Selma wrote: > > There cannot be a "sinister and subversive" plot when people have a > power to say no. > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:24:57 -0800 (PST) From: Vinay Natekar <[email protected]>
There is a provision in our Constitutional which gives one right to practice or propagate any religion. There is a right also to ask people to convert. However, when it comes to maintain public order these rights need to be restricted. Mario asks: Vinay, I think restricting any citizen's constitutionally guaranteed rights is what would disrupt public order. What good is a "right" if it can then be restricted? Besides, who decides which right is now inconvenient and to what extent it should be restricted? This is a slippery slope that must be avoided at all costs. This does not mean that its use should not be monitored, to prevent misuse. Vinay wrote: The conversions by force, fraud and inducements was are under debate. Have a look at the conversions in Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Arunachal Pradesh and their impact on law and order there which compelled some Indian states to implement ban on conversions. Even the Supreme Court ruled that these states had acted legally and within the spirit of the Constitution. Thus, a fundamental right to convert has been denied by the Supreme Court. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=162018 Mario observes: I'm not sure why people are having such a hard time understanding what the SC ruled, or in understanding the difference between converting others against their will versus individuals or groups voluntarily deciding to change their religion for whatever reason. The Supreme Court narrowly ruled only that Orissa could continue to implement a reasonable procedure for the police to verify that a conversion was voluntary. That's it. The right of any Indian citizen to voluntarily change their religion remains intact. The very notion of a fundamental right to convert others against their will is absurd because that would seek to deny the target individual's freedom to follow whatever religion they choose to. It would be similar to someone trying to force you to not speak your mind if you wanted to. The operative word is "force". People can "ask", which would be fine. Vinay wrote: While a person cannot be denied a right to convert himself on his own free will, and after his own study of the religion he wishes to adopt and the one that he wishes to leave, the right to ask someone else to change should be questioned. Mario responds: Questioning a person's right to ask someone else to change their religion would be a violation of the asker's freedom of speech. Asking a person to change their religion is not the same thing as forcing a person to change their religion. Vinay wrote: But Today we can see conversions by enticement and fraud are quite rampant. Mass conversions by the so-called faith healing programmes in the guise of offering social service, etc should be checked at root. Mario responds: Vinay, has it occurred to you that the Hindu community has done nothing for poor and downtrodden Hindus after damning them for all eternity by classifying them by castes? Why do you think the need was felt for Sikhism and Buddhism? Why can't Hindu charitable organizations put their caste nonsense aside and help uplift the poor rural Hindus who become easy targets for unscrupulous Christian evangelists? Unfortunately, in a free society, alleged religious charlatans have the same rights as everyone else. However, their rights do not include forcing people to change their religion. As Selma has noted, people have the right to say no. If they feel they are being forced they can even file a FIR if the enticements become intrusive and oppressive. The Orissa government's procedure, officially legalized by the SC, serves to discourage oppressive enticements and coercive measures.
