On Friday 29 Feb 2008 7:14:02 pm Badri Natarajan wrote: > it's not the Constitution's fault that Hinduism is not an > evangelical religion or that Christianity is.
That does not make it correct or fair > > > 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. > > What do you mean "demand"? It seems to imply that evangelists of any > stripe can say that it is the Government's duty under the Constitution to > provide people for them to convert, and if not, it will be a > Constitutional breach. That's clearly a ridiculous interpretation. Why is it a ridiculous interpretation? > Presumably, you mean that evangelicals are free to try and convert people > other religions - the Constitution in effect says that the Govt can't > interfere in their practice of religion, which (according to you) means > that the Govt can't interfere in their efforts to convert people of other > religions. Assuming the conversion efforts don't otherwise breach any law > (forcible conversions/coercion etc), what's wrong with that? If sentiments are hurt and people say so and ask for an open discussion and possible changes to the constitution it cannot be a crime can it? What is wrong with that? > (and I hope you will agree with me that *some* people who make this point > (not all) ARE right wing fundamentalists, although not just because they > made this point). But the point itself is flawed anyway. The point is not to deny the existence of Hindu fundamentalists. The point is to show that people who are not Hindu fundamentalists can also have a viewpoint that is easy to dismiss as that of Hindu fundamentalists. Whether a point is flawed or not is mere rhetoric. One opinion versus another. shiv
