Is it against the law for religious parents to force their children to go to church and believe what they believe?
No it is not against the law in any country that I know of, despite an increasing number of children turning up on places like this web site with tales of parents who regularly force their kids to attend religious ceremonies despite the youngsters declaring their lack of belief.When a child is being punished in any way for not believing, in the same way they would be punished for bad behaviour, I say this is an attack on that child's human rights. No child should have to attend church if they do not want to.But then, this is just another sad hypocrisy of religion.Religious leaders will shout to the rafters about human rights being abused in other countries but never speak out to the parent dragging a kicking, screaming child to a service that child obviously does not want to attend.And why?Because if religion does not brainwash kids, it has no future.If it had to start with adults, it couldn't survive. That's why religious groups are so keen to build schools rather than help supply food and water. That's why primary schools are riddled with religious paraphernalia. That's why religious propaganda spreaders are always on the school governing boards and spend so much time in schools. It's very hard to find laws that don't work in favour of the dominant religions of the country in question, which technically is a breach of the human rights of anyone who does not hold the same views. Paraguay is a prime example of this. Every week, in average two abused girls between the ages of nine and fifteen give birth to babies because they cannot legally have abortions, despite the danger of pregnancy. Despite a lifetime of looking at a child born from abuse. If caught the abuser gets a couple of years and is free to abuse again.Yet to change this sorry state of affairs, the Catholic church would have to admit it has policies that are wrong. And saving face is more important to Christianity than the trauma of poor young girls in Paraguay, or AIDS victims in Africa who contract the disease because the church told them (lying) that condoms spread the disease. That's death by religion, still going on today.God bless religion!
Indian Constitutional Law: Is it legal for parents to hold their daughter ( age 23) in their home against her will?
It is illegal to hold a person above the age of 18 against their will in India. You can make a police complaint at the local police station or approach the women's commission for help.
If a 18+ year old girl runs away from her house and then her parents file a complaint to the police, is there any such law that says that she is violating the Constitution? Is she breaching any law? Can her parents file a case and get her back?
Unless the girl has a mental deficiency that makes her unable to care for herself, her parents have no legal control over her. Once you turn 18, throughout the United States, you are legally an adult, with the rights and responsibilities thereof. In fact "running away" doesn't really apply here. An 18-year-old has every right to leave and live wherever they want, no matter what their parents say. The twist is that, when you're 18, your parents have no legal obligation to support you. If they want to kick you out of the house on your 18th birthday, there's no law to stop them. The point is, living at home after you turn 18 is a question of the relationship between you and your parents, the law doesn't generally get involved. If you leave, the police won't force you to go back, but you may affect your relationship with your parents. If you leave, find that supporting yourself is really hard, and want to move back in with your parents, they don't have to let you come back. Making your own choices also means that you have to take responsibility for them.
Is it illegal to make a girl pregnant without marriage by his boyfriend in India?
The girl and her parents can file charges against you u/s 420 of the IPC for “cheating”. Even if you manage to prove her “consent���, you can be held liable if she proves that you “intentionally deceived” her with a false promise of marriage!Your concern shouldnt be legality but morality instead. She is suffering because of you and your absolute carelessness! 7 months into the pregnancy and she has no choice! Do you understand how grave the situation is for her and her family?Did you ask your parents before getting her pregnant? If you are grown up enough to do something like this, you are surely adult enough to face the consequences! Your parents are acting biased and selfish. They don't realize that their son has or is on the verge of ruining a girl's life! Your girlfriend should have been their daughter!If her parents are ready to get you married then you should. Getting married doesn't mean that your career and education will come to an end! Get married in a registrars office and keep it under wraps for a couple of years.Whatever you do, you are the biological father and you are legally and morally bound!PS: What was she doing since 7 months? Didn't she tell you she was pregnant? In my opinion she should have broken this news to you the day she found out!
What are the requirements to be a "natural born citizen?"?
Natural-born citizen Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday? The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:" * Anyone born inside the United States * * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe * Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national * Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year * Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) * A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S. * There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision. Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Question for Non Muslim Malaysians?
Most answerers criticising you without understanding how this question may help on travellers and potential 'Malaysians-to-be'. The first answerer says it all and to my own answer, I would leave it to a shorter comment: It is just a gimmick just as the government teaches school children about the concept of Muhibbah and so forth. This is just another issue as Malays have their Ketuanan Melayu doctrine and this will lead to lesser degree of freedom to non-Malays and non-Muslims. Being non-Muslim and non-Malay means racially segregated and racially profiled. Most Malaysians live in denial (because of FEAR) and yet they still see where the country is heading. I do not see any future for non-Malays and non-Muslims other than feeding the Bumis and being enslaved for their future generation unless the whole constitution is reviewed (not just Article 11) and reflected towards the relevence to what is commonly practiced and the culture of Malaysian-Malaysia.