May 20, 2006

Pope parivar problems , Ratzinger shut up says Hindu Nationalists

Ratzinger parivar problems

Catholic church has two problems: Dan Brown and Ratzinger. The recent outburst of Ratzinger conveyed through diplomatic channels is the first report. That the Catholic church is bent out of shape by the Da Vinci Code of Dan Brown is the second report.

Dan Brown has the freedom to propagate his research work based on evidence. This research seems to have caused some problems to the church.

Ratzinger does NOT have to right to make false claims that there is some fundamental right to convert. There is NO fundamental right to convert. As the Supreme Court of India held as early as in 1977 and reiterated again and again, in many subsequent judgements, what is freedom for one is freedom for the other in equal measure, that is the freedom NOT to convert.

Can someone explain why proselytizers feel compelled to proselytize?

Ratzinger will do well to read the law of the land as explained by the highest court of India before interfering in the internal affairs of India by telling an Indian Ambassador to Vatican what the State Governments or the Union Government should or should not do.



POPE-PARIVAR
BJP, RSS rubbish Pope's remarks on religious intolerance
NEW DELHI, MAY 20 (PTI)

Taking strong exception to certain reported comments by Pope Benedict XVI on alleged religious intolerance in India, BJP and RSS today said his remarks were irrelevant and exposed "ignorance" about Indian traditions and laws.

"The Pope's remarks on religious freedom is not relevant to India. There is much more freedom here than in many countries. Freedom of religion does not mean conversions by coercion and allurements," BJP Spokesman Prakash Javadekar told reporters here.

Asserting that state Assemblies had the power to enact such legislations, he said, "such laws are not against conversion by conviction but if people convert en masse, motives have to be there".

In a hard-hitting response to the Pope's remarks, RSS National Executive Member Ram Madhav told PTI over phone from Leh, "the Pope is ignorant of Indian traditions and laws. Religious freedom does not include freedom to convert people of other religions using force, fraud or allurements.

Missionaries in India have converted their religion into a commodity and are indulging in its shameless marketing." Slamming the Pope's reported remarks as "crass interference in the domestic affairs of India", he said, "before preaching to the Indian Government, let the Pope allow religious freedom in Vatican city. People living in glass houses better not attempt to throw stones at others".

Reacting to the Pope's comments, the Government had yesterday said it was "acknowledged universally" that India is secular and all religious faiths enjoy equal rights.
http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=386323


Dan Brown has resurrected a heresy that rattles the Church
By Boris Johnson
(Filed: 18/05/2006)

In pictures: The Da Vinci Code premiere

Jesus had a baby, yes Lord. Jesus had a baby, yes my Lord. It sounds pretty blasphemous, put like that, doesn't it? The only reason I dare to begin with those words is that they represent the beliefs of growing millions of otherwise sane British adults. Yup, folks, we all seem to be swallowing the new gospel. You on the Tube, madam, turning the pages with such narcosis that you miss your stop: you believe it, don't you?

You, sir, sneaking your dog-eared copy off to the loo for a quick fix - you think there's probably something in it, too, hmmm? According to astonishing statistics from the Roman Catholic Church, 22 per cent of British adults have now read The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, and of those an amazing 60 per cent believe that, yeah, it is probably the case that Jesus indeed got married to Mary Magdalene and sired a line of descendants.

By my maths, that means that there are at least six or seven million people in this country who now believe that it's true: that for two millennia the Roman Catholic Church has been engaged in a desperate struggle to conceal the existence of the Christ family, and that they are probably all over the place: behind the fish counter at Sainsbury's; creating loaves for Hovis; causing people to rise from their beds in hospital.

They could be anywhere. They could be reading this paper. They could (gulp) be you. There is something in the logic of Dan Brown's book that has convinced millions that they have really uncovered the biggest, the spookiest, the most chilling conspiracy in history.

Never mind the autoflagellant cowled assassins and the idiotic anagrams. This story has clearly touched something in the popular psyche, and if you need any evidence, look at the global panic that book and film seem to have induced in the Roman Catholic Church.

