From: "Santosh Helekar" <[email protected]>
--- On Thu, 8/19/10, Ivo <[email protected]> wrote
****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.
The above statement is pure nonsense. According to the Indian
Constitution, as repeatedly interpreted by the Indian Supreme Court,
all religions are equally good.
***Santosh is "cutting and pasting" material without being critical, as in
the past he brought medical statistics without knowing the difference
between remission and cure.
The script is legal, published in Central India Law Quarterly. It was
written by Justice Gulab Gupte, quoting the pronoucnements of the Supreme
Court. What is the value of the statement? Certainly, legal--all religions
are to be equally respected. It is not a value judgment. When he defines
religion as "all religions are equally good and efficacious pathways to
perfection of God-realization", what does he mean by God-realization?
As Santosh is repeating ad nauseam that there are a-theistic religions, how
can they be "efficacious pathways to perfection of God-realization"? When
there are oppressive ideologies in some religions (good and bad elements),
how can they be "equally good"? When articles by "religious people" are
cited on scientific issues with ethical repercussions, Santosh throws them
to dustbin.
In no.39, the Judge refers to rape and says: "We must remember that a rapist
not only violates the victims privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably
causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape
is not merely a physical assault, it is often destructive of whole
personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his
victim, a rapist degrades the very soul (NOTICE "VERY SOUL") of the helpless
female". Why does Santosh not accept the concept of SOUL in the light of
Science, when in fact, it is still controversial in the discussion of human
consciousness?
Now how can he accept uncritically what was said by one judge in a legal
context? Does art.25 of the Indian Constitution give that reason? Article
25. (1). "Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other
provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of
conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate
religion".
Then how can we say that the Indian Constitution states that "all religions
are equally good"?
There are two explanations: Explanation I: The wearing and carrying of
kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh
religion.
Explanation II: In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be
construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or
Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall
be construed accordingly".
They refer to the external attire of the Sikh people. The term Hindus
includes Sikh, Jaina, Buddhist, though they are different, opposing
religions. Buddhism was a corrective of the popular Hindusim. These
religions are either monotheistic or atheistic.
If all religions are included, but Buddhism does not accept God (as Santosh
goes on trumpeting. In fact, Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, our Babasaheb,
himself was a Buddhist and fought against caste system, untouchability,
polytheism), how can it be "God-realization"? How can monotheistic and
polytheistic religions be equally good? Either there is one god, or many or
no god. If there are eclectic religions, all cannot be equally good and
"means for God-realization".
It is, therefore, a legal statement and means, as it is confirmed by the
final statement of the Supreme Court, that "It is, according to him, a
positive concept of equal treatment of all religions". It is a statement
concerning law and order, equality of religions before Law, not the
intrinsic value of religions.
Let Santosh be more critical and avoid blunders in the future on public
Forum.
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
___________________________________________________________
Please see the following excerpt from
a scholarly article by Justice Gulab Gupte on the supreme law of the
land in India, published in the Central India Law Quarterly:
Art. 25 of the Constitutional creed is the bed-rock of secularism and
is based on the belief that all religions are equally good and
efficacious pathways to perfection of God-realization....It is, according to
him, a
positive concept of equal treatment of all religions (Justice Gulab Gupte)
Here is the link to the entire article -
http://www.indiankanoon.org/cached/1736032/
Another example, where the Judge speaks of the "Soul" of the women. &&&(39).
If there was any doubt about the sensitivity of law courts in such
cases, the same should be clear from a more recent judgement of the
Supreme Court in State lof Pubjab v. Gurmit Singh,11 wherein the Court
made the following observations :-
21 of late crime against women in general and rape in
particular is on the increase...We must remember that a rapist
not only violates the
victims privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably
causes serious psychological as well as physical harm
in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault, it is
often destructive of whole personality of the victim. A
murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a
rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female..."
__________________________________________________--- On Thu, 8/19/10, Ivo
<[email protected]> wrote>> ****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...
Both cannot be equally good. This is illogical,> irrational, absurd.>> Let
Santosh not repeat the blunder again and again...********
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Goa-launch of the well-received *Into The Diaspora
Wilderness* by Selma Carvalho on Aug 29, 2010 (Sunday) at 11
am at Ravindra Bhavan, Margao. Meet the author, buy a signed
copy (only Rs 295 in Goa till stock lasts).
http://selmacarvalho.squarespace.com/
