--- On Sat, 2/7/09, marlon menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Selma,
>
> I actually agree with your sentiments and with much of what
> you say. The real issue is what concrete actions can
> individuals like us, who are thousands of miles from our
> motherland take?
>
It is good to see Marlon posting again more regularly on contentious topics
related to secularism. The problem I have with Selma's response to him is that
she appeared to be asking him to fall in line with her mode of thinking, and of
those of her ilk, by virtue of the fact that they belong to a particular
religious community. This type of an appeal to communal groupism is not a very
healthy thing in a secular forum. Secularism thrives when there are free
thinking individuals who follow their individual consciences, and express their
opinions in an unfettered manner with no allegiance to anybody except to the
ideals and principles that they hold dear.
That is why it is good that we have people like Marlon, Vidyadhar, Cornel and
Samir who are more critical of the failings of their own community than those
of others. My own preference is, of course, criticism of the excesses of all
communities in an even-handed manner, based on firm evidence, and without
recourse to speculations and generalizations. I also think that most regular
folk are basically non-violent. Therefore, while there always will be criminals
and extremists in all societies, crime and extremist violence can never receive
widespread support. On the other hand softer prejudices and atrocities such as
campaigns against artistic freedom, food habits, Valentine's day,
homosexuality, contraception, western music and entertainment, etc. find wider
acceptance. That is why they need to be spoken out against with equal force.
Cheers,
Santosh