In the Vatican, the papal portavoce has described this pot-boiler as "shameful and unfounded lies". In India, no fewer than 200 Christian organisations have succeeded in having the film blocked from release, and even here in placid little Britain the officials of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, have called for it to carry a "health warning".

You may think that the Church is barmy to get so hot under the dog-collar, and you may think that Austen Ivereigh, the Archbishop's public affairs man, has forgotten the golden rule of his trade.

Why, you may ask yourself, are they rising to the bait? And yet the more one thinks about the doctrinal message of The Da Vinci Code, the clearer it is that the Catholics are right to think this a seditious text.

It is not just the sex. Among Dan Brown's assertions is that Jesus had a long, loving and matrimonial relationship with Mary Magdalene, a former prostitute. This is, of course, a vaguely embarrassing allegation to make about a man who has always been taken to be a model of chastity, but it does not seem in itself a fatal blow to Christianity.

They were married, says Dan Brown; there is no suggestion of fornication; and plenty of other early Christians were married and had children. No, it is not the News of the World aspect of the book that worries the Church, or which is now filling the shelves of WH Smith with Da Vinci-ana. It is the simple possibility of Christ's reproduction that is so mesmerising; and, in discussing this idea with such awful readability, Dan Brown has reopened a controversy that the Church thought had been settled in ad325.

The reason this piffle is such a howling hit is that it resurrects the great unspoken doubt in the minds of all Christians, that has existed ever since the doctrine of the Incarnation. It is about whether Christ can really be man and God at once.

If you walk round the Louvre at a less frenzied pace than Tom Hanks and co, you will notice a fascinating gradual change in the depiction of the ancient gods. As the human race gains in intellectual self-confidence, the image of the divine becomes more and more anthropomorphic.

Egyptian jackals, Babylonian curly-bearded cow-hoofed centaurs: they all give way to the human-shaped gods of the Greeks and the Romans until finally, at the very moment when the Romans have first declared that their emperor is a god, a Jewish heresy also announces that God has been made man in the form of Christ, and from then on there were those who couldn't get their heads round it.

If he was a god, how come he died? And if he was a man, how did he rise from the dead? From the very beginning of Christianity, there were Gnostics, who contested the full divinity of Christ, and by the third century AD the chief exponent of this type of view was a Libyan Christian bishop called Arius.

The Catholic Church said Christ was of the same substance as the father, coeternal. No, no, said Arius, he couldn't be of the same substance; he was just similar; he was just a chap really; not homoousios, but homoiousios.

Arius spoke for everyone who has ever said that "Jesus was a really great guy and a great teacher, but I don't think he was really the biological son of God". He had many supporters, and the wrangle engulfed the Christian world until Constantine settled it rather incompetently at the Council of Nicaea in 325, and the doctrine of the Trinity was pronounced.

But the controversy rumbled on for hundreds of years, until it produced its most potent successor, Islam, which regards the idea of the son of God as blasphemous.

By depicting Jesus as a man who fathered, Dan Brown is making the same objection as Arius, and putting his finger on the logical problem in the doctrine of the Incarnation. Are the descendants of Christ meant to be divine? Patently not. But why not, if Jesus was God?

The answer must be that Jesus was not of one substance with the father, and that is why the Catholic Church is so rattled. This book may be bilge, but it awakens an ancient and distinguished heresy. Dan Brown is the new heresiarch, and I vote that he, the Pope, Austen Ivereigh and the rest of us convene a new Council of Nicaea to settle the matter.

Boris Johnson is MP for Henley http://tinyurl.com/oxlyo

Supreme Court of India HELD in 1977: "Article 25 guarantees to all persons right to freedom and conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propogate religion subject to public order,
morality and health. The word 'propogate' has been used in
the Article as meaning to transmit or spread from person to
person or from place to place. The Article does not grant
right to convert other person to one's own religion but to
transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its
tenets. The freedom of religion enshrined in Art. 25 is not
guaranteed in respect of one religion only but covers all
religions alike which can be properly enjoyed by a person
if he exercises his right in a manner commensurate with the
like freedom of persons following other religion. What is
freedom for one is freedom for the other in equal measure
and there can, therefore, be no such thing as a fundamental
right to convert any person to one's own religion. "

Full judgement follows. k.

