> Quite good at creating knots, aren't you? The law says that every person
>has >the liberty to pursue the faith of his/her choice but not be
>converted by means >of FICA (force, inducement etc).


*** I might be, but THIS is nothing knotty really.

Now let us see what it means:


        * I am free to pursue a faith.
        * But I could not be converted with FICA


But what about WITHOUT FICA?

Is big brother going to allow me that?

Besides, what if I had no faith to begin with? Being born into one does not
constitutre a faith, does it? So if I hang out with someone of a faith
other than the one I was born into, and in time accept their faith, have I
been converted? Would big brother ( BB) let me get away with it?

If he does, where would BB make the distinction of FICA being applied or not?

And if yes, what will they do to my peers who have CONVERTED me?


It might be different if the Church of What's Happening Now pitches a big
tent and offers free this and that, in exchange for converting to to
whatever is happening there. That could be challenged and prosecuted as
fraud. But you don't need to ban CONVERSION to do that.


Once again it points to Indian democracy's penchant for CONTROLS. Controls
to deny the citizens fundamental rights that are cornerstones of liberty.
Never mind though, that if something really bad happens, the system is
patently impotent to do anything about it.


















At 9:46 PM -0400 9/8/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In a message dated 9/8/03 10:34:27 AM Central Daylight Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>
><<That eliminates the last vestiges of excuses for abridging as fundamental
> an individual right as to the choice of a faith>>
>
> Quite good at creating knots, aren't you? The law says that every person
>has the liberty to pursue the faith of his/her choice but not be converted
>by means of FICA (force, inducement etc). It is so simple to absorb. Even
>in the medical profession, there is a professional code that bars them
>from accepting offers (physical etc), from a patient under their care. It
>is considered unethical to the extreme, even if it is the patient who
>insists, because when you aid someone, they can be very vulnerable and
>impressionable and this fact cannot be dismissed.
>
> KJD.




_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam

Reply via email to