ss wrote: [ on 05:37 PM 2/29/2008 ]
It is legal and constitutional in India for evangelists and Muslims to demand
a constant increase in the numbers of Christians and Muslims by conversion.
I have never been able to understand one very basic thing about the
objection to conversions. They all seem to be objecting to the party
overseeing the conversions themselves, usually some form of evangelist.
However: presumably they happen because the converted individual is
either dissatisfied with his existing religion; or believes that
converting will get him a better deal, in this world or the next.
This takes into account coversion through bribes, inducements, etc.
So the person has made a choice. What, then, is the problem with that?
If there are forcible conversions, I am still unable to see the
problem - can't the individual repudiate the conversion process, or
convert back to the original religion if unsatisfied?
This may be a stupid question, but I am mystified.
Udhay
--
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
