Disband proselytizer gangs 16/02/2012 08:08:03 Dr S Kalyanaraman
Right to 'human dignity' is as important as the right to freedom of speech
Proselytizing is NOT an intersection of free speech and freedom of religion.
Proselytizing is an affront to human dignity.
There are proselytizing units prowling the globe. Prowling is to roam through stealthily, as in search of prey or plunder.
Both Christian mission and Islamic da'wah as proselytizing units are contests to gain converts at the other's expense. One has symbiotic relationship with colonialism and imperialism. The other has historical contexts and context of jihad, which date back to mediaeval barbarism and conquests destroying cultural edifices and markers.
(Elizabeth Scantlebury, Islamic Da`wah and Christian Mission: Positive and Negative Models of Interaction between Muslims and Christians, in Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1996, 253269.) http://www.rashiedomar.com/publication-downloads.html?download=36%3Athe-right-to-religious-conversion-between-apostasy-and-proselytization
Right to change one's religion is religious freedom. But this does NOT mean granting somebody a right to ask that one changes his or her religion. That somebody, that proselytizer also indulges in coercion by offering food or medical aid. This proselytization is unethical, shameful and disgusting.
Freedom to proselytize is a fraudulent definition of freedom.
Freedom to proselytize is, in effect, a license to indulge in violence, terrorism of the worst kind. Many proselytizers operate beyond their state boundaries and thus indulge in international terrorism by seeking for example, to establish the Dominus Jesus (Dominion of Jesus). This is pursuit of colonialism and imperialism by other means other than direct dominance and ruling over the people whose cultural traditions do NOT recognize any dominion of any one.
"In Cantwell v. Connecticut, the defendant's speech was directed toward the Catholic community, implying that they were evil, and Mr. Cantwell was speaking on the public sidewalk in a predominantly Catholic area and provoked hostility from others.128 Yet the Supreme Court reversed his conviction for breach of the peace. This is because free speech is actually a vital aspect of the dignity for all that is trumpeted so forcefully in the Declaration of Independence. The Supreme Court has recognized that the protection of freedom of expression is based on â€œthe belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests.(Cohen, 403 U.S. at 24; loc.cit., Kevin H. Theriot, Esq., Prince of Pauper? Religious proselytizing and the First Amendment, p.69.) http://www.speakupmovement.org/Church/Content/userfiles/prince_or_pauper.pdf
Proselytizers, as world citizens, have to accept the international covenant on civil and political rights (ICCPR) and the international covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Proselytizers should concede that the actions of their predecessor proselytizers have been conditioned by the zeal to enslave or colonize cultures and to prevent free people from exercising their free will and to create states which are subservient to the Kingdom of Jesus or the Islam Nation.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49:
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
Cultural Rights (1966), together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), make up the International Bill of Human Rights.
In accordance with the Universal Declaration, the Covenants Ã’recognize that â€œ... the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can be achieved only if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.â€
Everyone has the right to take part in cultural life; enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. http://eycb.coe.int/compass/en/pdf/6_5.pdf
Excerpts from a News Report:
Proselytization vs. Religious Freedom
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Is proselytization, with its dubious history, an essential right within the broader realm of religious freedom?
"I think it is," said Thomas F. Farr, a scholar from the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, at a Witherspoon Institute seminar on Islam and Religious Freedom at Princeton Theological Seminary.Â
Many countries, such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Hindu-majority India and predominantly Buddhist Sri Lanka, have witnessed bloodshed over proselytization and resultant conversions.Â Farr agreed that it is not just a â€œclean, clear, sweet-reason application of persuasion.â€
"The history of proselytization is, to put it mildly, a checkered one," said Farr, who worked with the United States Office of the International Religious Freedom in the 1990s.
"Proselytization over the centuries has been rapacious or deceptive or violent or otherwise an attack on human dignity rather than a furthering of human dignity."
Farr does not discuss the modalities to undo the rapacious actions of the proselytizers nor does he discuss steps to prevent such predatory proselytizers.
Farr should accept that one way to stop predatory proselytization is to stop predatory practices of any kind, to recognize the past unethical actions, to vow NOT to repeat such unethical actions, to undo the damage done by impoverishing poor nations during colonial and imperialist forays of proselytizing eras by ensuring restitution of illicit looted wealth taken from such poor nations.
You want religious freedom? Sure, have it, practice it privately and do not make it a state or public or corporate enterprise with the evil designs of accomplishing Religious Dominions, after failing to establish such dominions through jihadist, colonial and imperialist enterprises, evidenced in the recent past centuries.
Notice that the Vatican wikileak cable refers to endorsement of USG for the subterfuge of interfaith dialogue. USG means United States Government. So much for secularism, separating the Vatican mission from the state.
In summary, right to 'human dignity' is as important as the right to freedom of speech. Disband proselytizer gangs. Allow the people of the globe just be with their inherent, inalienable right to human dignity, unhindered by dubious proselytizing falsely paraded as a religious freedom.
In the meantime, just return the colonial loot which rightly belongs to the poor people of the globe and respect their right to live in human dignity.