---- Santosh Helekar <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Wed, 8/18/10, Frederick Noronha <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >I disagree with Santosh's attempts to mix both up, or the suggestion that
> >one's religious views would be decided by the State's approach to a
> >>[parallel] matter.
> >
>
> This is Admin Noronha's fabricated view of what my attempts have been.
> He has tried to put words in my mouth twice now. So once again, my
> attempts have nothing to do with what he is claiming here. I don't
> know how to be more clear than I have already been in this thread. Let
> me now just say flat out that I have never suggested that "one's
> religious views would be decided by the State's approach to a
> [parallel] matter." I don't even understand what this statement he has
> put in my mouth means.
>
> As a secular pluralist, I believe that one's religious views are
> his/her own problem, as long as they do not cause harm to humanity.
> All I have been saying is that, as the Prime Minister stated, the
> secular Indian constitution rightly holds that all religions are
> equal. I don't care what Fr. Ivo's parochial Catholic beliefs, Dr.
> Barad's parochial Hindu beliefs or Admin Noronha's parochial
> Atheist/Agnostic beliefs are on this matter.
**What is funny is that Santosh does not understand that according to the
Constitution of India, alluded to by Mohan Singh, all religions are equal under
the Law; therefore, all have to be equally respected. It does not mean that all
religions are equally good. Even atheism, agnosticism, marxism, which are
"quasi-religions", in the expression of Paul Tillich, are to be respected. It
does not mean that theism and atheism are equally good, because, being
contradictory terms, they would destroy each other, and nothing would have
remained...
Let Santosh not repeat the blunder again and again...
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
