[Goanet] Goanet] 'Khawateen cant discard purdah for politics'
This is atrocious. Why cannot Women have the same rights as men? This is tantamount to likening Women to Animals who are kept on a leash and are subject to the wills of their masters. Even animals have rights and under the Muslim system, it would appear that women do not have any rights whatsoever. What an antiquated and biased system. No wonder they have to resort to violence to make a point. And perhaps this is the way they subjugate their women into obedience. Regards.. Manuel (Eddie) Tavares.
Re: [Goanet] 'Khawateen cant discard purdah for politics'
Re: 'Burqa' and 'Kasti' Food for thought When burqa became the norm, did Muslim women fly around the world in jet planes? Was camera around then? Did the women show their faces to the outside world, even immediate outside world (except within the household) without the burqa? Did Muslim women attend Universities? Should antique norms be burried and/or used without after-shocks? Why was Kasti the norm? (in Goa). Kasti was never a tradition. It was the bare necessity. Tradition is practiced by a particular tribe in South America (Brazil) where a mere waist band is the full dress code. It is funny how women there feel shy to lower the band even to relieve themselves whereas every thing is normal when the band is in place, being bare naked all the while ( men, women and children). Has anyone here on this thread worn a 'Kasti' by any chance as a routine dress code? I am asking this question because I have (as a young boy when going fishing or swiming in the river. The only reason being there were no underwears at that time and Kasti was the underwear and very effective too, for men. And I feel proud to have discarded it, never to remember about it enough to give me a 'high' or a 'low' Cheers floriano goasuraj 9890470896 www.goasu-raj.org - Original Message - From: Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com To: estb. 1994!Goa's premiere mailing list goanet@lists.goanet.org Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 2:15 AM Subject: Re: [Goanet] 'Khawateen cant discard purdah for politics' --- On Fri, 3/12/10, Frederick Noronha fredericknoro...@gmail.com wrote: Here again, the leftovers of our religious assumptions come into play. A. Separation of church and state. B. Freedom of religion. C. Freedom of expression. 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 Santosh
Re: [Goanet] 'Khawateen cant discard purdah for politics'
Does the secular democracy as defined below exist in reality? Or is it just some desirable goal we long hanker for, but is always out of reach, as in Plato's The Republic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_(Plato) FN PS: See Pankaj Mishra, Secular democracy goes on trial http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16mishra.html QUOTE Other nations wearing some of the emblems of Western modernity - secularism, democracy, a free-market economy - hardly offer any guarantees of free speech. Consider, for example, China, India and Russia, three multiethnic and officially secular nation-states that are experimenting with variations on the free-market economy. In all these countries, a growing middle class turned a blind eye to, or even actively supported, the suppression of ethnic minorities in the name of national unity. In democratic India, up to 70,000 people have died in Kashmir in a violent insurgency that the Indian news media have yet to honestly reckon with. In Russian Chechnya, civilians and journalists have been as much victims as Islamic rebels. And such is the power of Chinese nationalism that even most dissident intellectuals in the West feel that Tibet and Xinjiang are part of their motherland. The destructive potential of modern nationalism should not surprise us. Traditional religion hardly played a role in the unprecedented violence of the 20th century, which was largely caused by secular ideologies - Nazism and Communism. Secular nationalism has been known to impose intellectual conformity and suppress dissent even in advanced democratic societies. In America, it was at least partly the fear of being perceived as unpatriotic that held back the freest news media in the world from rigorously questioning the official justification for and conduct of the war in Iraq. UNQUOTE And: AUSTRALIA: Whatever happened to secular democracy? http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/whatever-happened-to-secular-democracy/story-e6frg6zo-1225813998714 Britain is not a secular democracy http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Britain-secular-democracy/article-239852-detail/article.html On 13 March 2010 02:15, Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com wrote: 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. -- Frederick Noronha Columnist :: journalism :: editing :: alt.publishing :: photography :: blogging P +91-832-2409490 M +91-9822122436 A:784 Saligao 403511 Goa India
Re: [Goanet] 'Khawateen cant discard purdah for politics'
