"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."
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.
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
You seem to be conflating conversion with prosthelization.
This is exactly what's unclear. How can it be legal to "transmit and spread" one's religion, but not to accept converts?
Do we have a translation problem here?
That hits the nail on the head.