------------------------------------------------------------------------ * G * O * A * N * E * T **** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S * ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning to get married in Goa? www.weddingsetcgoa.com Making your 'dream wedding' possible ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To illustrate how flawed the “Social Contract” argument is, let me now use an analogy. Some weeks back, an article by Bernard Simoes on Charles Darwin appeared in the Herald Mirror. For arguments sake, what if I had been offended by the said article? What if I had then gathered a group of hooligans, and indulged in violent activities resulting in the death of a few citizens? Who would need to be held responsible in such a scenario, me for organizing the violence or Herald or Bernard Simoes? To cite another illustration, I am also offended by cartoons like these (http://fundamentalbaptistlinks.com/Site6/Darwin_as_monkey.gif ) If the Danish cartoons are bad, what must we say about cartoons like these? So where does the “Social Contract start and where does it end?” Must an article, a book, a cartoon or a Film be withdrawn every time it hurts somebody or the other’s sentiments? On a related note, who needs to be blamed for the murder of Graham Staines and his two little children? Dara Singh or the conversion propaganda by the missionaries? Likewise, who must we blame for the violence in Orissa? The perpetrators of violence or the victims? I and several others found Subodh Kerkar’s Art creative, the HJS supporters found it offensive. The Da Vinci Code was creative according to Cecil, Marlon and several other liberal Christians. Churchill and his brigade of fundamentalist Christians found the same to be offensive. So who would set the standards for deciding what is creative and what is offensive? The liberals or the orthodox? In a democracy where we are all equals before the law, why should preference be given only to Religious sentiments? If religion causes people to react violently, shouldn’t we try to analyze the reasons for it instead of trying to sweep these issues underneath the carpet? There are several more questions that I asked the last time around, to demonstrate how silly the “Social Contract” argument is. The sooner such illogical arguments are put to rest, the better! Cheers, Sandeep
