a sovereign nation like India his comments as a head of a Nation State is directly hostile and must be construed as such."

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.

If I were you, though, I'd keep my eye on that Imam Syed Bukhari.

[Romish_Papist]

"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."

Very well said.

[The Lion Roars]

Ah, but there's the difference. The Imam wants to make India an Islamic republic.

There is little difference between the Imam and the radical missionaries. Two sides of the same coin.

[Gengis Khan]

Ah, but there's the difference. The Imam wants to make India an Islamic republic. His religion obliges him to do this, because it has been from the beginning, and is now, a political movement. He wants Muslims to rule all nations of the world under Shari'a law. However, the Pope has no territorial ambitions. If he did, he'd be sitting in his tiny (0.44 sq km) Vatican principality plotting the takeover of, say, the city of Rome: or, my God! Everything from St. Peter's to Castel Gandalfo!

 

Straw man argument.

The Pope's case and Imam Bukhari's case is precisely the same. Pope according to your own admission has a divine agenda to Evengelize the whole world. The Imam wants to see the whole world as one Islamic ummah. The Imam's quest is as much "spritual" as is the Pope's. The Imam may have his own territorial designs or political ambitions but thats only a speculation and not actually his stated goal. And moreover the Imam preaches from his Jama Masjid in Delhi and doesnt even have his own (0.44 sq km) Vatican principality.

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.