PM and minorityreligious rights
Yesterday, (17.2.2015), while delivering talk in New Delhi on the occasion of anointing someone as Saint by the Vatican, PM Narendra Modi has spoke of right of every India to "adopt" and follow the religion of one's choice. While liberty to follow one's own choice is laudable and quite unobjectionable, the PM did not have to say about "adopting" religion of one'c choice. In the garb of someone voluntarily "adopting" another religion, Christian Missionaries convert Hindus by offering inducements. The conversions are always claimed as voluntary. This was a statement, which the PM ought to have avoided.
It must be appreciated that when the missionaries try to convert Hindus to Christianity, the focus on the bread winner in the family. Once the bread winner changes religion, others are forced to follow suit. This is a major cause of animosity against the missionaries.
Unfortunately, Art 25 of the Constitution of India, among others, also confers right of propagation of one's religion. This is clearly a right conferred on Christian and Muslims, which are missionary religions. During the British rule, the rulers kept the missionary activities under Check, as they did not want inter-religious problems on hand. But, India under Nehru gave a right to the missionaries which they did not have even under Christian rulers. If the religious discord in India has to end, the right to propagate one's religion must be removed as a fundamental right in Art 25. That will leave Hindu society intact at least in its existing form. more
It must be appreciated that when the missionaries try to convert Hindus to Christianity, the focus on the bread winner in the family. Once the bread winner changes religion, others are forced to follow suit. This is a major cause of animosity against the missionaries.
Unfortunately, Art 25 of the Constitution of India, among others, also confers right of propagation of one's religion. This is clearly a right conferred on Christian and Muslims, which are missionary religions. During the British rule, the rulers kept the missionary activities under Check, as they did not want inter-religious problems on hand. But, India under Nehru gave a right to the missionaries which they did not have even under Christian rulers. If the religious discord in India has to end, the right to propagate one's religion must be removed as a fundamental right in Art 25. That will leave Hindu society intact at least in its existing form. more
Viewed by 25
View all 7 comments Below 7 comments
THERE IS INDEED AN ABSOLUTE NEED TO THINK OF WHETHER A RELIGIOUS CONVERSION IS NECESSARY TO DRAY ANY BENEFIT UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION ;; OR, TO DRAW FROM OTHER COUNTRIES THOSE REQUIRED FOR LIFE-LEAD ONLY AFTER A RELIGIOUS CONVERSION ;; OR, RELIGIOUS CONVERSION IS A MUST TO PRAY HIMSELF AS HE LIKE ? . AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS NECESSARY TO REALISE AT-LEST SOME THING EVEN IN THE LIGHT OF == RECENT PARIS EPISODE== INDIAN DEMOCRATS AT-LEAST TO THINK ON WORLD WIDE ISSUES OF RELIGIOUS CAUSES REQUIRING SELF ALERT. more
Feb 18
Money Matters. Most of the conversions are done for monitory benefits only. Missonaries have ample dollers backing from allover the world more
Feb 18
WHO EVER GETS CONVERTED SHOULD BE UNDER WAITING PERIOD FOR 5 YEARS BEFORE FINALLY TO BECOME A CONVERT.DURING PROBATION PERIOD,HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CHANGE HIS MIND. more
Feb 18
Will someone tell me what is religion, secularism or convert-ism. If someone offers me money or guarantee of heaven after death if I convert to his ism, should I convert or not? More importantly,once converted, can a prudent man continue to convert every other day from this to that ism for lure of money? more
Feb 18
First why u need to convert people?...if u want to do good..do it not for converting.... more
Feb 18
