#Karnataka #AntiConversionLaw #Persecution #BishopMachado #hamslivenews
While the anti-conversion law was first implemented in 1967 when the bill was passed in Odisha, he said that many cases of persecutions of Christians started from that time where it was insinuated that Adivasis were being converted and therefore they wanted this law. The Archbishop said that the law sent a message out that they were scared of Christians and also lead to situations where some religions will have full freedom, other religions will have limited freedom sending out a bad message.
He said that this would lead to open persecution where certain groups take law into their own hands saying that theirs is the only religion that can survive in India and all the other religions are disturbances. They would raid churches, take surveys, and make the lives of certain sections of people miserable in many ways. He reminded K.P. Sasi of the worst instance in Kandhamal where the persecutions reached the highest level and people were not allowed to live there; their houses were burnt and so many people died.
He stated that Article 25 clearly says freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and that any person can and have the right to believe any particular religion. He has the right to profess it, he has the right to practice it and he has the right to propagate it. These are the basic fundamental rights that are very clear and there is no need for an explanation for that. Dr. Ambedkar, an architect of the Indian Constitution himself converted from the Hindu religion to the Buddhist religion which means conversion was a basic part of the constitution.
Bishop Machado stated that the secular fabric of the Constitution means that everybody is equal. Article 14 speaks of equality. There is no distinction between Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, and all religions are equal and so, in that sense when there is such freedom given by the Constitution itself as articulated by Babasaheb Ambedkar, why are such regulations coming up? It is as good as saying that the Constitution has not explained much and therefore let us make another law to explain it much more to enforce it much more.
When K.P. Sasi asked, “The counterargument from the other side is that this law is against forced conversion and they blame the Christians for that since this is also there in the Constitution and as you say, there is no need for new law needed. Then what makes them go ahead?”
The Archbishop replied, “I feel it very funny because you think it is so easy to force the people to change their religion. You think it is very easy to convert people by giving certain gifts or incentives. Surely they will enjoy the gifts and come back to their original faith. There is nobody who can force people like that and the accusation made is that we take people from the lowest strata who are very poor, who are illiterate and take advantage of their innocence and then convert them. Do you think it is so easy?”
He continued, “On the other hand, you know that in politics today, the advantage is being taken of the same people who illiterate are poor. If the same people are given the right to vote and you trust them to vote for a particular person like a politician today, don’t you think that they can be trusted to choose a God or religion of their own choice with their full heart and full mind? Where is the force and where is the incentive? But I am open to it and if there are certain instances you have found, definitely action must be taken against them. But for that, you don’t need another law that is so restrictive that the Christian tomorrow should go with a badge saying that `I am a Christian, so be careful.”
He asked almost indignantly, “Are the Christians terrorists? Do the Christians store guns in their churches or drugs in their houses? As much as possible, we are for the nation, we are for the country and we are patriots. We have people among us who would like to give out their best. Look at our education system. Have we made a distinction between those who are from other communities and Christians? Or in our hospitals, do we segregate the patients on the basis of religion.? Do we say that people to people with diseases that you are from a particular religion, therefore, you would be given second class treatment and only Christians will be given first-class treatment?”
While the journalist asked him, “The counter-argument is also that through their school networks, medical institutions, hospitals, and services, the Christians are converting forcefully and by lure. That’s also a counterargument.
Информация по комментариям в разработке