Dear Jose Colaco, I have always believed that the English language is written in only one script - the Roman; I presume "Romi" is your way of saying "Roman". Now, from your statement "especially when it is written in the Romi script", I reckon it is written in some other script/s as well. Kindly name this/these additional script/s used for English and oblige. Re: Caste system - (1) If you deplore the mention of any term, I would say that the best course for you would be to desist from participating in any discussion wherein the term is necessarily used. (2) Considering that you had yourself used the term earlier in an article, I put the two statements together and presumed that you are under the mistaken impression that the "dissipation" has done its work and the discrimination is a thing of the past. But that, unfortunately, has not happened. Hence my reference to wishful thinking. (3) Perhaps, like me, you feel that Christianity being an egalitarian religion, caste discrimination has no place therein. But, considering that it does exist and has been existing for centuries, what should be our response as Catholics? Should we close our eyes to the happenings and pretend that it does not exist, because it should not have, or should we do something for its abolition? (4) As far as "special privileges by way of Reservations" is concerned, let us not forget that an injustice was done to Christian dalits by the makers of the Constitution of India under the influence of the Christian members of the Constituent assembly who claimed that caste discrimination did not exist among Christians. One of these was a Catholic priest. And now, over 60 years later, the Christian Churches are pressing to reverse this provision!
Re: documentary proof - You are a lawyer, I am not. But there is no question that an accused person is innocent until proved guilty. Yet, a person who himself knows that he is guilty, or his lawyer, can take shelter under this axiom and demand documentary proof; would this not signify a criminal bent of mind? Is it not, therefore, a convenient argument for a criminal or his lawyer to escape punishment? It is not always possible to provide documentary proof; and such is the case with the issue you have taken up and demanded one. In one of my posts I have related a reported act of Fr. Conceicao D'Silva, that he carted away the paraphernalia of the disbanded maandd in Kumbiabhat. What sort of documentary proof could anyone produce? To drive home this point, I have cited three situations where documentary proof would not be available. The first situation, though hypothetical, is not too far fetched. Should the pickpocket be declared innocent for want of documentary proof, in spite of being caught with the res furtiva? The second incident actually happened right in front of my house; the priest concerned is Fr. Conceicao D'Silva, then Chaplain of Ambelim; and he came at the request of the householders. When I relate this incident to friends they do not believe me since, according to them, a Cross cannot be haunted and hence exorcising it is just out of the question. What documentary proof could I produce to convince them that the incident did in fact occur? The third incident occurred over 400 years ago. If I am not able to produce documentary proof would it mean that this incident did not actually occur? Hope I have clarified the matter to your satisfaction. If not, would be pleased to clarify further. Do advise. With regards, Sebastian Borges On 25 August 2013 : Jose Colaco <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Sebastian Borges, I have always believed that English is a relatively facile language, especially when it is written in the Romi script. So, when I state that " I absolutely deplore the mention and use of The Hindu Caste System wrt Christianity, be it for subjugation OR for the purpose of gaining special privileges by way of Reservations" , I believe that reasonable individuals would understand IT to be a statement of my position and NOT "wishful thinking". Now, I asked Augusto Pinto a few question related to his posting. The questions, inter alia, were (and still are) as follows: 1: what specifically have the two priest done? 2: do you have documentary proof? Would you please clarify WHY you categorized the second question as being a "very convenient argument for a defence lawyer having a criminal bent of mind; with this ploy, any culprit could go scot free" Is it that you are blissfully unaware of the prevailing Law of the Land in which you live; a law which considers an accused as being innocent (and NOT a culprit) unless PROVED to be guilty? I hope I am wrong on this but I wonder whether you have intentionally made a "simple matter complicated" & whether you are "shooting from the hip without reading and digesting the matter". the best of wishes jc ----------- Sebastian Borges
