Posted on 05/19/2006 6:12:50 PM PDT by 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.
The Vatican is a tiny remainder of what was once the Papal States. Italy allowed for a tiny area surrounding St. Peter's and associated Vatican buildings to remain sovereign.
Regardless, Italy does not forbid converting to another religion, which is the issue at hand. Changing the subject does not address the issue.
But the only people that live in Vatican city are the Pope and 920 other Church prelates and bureaucrats. Another 3000 or so work in Vatican City but reside in Italy.
BTW, do you know the old joke along those lines?
Q: How many people work at the Vatican?
A: About half of them.
:-)
Italy does not recognise Hinduism and does not allow temples to be built and you say they allow conversions? Who are you kidding?
India has much more religious freedom even with the anti-conversion laws. Anti-conversion laws does not prevent voluntary conversion just that its meant to prevent organised conversion activity carried out by missionaries.
The topic here is "religious freedom" and Italy has none at least for the Hindus.
If you want to put up a pink flamingo in your yard, there will be neighbors protesting it. That's just local politics. So, before you feel all oppressed, check out: Proposal for church stirs area concerns
"The point is: there is no room in the Vatican to build anything"
Yeah right!! /sarc
We have no room for conversion.
" But in Western countries (as well as many Eastern countries), people are perfectly free to worship (or not) in whatever religion they choose.
This freedom should be recognized by all countries. "
That maybe true for Christians but not so for the other religious groups. Especially those who are not people of the book.
"It's like asking for a church to be built within an existing religious building."
Straw man argument.
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.
Prejudice masks itself in many ways. Cant these people allow ONE TEMPLE to be built. Incidentally bridgewater has atleast half a dozen churches.
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.
If there is bias against Hinduism, then try being a member of the Church of Wal-mart.
I am already a devoted follower of the Church of Wal-Mart. Our Church is powerful enough to get local governments seize land for us in the name of Eminent Domain.
Hey dude, your link is even sillier and is pointless. I read through the article and didnt find any significant neighborhood opposition to the construction of the church.
At least no kind comments like "Visual pollution is secondary," and "This piece of land is not appropriate. It's so residential."
Maple Grove Hindu temple vandalized
http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S15410.html?cat=1
First, "conversions" don't have legal standing, one way or the other, in Western countries. The discussion of inability to convert was in the context of an academic discussion and there seemed to be only one academic who was the Hindus' bete noire. In fact, the article seemed to be written specifically to rebut the arguments of one academic and then to paint the whole country with his opinion.
Second, Italy is the least of countries that would forbid the building of temples. In any case, I was looking for verification for the HT article and I could find none.
There is one. Do you expect to be free of criticism when you propose a building? In this town, a mall (with less square footage, and in a non-residential area) is 3 years in the making and they are still trying to strongarm the city council into stopping it.
Incidentally bridgewater has atleast half a dozen churches.
And watch what happens if somebody wants to build a 30000-square-foot new one.
a Pastor objected to idol worship in New Jersey
Oh, no. One pastor. Well, stop the presses, we have to stomp out those opinions.
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.
Which I find to be bizarre, but that's what Mr. Singh says.
Southern Baptist churches in Alabama set afire.
You can't stop people from committing crimes, you can only punish them vigorously.
You'd be interested in the rest of the Maple Grove temple story: Teens charged in Hindu temple vandalism
Yup just get hold of a bunch of beleaguered Hindus and Sikhs to make some PC statements to the press in public interest to maintain "religious amity".
I seriously doubt he is speaking his mind.
And also consider the miniscule number of Temples in the US (as compared to Churches) and then consider the relative proportion of those that get vandalised and firebombed......... before you say its all "random attacks".
I never said it was all "random attacks", that's what Singh said. The temple was targeted for one reason or another, probably the same reason the churches in Alabama were targeted.
Russia along with the entire Islamic world has refused to recognize Hinduism as a religion.
I dont know about Italy. US, UK, Canada and the netherlands seem to atleast recognize it as a faith.
"Recognition" again doesn't mean much in Western countries, except for tax-exempt status. In the US, it doesn't take much to get TE status. It's harder in other countries, particularly Germany, but Germany has tons of Hindu temples, according to my search.
As to whether Hinduism as a whole gets TE status but some who call themselves Hindu get excluded, I don't know, but I can imagine it happens.
It should be noted that one article posted from a Hindu point of view actually promoted the view that Hinduism indeed wasn't "a religion", but they were making a more subtle distinction than governments would make with respect to religion.
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.