Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:26:10 +0530 From: "Marshall Mendonza" <mmendonz...@gmail.com>
I believe the Supreme Court ruling was flawed. Refer critique given below. Excerpts: Quote: "And, although many legal luminaries believe that the 1977 judgment was unconstitutional, since it has been ruled by the Apex Court, we must abide by it. This means, as of now, Christians have the right only to communicate their beliefs or expose the tenets of Christianity to others, and not to convert. However, if the person to whom the faith is propagated is convinced and wants to profess or practice on his own volition, he or she has the right to do so." Unquote. http://www.combatlaw.org/information.php?article_id=949&issue_id=34 Mario responds: We got off on this tangent because Dr. Barad turned the thread on its head and cited this Supreme Court ruling inappropriately in answer to Selma's comment that Indians in a free society that guarantees freedom of religion MUST have the right to convert from their religion at birth. Both you and Tehmina Arora are missing the point. The Indian Supreme Court correctly overruled the Orissa High Court on a very narrow issue challenging the state of Orissa for instituting procedures to verify whether Oriyas were converting voluntarily and not under duress or against their will, which has been an allegation in impoverished and socially backward parts of rural India. The state of Orissa was not impeding anyone's freedom of religion, simply monitoring that freedom. That's it. Case closed. None of this prevents Indians from preaching their religion or from voluntarily converting from their religion at birth.