PETITIONER:
REV. STAINISLAUS

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/01/1977

BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
SHINGAL, P.N.
SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:
1977 AIR 908 1977 SCR (2) 611
1977 SCC (1) 677


ACT:
Constitution of India--Article 25(1)--Freedom of reli-
gion--Right to profess--Practice and propogate
religion--Whether forcible and fraudulent conversion in-
cluded--Public order--Meaning of--Seventh Schedule List II
Entry 1--Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhinivam
1968--Orissa Freedom of Religion Act 1967--Constitutional
validity of.



HEADNOTE:
The constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh
Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, was challenged in the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the constitutional validity
of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 was challenged
in the High Court of Orissa. The two Acts prohibit forcible
conversion and make the offence punishable. The Madhya
Pradesh High Court upheld the validity of the Act. The
Orissa High Court held that Art. 25(2) of the Constitution
guarantees propogation of religion and conversion is a part
Christian religion; that the State Legislature has no power
to enact the impugned legislation which in pith and sub-
stance is a law relating to religion; and that entry 97 of
List I would apply.
Upholding the validity of both the Acts,
HELD: (1) Article 25 guarantees to all persons right to
freedom and conscience and the right freely to profess,
practice and propogate religion subject to public order,
morality and health. The word 'propogate' has been used in
the Article as meaning to transmit or spread from person to
person or from place to place. The Article does not grant
right to convert other person to one's own religion but to
transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its
tenets. The freedom of religion enshrined in Art. 25 is not
guaranteed in respect of one religion only but covers all
religions alike which can be properly enjoyed by a person
if he exercises his right in a manner commensurate with the
like freedom of persons following other religion. What is
freedom for one is freedom for the other in equal measure
and there can, therefore, be no such thing as a fundamental
right to convert any person to one's own religion. [616
B-F, 617 A-B]
(2) The Madhya Pradesh Act prohibits conversion from one
religion to another by use of force, allurement or fraudu-
lent means and matters incidental thereto. Similarly, the
Orissa Act prohibits conversion by the use of force or by
inducement or by any fraudulent means. Both the statutes,
therefore, clearly provide for the maintenance of public
order because if forcible conversion had not been prohibited
that would have created public disorder in the States.
The _expression "public order" has a wide connotation.
[617 C-E]
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay & Ors.
[1954] S.C.R. 2055; Ramesh Thappar v. The State of Madras
[1950] S.C.R. 594; Ramjilal Modi v. State of U.P. [1957]
S.C.R. 860 and Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal [1966] 1
S.C.R. 709, followed.
(3) If an attempt is made to raise communal passions,
e.g. on the ground that someone has been forcibly converted
to another religion it would in all probability give rise
to an apprehension of a breach of the public order affecting
the community at large The impugned Acts therefore fall
within the purview of Entry 1 of List II of the Seventh
Schedule as they are meant to avoid
5--112SCI/77
612
disturbance to the public order by prohibiting conversion
from one religion to another in a manner reprehensible to
the conscience of the community. The two Acts do not
provide for the regulation of religion and do not fall under
Entry 97 of List I. [618 A-C]



JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1489. &
1511 of 1974.
(Appeals by certificate./Special Leave from the Judg-
ment and Order dated 23-4-1974 of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court in Misc. Petition No. 136/73).
Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 1974.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23-4-1974 of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No. 159/71)
and
Civil Appeal NOs. 344-346 of 1976.
(Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and. Order
dated 24-10-1972 of the Orissa High Court in C.J.C. 185, 186
and 217 of 1969).
Frank Anthony, in CA 1489, CrI. A. 255/74 and CA 346/76
for the appellant in CAs 1489 and 1511/74 and Crl. A.. No.
255/74 and RR. 1 and 2 in CAs 346/76.
Soli J. Sorabiee in CA 1511, Crl. A. 255/74 1. B. Dadac-
hanji, K. J. John O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain for the
appellant in CAs 1489 and 1511/74 and Crl. A. No. 255/74 and
RR. 1 and 2 in CAs 346/76.
Gobind Das (In CAs 344-346/76) B. Parthasarthi, for the
appellants in CAs 344-346/76.
Soli J. Sorabjee, B.P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi, for
R. 3 in CA 346/76.
Brijbans Kishore, B.R. Sabharwal, for RR. in CA 345/76.
Gobind Das,Raj Kumar Mehta,for the Intervener (State
of Orissa) in C.A. 1489/74.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J. These appeals were heard together because
they raise common questions of law relating to the interpre-
tation of the Constitution.
Civil Appeals No. 1489 and 1511 of 1974 and Criminal
Appeal No. 255 of 1974 are directed against a judgment of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 23 April, 1974. We
shall refer to these as the Madhya Pradesh cases. Civil
Appeals No. 344-346 of 1976 relate to a judgment. of the
orissa High Court dated 24 October, 1972. We shall refer
to these appeals as the Orissa cases.
613
The controversy in the Madhya Pradesh cases relates to
the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968,
hereinafter referred to as the Madhya Pradesh Act. The
controversy in the Orissa cases arises out of the Orissa
Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 hereinafter referred to as the
Orissa Act.
The provisions of the 'two Acts in so far as they relate
to. prohibition of forcible conversion and punishment there-
for, are similar and the questions which have been raised
before us are common to both of them. It will, therefore,
be enough, for the purpose of appreciating the controversy,
to make a somewhat detailed mention of the facts of the
Madhya Pradesh case.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Baloda-Bazar sanctioned
the prosecution of Rev. Stainislaus for the commission of
offences under sections 3, 4 and 5(2) of the Madhya Pradesh
Act. When the case came up before Magistrate, First-
Class, Baloda-Bazar, the appellant Rev. Stainislaus raised
a preliminary objection that the State Legislature did not
have the necessary legislative competence and the Madhya
Pradesh Act was ultra vires the Constitution as it did not
fall within the purview of Entry I of List II and Entry I of
List III of the Seventh Schedule. The appellant's conten-
tion was that it was covered by Entry 97 of List I so that
Parliament alone had the power to make the law and not the
State Legislature. An objection was also raised that the
provisions of sections 3, 4 and 5(2) of the Act contra-
vened Article 25 of the Constitution and were void. The
Magistrate took the view that there was no force in the.
objection and did not refer the case to the High Court
under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
The appellant applied to the Additional Sessions Judge
for a revision of the Magistrate's order refusing to make a
reference to the High Court. The Additional Sessions Judge
also took the view that no question of constitutional impor-
tance arose in the case and he did not think it necessary
to make a reference to the High Court.
The appellant thereupon applied to the High Court for
revision under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and he also filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution.
The High Court heard both the revision and the writ
petition together. The appellant raised the following three
questions in the High Court :--
(i) that sections 3, 4, 5(2) and 6 of the M.P.
Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 are viola-
tive of the petitioner's fundamental rights
guaranteed by Article 25 ( 1 ) of the Consti-
tution of India;
(ii) that in exercise of powers conferred by
Entry No.. 1 of List II, read with Entry No. 1
of List III of the Seventh Schedule the Madhya
Pradesh Legislature in the name of public
order could not have enacted
614
the said legislation. But the matter would
fail within the scope of Entry No. 97 of List
I of the Seventh Schedule, which confers
residuary powers on Parliament to legislate in
respect of any matters not covered by List
I, List I1 or List III. Therefore, it is
contended that Parliament alone had the power
to legislate on this subject and the legisla-
tion enacted by the State Legislature is ultra
vires the powers of the State legislature;
(iii) that section 5(1) and section 5(2) of
the M.P. Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968
amount to testimonial compulsion and,
therefore, the said provisions are violative
of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of
India.
The High Court examined the controversy with reference
to the relevant provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Act and
the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Rules, 1969 and held
as follows :--
"What is penalised is conversion by force,
fraud or by allurement. The other element is
that. every person has a right to profess his
