Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition
Posted: 20 Dec 2014 16:24
Anti-Conversion Law Proposal (Cont.)
Blog post
Tweet
It has been often the case that any talk of Anti-Conversion Law simply runs into a quick-sand of strife and abuse. That happens when the Hindutvavadis say that Christianity and Islam should not be allowed freedom to do their conversions in India unchecked. The Seculars come up with Right to Religion, etc. The problem with this debate is simply that Hindutvavadis just try to convince that Christianity and Islam are religions injurious to India's health against other "religions" like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, that are not.
That is a very ineffective argumentation foundation. We have already seen umpteen discussions around this theme. The argument has to be based on a far better political-philosophical foundation than that.
- So if someone talks about freedom of religion being guaranteed under UN Charter of Rights, Article 18, how would one respond?
- How would one respond to Article 25 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees "Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion"?
- How would one respond to all the liberals who say that Anti-Conversion Law would be a travesty against people's freedom to choose their religion, and would contradict India's tradition of pluralism and tolerance?
- How would Indians respond to Western political and media criticism of suppression of religious freedom in India, and how Hindus are turning into fundamentalists and obscurantists and thus unbecoming of the respect of the world?
These are the type of intellectual and legal challenges Hindus would be faced with, and at that time we better have a solid philosophical foundation to refute these arguments! What is not desired is that the Dharmics are forced into an obscurantist labeled corner. We have to have the moral high ground in the Conversion debate! It is we who should push the others on the moral back foot! So how to do it?
The arguments in this proposal are based on previous expositions.
So a ban on Conversions entails ...
Blog post
Tweet
It has been often the case that any talk of Anti-Conversion Law simply runs into a quick-sand of strife and abuse. That happens when the Hindutvavadis say that Christianity and Islam should not be allowed freedom to do their conversions in India unchecked. The Seculars come up with Right to Religion, etc. The problem with this debate is simply that Hindutvavadis just try to convince that Christianity and Islam are religions injurious to India's health against other "religions" like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, that are not.
That is a very ineffective argumentation foundation. We have already seen umpteen discussions around this theme. The argument has to be based on a far better political-philosophical foundation than that.
- So if someone talks about freedom of religion being guaranteed under UN Charter of Rights, Article 18, how would one respond?
- How would one respond to the Theory of Religious Economy: "a level playing field and free market in religious choice"?Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
- How would one respond to Article 25 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees "Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion"?
- How would one respond to all the liberals who say that Anti-Conversion Law would be a travesty against people's freedom to choose their religion, and would contradict India's tradition of pluralism and tolerance?
- How would Indians respond to Western political and media criticism of suppression of religious freedom in India, and how Hindus are turning into fundamentalists and obscurantists and thus unbecoming of the respect of the world?
These are the type of intellectual and legal challenges Hindus would be faced with, and at that time we better have a solid philosophical foundation to refute these arguments! What is not desired is that the Dharmics are forced into an obscurantist labeled corner. We have to have the moral high ground in the Conversion debate! It is we who should push the others on the moral back foot! So how to do it?
The arguments in this proposal are based on previous expositions.
- Right to Religion & Mass-Proselytization vs Anti-Conversion Law
- Nature of Religion
- The Great Deception of Religion
- Isolation: Our challenge comes from Christianity and Islam. It does not come from Innuit faiths. It does not come from Judaism. It does not come from Zoroastrianism. What we need as such is a strong philosophical basis for differentiation. As previously noted, Christianity and Islam constitute Religion (Dēva-Dūta-Dāsatva). Others are Folk-Religions (Jana-Dēva-Sēvana) or Dharmic Panths.
- Malevolence of Religion: A case needs to be made how Religion is malevolent and destructive for native cultures, for human psychology, for social peace. The fact that it is used as subversive tool by outsiders, needs to be emphasized.
- Differentiation between Right to Worship/Faith/Belief viz-a-viz Right to Religion: Religion constitutes a much bigger social enterprise than just the need for an individual to look for spiritual support and to worship his deity in a form of his choosing. Religion often includes a System of Laws, Institutions, Clerical Hierarchies, Brotherhoods, Pledges of Allegiance, Relationship with 'Others', etc., all that what is not needed as far as Worship/Faith/Belief goes.
- Ban on Conversion Activity: Folk-Religions usually keep to themselves, e.g. Zoroastrians, Jews, etc. They don't proselytize. Dharmic Panths look at their propagation only as an education and emotional support service. Conversion is something that is only actively pursued by Religions. This means neutralizing both the resources that Religions have at their disposal, as well as their questionable tactics. This should be justified as "Stopping of Cultural Genocide by Religions".
- Support for Deconversion: Deconversion means individuals who are adherents of Religions (Christianity, Islam, Mormonism) can leave their religions, and can thus become free from their allegiance and affiliation. Upon deconversion, the individual returns by default to the Dharmic Panth or Folk-Religion of his ancestors, as claimed by the individual, though a ceremony may accompany this event, sometimes known as Shuddi or Ghar Wapsi. Apostasy is, according to Islam, heavily punishable and as such State must intervene and provide security for those who deconvert. Similarly if a person deconverts, he should not face discrimination in his place of work. Of course this right is also available if a person converts. Deconversion need not be actively supported by the state, but the activity should be given appropriate security.
So a ban on Conversions entails ...
- Neutralizing their tools of Conversions, such as use of Manipulation of others and Distortion of Message, as I have discussed previously.
- Neutralizing their resources and strategies of Conversion, such as favor for Christianity and fear for Islam. There are many kinds of favors, that Christians openly offer to those who convert: jobs, money, visas, etc. Islam itself functions using the money that is sent from the Gulf and elsewhere. All this has to stop. Beside putting a stop to money inflows from outside India, another aspect that deserves attention, is whether Religions in India have acquired properties and land through unfair means using their influence with past regimes in India.