Sandeep Heble: That person should well be entitled to convert, but the conversion must be voluntary, i.e. without the use of unethical methods like force, fraud or material inducements. Response: Any conversion which is done by force or fraud is no conversion. The Church does not look upon the same as conversion and discourages such conversions, if done at all.
Sandeep Heble: The Supreme Court has not banned conversions. In my opinion, what the Court suggests is that every Indian has the fundamental right to propagate his own religion's philosophies and beliefs but the same must be without the ulterior motive to convert, since the whole process of conversion includes a heavy demonizing of the other person's faith which is against the "freedom of conscience" of the other person. The process of conversion must thus be voluntary. Response: The Church does not indulge in demonising another's faith, though it is possible that some fringe fundamentalist groups may do so. It would not be fair to taint everyone with the same brush. Conversion has to be voluntary for it to sustain. Otherwise we would have 'aya rams' and 'gaya rams' as in politics. The very fact that the christians in Orissa are suffering for their faith and living in fear and in relief camps is itself testimony to the genuineness of their conversions.The dalits are deprived of all state benefits on conversion. Yet they continue to remain christians. Ironically, should any of them revert to their former religion, they start getting all the state benefits. Now what would you call that- Inducement, allurement, fraud, coersion? In Orissa, they are being forced to reconvert under threat of death or loss of livelihood.Why are no cases being registered by the police against the VHP/BD? Regards, Marshall