own religion and to act according to it. Any
interference with that right of the other
person by resorting to conversion by force,
fraud or allurement cannot, in our opinion, be
said to contravene Article 25(1) of the Con-
stitution of India, as the Article g
uarantees religious freedom subject to public
health. As such, we do not find that the
provisions of sections 3, 4 and 5 of the
M.P. Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 are
violative of Article 25(1) of the Constitution
of India. On the other hand, it guarantees
that religious freedom to one and all includ-
ing those who might be amenable to conversion
by force, fraud or allurement. As such, the
Act, in our opinion, guarantees equality of
religious freedom to all, much less can it be
said to encroach upon the religious freedom
of any particular individual."
The High Court therefore held that there was no justi-
fication for the argument that sections 3, 4 and 5 of the
Madhya Pradesh Act were violative of Article 25(1) of the
Constitution. The High Court in fact went on to hold that
those sections "establish the equality of religious
freedom for all citizens by prohibiting conversion by objec-
tionable activities such, as conversion by force, fraud and
by allurement".
As regards the question of legislative competence, the
High Court took note of some judgments of this Court and
held that as "the phrase 'public order' conveys a wider
connotation as laid down by their Lordships! of the Supreme
Court in the different cases. We are of the opinion that
the subject matter of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya
Adhiniyam, 1968 fails within the scope of Entry No. I of
List II of the Seventh Schedule relating to the State List
regarding public order".
615
On the remaining point relating to testimonial compul-
sion with reference to Article 20(3)of the Constitution,
the High Court held that section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh
Act read with Form A, prescribed by the Rules, merely made
provision for the giving of intimation to the District
Magistrate about conversion and did not require its maker to
make a confession of any offence as to whether the conver-
sion had been made on account of fraud, force or allurement,
'which had been penalised by the Act. The High Court thus
held that mere giving of such information was not violative
of Article 30(1) of 'the Constitution. But the question of
testimonial compulsion within the meaning of Article 20(3)
of the Constitution has not been raised for our considera-
tion.
The Orissa cases arose out of petitions under Article
226 of the Constitution challenging the vires of the Orissa
Act. The High ,Court stated its conclusions in those cases
as follows:--
(1) Article 25(1) guarantees propagation of
religion and conversion is a part of the
Christian religion.
(2) Prohibition of conversion by 'force' or by
'fraud' as defined by the Act would be covered
by the limitation subject to which the right
is guaranteed under Article 25 (1).
(3) The definition of the term 'inducement' is
vague and many proselytizing activities may be
covered by the definition and the restriction
in Article 25 (1) cannot be said to cover the
wide definition.'
(4) The State LegisLature has no power to
enact the impugned legislation which in pith
and substance is a law relating to religion.
Entry No. 1 of either List II or List III does
not authorise the impugned legislation.
(5) Entry 97 of List I applies.
The High Court has therefore declared the Orissa Act to be
ultra vires the Constitution and directed the issue of
mandamus to the State Government not to give effect to it.
The criminal cases which were pending have been quashed.
The common questions which, have been raised for our
consideration are (1) whether the two Acts were violative of
the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the
Constitution, and (2) whether the State Legislatures were
competent to enact them ?
Article 25(1) of the Constitution reads as
follows:
"25(1) Subject to public order,' morality and
health and to the other provisions of this
Part, all persons are equally entitled to
freedom of conscience and the right freely to
profess, practise and propagate religion."
616
Counsel for the appellant has argued that
the right to 'propagate' one's religion means
the right to convert a person to one's own
religion. On that basis, counsel has argued
further that the right to convert a person
to one's own religion is a fundamental right
guaranteed by Article 25 (1) of the Constitu-
tion.
The _expression 'propagate' has a number of
meanings, including "to multiply specimens of
(a plant, animal, disease etc.) by any
process of natural reproduction from the
parent stock", but that cannot, for obvious
reasons, be the meaning for purposes of Arti-
cle 25 (1) of the Constitution. The Article
guarantees a right to freedom of religion,
and the _expression 'propagate' cannot there-
fore be said to have been used in a biologi-
cal sense.
The _expression 'propagate' has been de-
fined in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary to mean
"to spread from person to person, or from
place to place, to disseminate, diffuse (a
statement, belief, practice, etc.)"
According to the Century Dictionary (which
is an Encylopaedic Lexicon of the English
Language) Vol. VI, 'propagate' means as
follows :--
"To transmit or spread from person to
person or from place to place; carry forward
or onward; diffuse; extend; as
propagate a report; to propagate the Christian
religion".
We have no doubt that it is in this sense. that the word
'propagate' has been used in Article 25 (1), for what the
Article grants is not the right to convert another person
to one's own religion, but to transmit or spread one's
religion by an exposition of its tenets. It has to be
