Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:36:52 +0530 From: "Dr. U. G. Barad" <dr.udayba...@gmail.com>
> Mario let me start my response using your first line. Mario > please don't be ridiculous for you have not followed the thread nor have > you followed my reply to Selma but preferred to pour in your > intelligence. > > If you think you are wiser than Supreme Court (SC) judges in interpreting > the articles contained in Indian Constitution including Article 25(1) > please write to SC. You might be even awarded Bharat Ratna 2008 for > sharing your intelligence to SC. Mario responds: Dr. Barad, It is entirely possible that the Supreme Court is as wise as I am, and I may even be in line for a Bharat Ratna, not in 2008 but in 2009, but that is not the subject of this thread:-)) As the only voice of reason, truth and peace on Goanet, let me spell it out for you and other Goanetters. There is also no point in my writing to the SC because a) they are surely at least as wise as I am, and b) they were not ruling on what Selma wrote about and what I referred to in my previous post, which is that individuals in a free society with guaranteed freedom of religion MUST be free to VOLUNTARILY change their religion if they choose to, which you turned upside down by twisting it into a totally different issue of someone converting others against their will. The reason this was described as ridiculous was that you cited an inappropriate Supreme Court ruling to make your point. Here is an article on the SC ruling from the Times Of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=162018 The Time reporter writes, "At dispute was a 1999 provision added to the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, stipulating that a person wanting to convert to a particular religion must make a personal declaration which would be verified by the police also." What the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 required was simply a procedure to verify that a person was not converting against their will. The SC overruled the Orissa High Court and allowed Orissa to continue to use this procedure. I don't have a major problem with this ruling because it was a decision of the SC which is the same ruling I would have made in the circumstances because there have apparently been cases in Orissa of coerced conversions by "force" or "fraud". If I were a resident of Orissa and wanted to convert, I would have no problem following this procedure, which contains a minimal level of intrusion in a persons freedom of religion. The procedure does not prevent a person from voluntarily converting. It only verifies that everything is on the up and up. Even the article from the Indian Express you posted has this to say, "If a person freely chooses to change his or her faith, this too is guaranteed by our Constitution." Isn't this precisely what Selma and I have said? I am firmly opposed to coercing others to convert against their will by "force" or "fraud". However, in a free society that guarantees freedom of religion, every individual must have the right to voluntarily change their religion at any time, for any reason, other than under duress and against their will.
