From: "Santosh Helekar" <chimbel...@gmail.com>
Scholars who understand and respect the constitution of India, such as
the prime minister of India reject the claim that the concept that
"all religions are equal" is wrong in a secular country.
Please see: http://pmindia.nic.in/speech/content.asp?id=524
When we say our Constitution is secular, we mean that it espouses the
separation of religion from politics and governance. Equally, it means
that the Constitution accords equal status to all religious faiths.
The idea of equality is important................................
...All religions are equal,...
***This is not a value judgment given by Manmohan Singh, it is alien to his
speech. How can Manmohan Singh have a say on this topic? When we take part
in the interfaith dialogue, we share our religious insights, precisely
because our religions are not equal. This is a crass, supine blunder. The
believers of different religions pledge to work for harmony and peace, for
the human integral development.We come together on the concept of "Kingdom
of God" ("Ramarajya" or "Golden Age"). The task of establishing the Kingdom
of God, the New Society is not a monopoly of Christian communities. The
Kingdom is the concern of everyone: individuals, society, and the world.
Christian communities are called to work, in solidarity with others, for the
establishment of a New Society, the Kingdom of God.
<<...just as all human beings are equal. When
we view each other as equals, we try to live in harmony.
**Yes, all human beings are equal (in humanity and human rights), before the
Law. Yet India
does not recognize it in practice. (Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of
India). Manmohan Singh is not giving a value-judgement about world
religions, but a socio-political-legal statement. Would he accept that
Sikhism and polythetistic Hinduism are "equal", equally good, equally
acceptable to him? Would you accept that Hinduism, agnosticism and atheism
(which is based on faith, not in science) are equallly good? Atheism,
agnosticism, marxism are called "quasi-religions".
Great thinkers such as Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi have also
espoused the equality of all religions.
***You are absolutely wrong.
1. The Constitution of India does not says that "all religions are equal",
or equally good.
"WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India
into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all
its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and
integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, DO
HERE BY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION". The art.14
says: "Equality before law: The State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of
India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex
or place of birth".
2. Swami Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandi spoke always in the context of
communal harmony:
"As different streams, having their sources in different places, all
mingle their water in
the sea, so, O Lord, the different paths which men take through different
tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to
Thee."
In his speech in Chicago, Swami Vivekananda said: "I will quote to you,
brethren, a few lines from a hymn which I remember to
have repeated from my earliest boyhood, which is every day repeated by
millions of human beings: "As the different streams having their sources
in
different paths which men take through different tendencies, various
though
they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee."
The present convention, which is one of the most august assemblies ever
held, is in itself a vindication, a declaration to the world of the
wonderful doctrine preached in the Gita: "Whosoever comes to Me, through
whatsoever form, I reach him; all men are struggling through paths which
in
the end lead to me."
"Sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descendant,
fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful earth. They have filled the
earth with violence, drenched it often and often with human blood,
destroyed
civilization and sent whole nations to despair. Had it not been for these
horrible demons, human society would be far more advanced than it is now.
But their time is come; and I fervently hope that the bell that tolled
this
morning in honor of this convention may be the death-knell of all
fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen, and of all
uncharitable feelings between persons wending their way to the same goal".
3. Gandhi propagated the notion of Sarvadharma Samabhava, the equality of
all religions. This is an important notion,
particularly in a world where we are witnessing an increase in religious
fundamentalism and
religious conflict. Although it was clear to Gandhi that there was only
one God, he was
realistic enough to recognize that different religions would always exist.
Gandhi stated that
"belief in one God is the cornerstone of all religions. But I do not
foresee a time when there would
be only one religion on earth in practice. In theory, since there is one
God, there can be only one
religion. But in practice, no two persons I have known have had the same
and identical
conception of God. Therefore, there will, perhaps, always be different
religions answering to
different temperaments and climatic conditions." (Harijan, Feb.2, 1934)
Elsewhere he has used the metaphor of different leaves belonging to the
same
tree to underline the theme of unity in diversity. "Just as men have
different names
and faces, these religions also are different. But just as men are all
human in spite of
their different names and forms, just as leaves of a tree though different
as leaves are the same as
the leaves of the same tree, all religions though different are the same.
We must treat all
religions as equals". (Harijanbandhu, July 22, 1934).
Again, the statement is in the context of national harmony.
Gandhi insisted that, "The need of the moment is not one religion but
mutual respect and tolerance of the devotees of
different religions. We want to reach not the dead level but unity in
diversity. Any attempt to root
out traditions, effects of heredity, climate and other surroundings is not
only bound to fail but is
a sacrilege. The soul of religion is one but it is encased in a multitude
of forms. The latter
will persist to the end of time. Wise men will ignore the outward crust
and see the same soul living
under a variety of crusts." (Young India, Sept.25, 1925).
Regards. Fr.Ivo
> P.S. BTW, the statements on scientific theories and therapeutic drugs
> below do not make any sense at all, in terms of relevance or analogy.
***As we choose the best routes, theories and drugs, so also we choose
religions. If all religions had been equally good, it would be immaterial
to choose
any religion, which is absurd.
Santosh chooses crooked ways in our discussion on the public Forum and
then he takes refuge in SPAM-ing, and makes confusion worse confounded. It
only gives the readers the opportunity of reading more and deepening the
issues. Thanks!
___________________________________________________
> --- On Tue, 8/17/10, Ivo <icso...@bsnl.in> wrote:
>>>> **By definition, a secular State respects the religious
>> rights of all the citizens. It does not define which
>> religion is better than the other. It is left to us to study
>> it in comparative study of religions. Agnostics cannot
>> appreciate nor decide this point. Not all routes are equally
>> good, not all scientific theories are equally good, not all
>> therapeutic drugs are equally good. All religions cannot be
>> equally good. We would not choose any religion, without
>> deciding which is good in itself and for us. Even if we are
>> born in one religion, we can investigate it. Why is it that
>> so many intellectuals have chosen Catholic religion?
>> Regards.
>> Fr.Ivo