remembered that Article 25 (1) guarantees "freedom of
conscience" to every citizen, and not merely to the follow-
ers of one particular religion, and that, in turn, postu-
lates that there is no fundamental right to convert another
person to one's own religion because if a person purposely
undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion,
as distinguished from his effort to transmit or spread the
tenets of his religion, that would impinge on the "freedom
of conscience" guaranteed to all the citizens of the coun-
try alike.
The meaning of guarantee under Article 25 of the Con-
stitution came up for consideration in this Court in Ratilal
Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay & Ors. (1) and it
was held as follows :--
"Thus, subject to the restrictions which
this Article imposes, every person has a
fundamental right under our Constitution not
merely to entertain such, religious belief as
may be approved of by his judgment or con-
science but to exhibit his belief and ideas in
such overt acts as are enjoined or sanctioned
by his religion and further to propagate his
religious views for the edification of
others."
(1) [1954]S.C.R. 1055.
617
This Court has given the correct meaning of the Article, and
we find no justification for the view that it grants. a
fundamental right to convert persons to one's own reli-
gion. It has to be appreciated that the freedom of religion
enshrined in the Article is not guaranteed in respect of one
religion only, but covers all religions alike, and it can be
properly enjoyed by a person if he exercises his right in a
manner commensurate with the like freedom of persons follow-
ing the other religions. What is freedom for one, is free-
dom for the other, in equal measure, and there can there-
fore be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any
person to one's own religion.
It was next been argued by counsel that the Legislatures
of Madhya Pradesh, and Orissa States did not have legisla-
tive competence to pass the Madhya Pradesh Act and the
Orissa Act respectively, because their laws regulate 'rel-
igion' and fall under the Residuary Entry 97 in List 1 of
the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
It is not in controversy that the Madhya Pradesh Act
provides for the prohibition of conversion from one religion
to. another by use of force or allurement, or by fraudulent
means, and matters incidental thereto. The expressions
"allurement" and 'fraud' have been defined by the. Act.
Section 3 of the Act prohibits conversion by use of force
or by allurement or by fraudulent means and section 4 pena-
lises such forcible conversion. Similarly, section 3 of the
Orissa Act prohibits forcible conversion by the use of
force or by inducement or by any. fraudulent means, and
section 4 penalises such forcible conversion. The Acts
therefore dearly provide for the maintenance of public
order for, if forcible conversion had not been prohibited,
that would have created public disorder in the States.
The _expression "Public order" is of wide conno-
tation. It must have the connotation which it is meant to
provide as the very first Entry in List II. It has been
held by this Court in Ramesh Thapper v. The State of
Madras(1) that "public order" is an _expression of wide
connotation and signifies state of tranquility which pre-
vails among the members of a political society as a result
of internal regulations enforced by the Government which
they have established".
Reference may also be made to the decision in Ramjilal Modi
v. State of U.P. (2) where this Court has held that the
right of freedom religion guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26
of the Constitution is expressly made subject to public
order, morality and health, and that "it cannot be predicat-
ed that freedom of religion can have no bearing whatever on
the maintenance of public order or that a law creating an
offence relating to religion cannot under any circumstances
be said to have been enacted in the interests of public
order". It has been held that these two Articles in terms
contemplate that restrictions may be imposed on the rights
guaranteed by them in the interests of public order. Refer-
ence may as well be made to the decision in Arun Ghosh v.
State of WeSt Bengal(a) where it has been held that if a
thing disturbs the current of the life of the community,
(1) (1950) S.C.R. 594.
(2) (1957) S.C.R. 860
(3) (1966) 1 S.C.R. 709
618
and does not merely affect an individual, it would
amount to disturbance of the public order. Thus if an
attempt is made to raise communal passions, e.g. on the
ground that some one has been "forcibly" converted to anoth-
er religion, it would, in all probability, give rise to an
apprehension of a breach of the public order, affecting
the community at large. The impugned Acts therefore fall
within: the purview of Entry I of List II of the Seventh
Schedule as they are meant to avoid disturbances to the
public order by prohibiting conversion from one religion to
another in a manner reprehensible to the conscience of the
community. The two Acts do not provide for the regulation of
religion and! we do not find any justification for the
argument that they fall under Entry 97 of List I of the
Seventh Schedule.
In the result Civil Appeals No. 1489 and 1511 of 1974
and Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 1974 fall and are dismissed
while Civil Appeals No. 344-346 of 1976 are allowed and the
impugned judgment of the Orissa High Court dated 24 October,
1972 is set aside. The parties shall pay and bear their own
costs, in Madhya Pradesh appeals. The State shall pay the
respondent costs in the Orissa appeal according to previous
direction.
P.H.P.
C.As. Nos. 1489 & 1511 of 1974 and
Cr. A. No. 255 of 1974 dismissed.
C.As. Nos. 344--346 of 1976 allowed.
619

