Quote:
Originally Posted by mthambi
I see where you are coming from. But with all due respect I think this is a strawman argument.
|
Hardly.[list]
Quote:
|
[*] How likely is that case compared to the abuse of the law.
|
No, We consider that highly unethical.
Quote:
|
[*] If you trust the average Indian to elect his prime minister, then I would trust him to understand that he is taken advantage of. He can accept the food/water, convert and convert back to his original religion a couple of days later.
|
I hope you know that there are people here with personal experience on the issue. There are people who do that, and there people who take the religion seriously and there are people who further take money and use the influence of the church.
Quote:
|
[*] It is the state's responsibility to provide food/water during a tsunami and not rely on the missionaries. If it can't do that, it has no right to tell Indians to starve to death to preserve their religion.
|
No they dont, But other people who does give the same has no right to blackmail the people they are providing care. If you want to provide food and water, provide that; no questions asked.
[*] From the state's point of view which is worse:[list]
Quote:
|
[*]- Allowing a citizen to change his religion for food/water.
|
The whole idea is that man can stoop so low to say will give you food and water if you change religion is unimaginable. It is direct insult to the teachings of Jesus or whoever they are preaching for.
Quote:
|
[*]- Allowing a citizen to renounce his nationality and get a new citizenship (including the responsibility to bear arms for a foreign power) just to get a better job and make more money.
|
Very different than food and water, Renoucing Nationality is a choice, while food and water is NOT.
Mallu Christain.