--- On Fri, 3/12/10, Frederick Noronha <[email protected]> wrote: > > Here again, the leftovers of our religious assumptions come > into play. >
The above statement and the questions posed by Noronha tells me that either he has not understood what I have written, or he is once again making up his own narrative. Nothing I have said is prescribed by any religion in existence. Every statement of mine in this thread stems from three tenets of secular democracy, western as well as Indian. The three tenets are: A. Separation of church and state. B. Freedom of religion. C. Freedom of expression. No religion on earth has these assumptions. These are only found in modern secular democratic constitutions, particularly those of United States and India. Everything I have stated in this thread holds true in India as well as the west. Every single one of Noronha's questions has a trivial and/or obvious answer based on what I have written. But let me address each of them directly below: > > 1. Why should we be just discussing the burqa, when there > are other dress codes considered inappropriate by members of a > different community? > I mentioned burqa in response to Sandeep's reference to it. What is true of burqa is true of kashti. I have already stipulated that nobody can ban the kashti. Please see: http://www.colaco.net/1/SantoshKashtidefence.htm > > 2. While giving permission, whose norms are to be accepted? > (I.e. Churches and temples are not treated as "illegal" in the > current discourse in Goa, but mosques are!) > The norms are established by the secular democratic constitution, and the local laws and ordinances. No religion or religious establishment can be favored or discriminated against in a secular democracy. > > 3. Is it logical for the State to lay down requirements which make it > impossible for schools to run without government grants > (e.g. the equal-pay-for-equal-work case in Goa), and then say they > can't offer religious education if they accept government grants? > Yes. In a secular democracy, the state cannot establish or support any religion or religious activity with public funds. > > 4. Who decides what is "personal or public harm"? > In a secular democracy, the courts, the legislature and the voting public, through elections and referendums, decide. > > 5. Shouldn't criticism be sensitive and avoid situations > which cause public riots and affray? > Who decides what is sensitive and insensitive, and on what basis? Should the practice of casteism or exorcism on epileptics not be criticized because such criticism might be offensive to some people, and cause them to riot? > >Is the artistic freedom of a Hussein more crucial than disallowing >>communalism to be stoked needlessly? > Who decides what are the limits of artistic freedom, and what basis? Who decides what the threshold is for stoking communalism, and what basis? > > 6. Why would anyone want to/need to "oppose" someone else's > views? > Because when these views are expressed in public they may mislead or misinform the public about important issues, or they may cause harm to individuals and the public at large. For example, the belief that one should apply cowdung to an infant's cut umbilical cord. > > Don't people have the right to decide for themselves as to > what views they wish to hold, however ludicrous these may seem to > "us"? > Yes. Please see my quote from the previous post below: QUOTE In a secular democracy with full rights and liberties, one ought to be free to do the following: ................. 4. Hold unscientific, irrational, absurd and/or weird beliefs, as long as they do not cause personal or public harm, or infringe on the rights, freedoms and privileges of others. UNQUOTE .....Santosh Helekar > > 8. Why dissuade? Don't people have the right to decide for > themselves? > Dissuade because people have the right to decide for themselves. In a secular democracy, if people want to dissuade, they should be free to dissuade, just as they should be free to persuade, if they want to persuade. Cheers, Santosh