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt
/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=5403


Vatican slams anti-conversion law in India

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ SATURDAY, MAY 20, 2006 02:13:59 AM]
NEW DELHI: The Christian missionaries engaged in proselytisation received a major boost on Friday when Pope Benedict came out in the open to oppose the law banning conversion.

Agency reports from Paris said Pope Benedict, in an unusually strong language, told India's new ambassador in the Vatican that efforts in some states to outlaw conversions were unconstitutional and should be rejected.

The papal assertions comes in the backdrop of Rajasthan government's efforts to enact an anti-conversion law. The Bill, passed by the state assembly, was forwarded to the governor last month.

Reports from Jaipur said state governor Pratibha Patil has not given her assent. She has referred the Bill to the President for his advice. It will be interesting to watch the Presidential response in the context of the strong statement from the Pope.

The Pope on Friday also appeared to be endorsing a section's claim that religious intolerance was rampant in India. "

The disturbing signs of religious intolerance which have troubled some regions of the nation, including the reprehensible attempt to legislate clearly discriminatory restrictions on the fundamental right of religious freedom must be firmly rejected," the Pope told India's ambassador Amitava Tripathi.

New Delhi swiftly rejected the Papal assertions. "It is acknowledged that India is a secular and democratic country in which adherents of all religious faiths enjoy equal rights. The Constitution of India states that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion," a statement issued by the external affairs ministry said.

The BJP also reacted sharply to the papal assertions. "The constitutionality of anti-conversion laws in India may be best left to India's legislative and constitutional processes.

Indian laws which prohibit conversion — caused by duress, undue influence or bribery — are not merely legitimate or constitutional, they are also morally and ethically correct," BJP general secretary Arun Jaitley said. Pope Benedict's assertions are not surprising as he is known to hold ultraconservative views.

Before becoming the Pontiff, for 25 long years, he was the head of the Vatican office that oversees doctrine.

The Pope has been controversial for his hard-line views and had never shown any flexibility on the Church's views on priestly celibacy and contraception.

, he had invited controversy when he described rock music as the "vehicle of anti-religion"; dismissed feminist interpretation of the Bible; and asked bishops to deny Communion to those who support abortion. This hard-line positions earned him nicknames such as Panzercardinal, God's Rottweiler and the Grand Inquisitor.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/
articleshow/1539523.cms

4 comments:

Seven Star Hand said...

Hello all,

Pay close attention, profundity knocks at the door, listen for the key. Be Aware! Scoffing leads to blindness...

