> 1) While Article 25 gives every person the right to freely profess, >practice >and propagate his religion, it does not include the right to >convert another, >since every person has freedom of conscience guaranteed >by the same provision.
*** I find this verdict very curious. What does it mean, when the SC says "---every person the right to freely profess, practice >and propagate his religion, it does not include the right to convert another" What is conversion anyway? If I go and persuade someone that my faith is the real mccoy, and she buys that idea, and comes around to my god, as could be seen by her visits to my Mandir, offering Puja to my deities, then who is the SC to tell my convertee that she can't do that? Conversion is not exactly like branding cattle you know? That to convert someone I would have to go and do something dramatic - something forceful or coercive. All my conmvertee needs to do is start practising what I preach. Is the SC going to tell me that I can't persuade my mark to the ways of my god? Is it not baloney ? cm At 10:04 PM -0400 9/3/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >In a message dated 9/3/03 5:27:42 PM Central Daylight Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > ><<kamal deka took off from this and made some > sweeping remarks on democracy.>> > > Does that constitute the rebuttal? I am going to resign to the fact that >people have different levels of comprehension with different plane of >thought. > > I was referring to SC's proposition of law in 1977, when Christian >missionaries approached the SC against the anti-conversion legislation of >MP and Orissa. It threw out all their contentions based on one >fact........no right can be unfettered. The court laid down the following >fact: > > 1) While Article 25 gives every person the right to freely profess, >practice and propagate his religion, it does not include the right to >convert another, since every person has freedom of conscience guaranteed >by the same provision. > > 2) Freedom of conscience indicates that every person has the liberty to >pursue the faith of his choice and not be converted to another religion by >means of FORCE, FRAUD, INDUCEMENT or ALLUREMENT. > > Where did I go wrong, when I made the so called "sweeping remark?" Is >there any "total freedom" in any democracy? And I still assert that there >exists none. Do people have the freedom to break the laws in a democratic >country? > > KJD. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