There is a way to verify the truth...

There's a bit more to the story of the Vatican's reaction than most are yet aware of. Read my missive below to understand what they truly fear. It's not the DaVinci Code or Gospel of Judas per se, but the fact that people have been motivated to seek out the unequivocal truth about an age of deception, exactly when they expect me to appear. The Gospel of Judas and DaVinci Code controversies are allowing people to take new stock of the Vatican/Papacy and the religions Rome spawned.

Remember, "I come as a thief..." ?

Yes, the DaVinci Code novel is better than the movie. Both are no more accurate as a literal version of history than is the New Testament. In other words, none of them is the literal truth, which is a key fact of the story and ancient history. The primary sub-plot is about purposeful symbology being used to encode hidden meanings, exactly like the Bible and related texts. Arguing about whether the DaVinci Code, Gospel of Judas, or the Bible are accurate history is a Machiavellian red herring designed to hide the truth by misdirecting your inquiry away from the heart of the matter.

Want to truly understand why we can't let the Vatican succeed at telling us what to think about ancient history? There is a foolproof way to verify the truth and expose centuries-old religious deceptions. It is also the common thread connecting why the ancient Hebrews, Yahad/Essene, Jews, Gnostics, Cathars, Templars, Dead Sea Scrolls, DaVinci Code, and others have all been targets of Rome’s ire and evil machinations. What the Vatican and its secret society cohorts don’t want you to understand is that the ancient Hebrew symbology in all of these texts purposely encodes and exposes the truth about them. Furthermore, the structure of ancient symbology verifiably encodes the rules to decode messages built with it. This is what they most fear you will discover.

If the Bible represented the literal truth or even accurate history, there would be no need for faith in the assertions of deceptive and duplicitous clergy and their ilk. Wisdom and faith are opposing concepts, because wisdom requires the unequivocal truth where faith obfuscates and opposes it. Religion is therefore the enemy of truth and wisdom.

It is undeniable the New Testament is framed by ancient Hebrew symbolism and allegory. The same is evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnostic texts, biblical apocrypha, DaVinci Code, and other related texts. All ancient religious, mystical, and wisdom texts have been shrouded in mystery for millennia for one primary reason: The ability to understand their widely evidenced symbology was lost in antiquity. How do we finally solve these ages-old mysteries? To recast an often-used political adage: It’s [the] symbology, stupid!

It is amazing the Vatican still tries to insist the Gospels are literal truth. It is beyond obvious they are replete with ancient Hebrew symbology. Every miracle purported for Jesus has multiple direct symbolic parallels in the Old Testament, Apocalypse, Dead Sea Scrolls, and other symbolic narratives and traditions. This is the secret held by the ancient Gnostics, Templars, and Cathars, which is presented with dramatic effect in the DaVinci Code. None of these narratives or stories were ever intended as the literal truth. That is a key fact to unraveling ages-old mysteries.

Likewise, the following Washington Post article (The Book of Bart) describes how many changes and embellishments were made to New Testament texts over the centuries, unequivocally demonstrating they are not original, infallible, or truthful.

It's no wonder the Vatican fears the truth more than anything else. Seek to understand the symbolic significance of my name (Seven Star Hand) and you will have proof beyond disproof that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have long been duped by the great deceivers I warned humanity about over the millennia. What then is the purpose of "faith" but to keep good people from seeking to understand truth and wisdom?

Now comes justice, hot on its heels... (symbolism...)

Not only do I talk the talk, I walk the walk...
Here is Wisdom!!

Revelations from the Apocalypse

trip said...

well done guys. this is good work, something the 'holy man' did not care to verify before deciding to burn india's democracy at the stake... hey whats new?

vaibhavi said...

Ratzinger should apologize to us for what their 'passion for freedom, did to the hindus of goa...

sdRay said...

My name is Ray and I just started a new blog about positive confession. Its a place where you can chat about positive confession confidentially. I hope you will come and check out www.MySecretConfessionSpace.com. Thanks for letting me post on your site.