--- On Sat, 3/13/10, Frederick Noronha fredericknoro...@gmail.com wrote: Does the secular democracy as defined below exist in reality? Yes, it does. Having lived in both India and the U.S., I know from personal experience that it does in both these countries. Secularism exists in both countries because: 1. There is a constitutional separation between church and state. 2. The state has no official religion. 3. The state makes no laws establishing or prohibiting any religion or religious practice. 4. The state does not discriminate people based on religion. 5. Every citizen can choose to practice any religion he/she wants. Democracy exists in both countries because: 1. The people of these countries get to choose their government through free and fair elections. 2. The elected representatives of the people make laws, and govern with the consent of the people. 3. The elected civilian representatives of the people are in control of the armed forces, war power and state power. Since Noronha appears to believe that there is no real secular democracy anywhere, the burden is on him to explain why the U.S. and India do not qualify. The copied and pasted quotes and links provided by him below appear to indicate a confusion between what is meant by a free market economy and a secular democracy. I thought it was common knowledge that Russia and China are not democracies, and that Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy. The fact that the high court in Australia ruled that there is no constitutional separation between church and state would be less well known. But journalists ought to find out about such facts, if they are not aware of them. Cheers, Santosh --- On Sat, 3/13/10, Frederick Noronha fredericknoro...@gmail.com wrote: Or is it just some desirable goal we long hanker for, but is always out of reach, as in Plato's The Republic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_(Plato) FN PS: See Pankaj Mishra, Secular democracy goes on trial http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16mishra.html QUOTE Other nations wearing some of the emblems of Western modernity - secularism, democracy, a free-market economy - hardly offer any guarantees of free speech. Consider, for example, China, India and Russia, three multiethnic and officially secular nation-states that are experimenting with variations on the free-market economy. In all these countries, a growing middle class turned a blind eye to, or even actively supported, the suppression of ethnic minorities in the name of national unity. In democratic India, up to 70,000 people have died in Kashmir in a violent insurgency that the Indian news media have yet to honestly reckon with. In Russian Chechnya, civilians and journalists have been as much victims as Islamic rebels. And such is the power of Chinese nationalism that even most dissident intellectuals in the West feel that Tibet and Xinjiang are part of their motherland. The destructive potential of modern nationalism should not surprise us. Traditional religion hardly played a role in the unprecedented violence of the 20th century, which was largely caused by secular ideologies - Nazism and Communism. Secular nationalism has been known to impose intellectual conformity and suppress dissent even in advanced democratic societies. In America, it was at least partly the fear of being perceived as unpatriotic that held back the freest news media in the world from rigorously questioning the official justification for and conduct of the war in Iraq. UNQUOTE And: AUSTRALIA: Whatever happened to secular democracy? http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/whatever-happened-to-secular-democracy/story-e6frg6zo-1225813998714 Britain is not a secular democracy http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Britain-secular-democracy/article-239852-detail/article.html
[Goanet] 'Khawateen cant discard purdah for politics'
Samir Kelekar wrote on Goanet: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Khawateen-cant-discard-purdah-for-politics/articleshow/5673989.cms Marshall and Sandeep, defenders of freedom of speech, check this out. Have some guts to write a while diatribe against this! samir My response: Samir, What guts does one need to share opinions? I have my own issues with religion and I have made them clear on several previous occasions. I endorse Taslima Nasreen’s views on the burqa (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?233670 ) and I fully share her concerns. I strongly condemn the violence that is being perpetrated against her by extremist elements and I also unequivocally condemn the Political parties (which include the Congress, the BJP, the Left and others) for adopting double standards and for failing to protect our Artists, writers and other creative and cultural practitioners. The concepts of God and Religion have been used consistently by the stronger to suppress the weaker and it goes without saying that the 3 major religions of the World - Christianity, Islam and Hinduism - have traditionally always been hostile towards women. Christianity is much better now. Hinduism is reforming slowly while Islam continues to be held hostage by its orthodox religious adherents. If I had the power to legislate, I would fully support the right to criticize religions. I would also ban the forcible imposition of the burqa, loudspeakers in religious places, religious education in schools and other educational institutions for children, caste and other discriminatory practices, etc. I would also demolish all the illegalities happening in the name of religion like illegal roadside shrines. In my opinion, a true secular society would think on these lines. The sad part about our democracy is that the believers want the right to freely propagate their own beliefs, even if the beliefs might be unscientific, irrational, absurd and weird, even if the beliefs are against the cherished principles of freedom, liberty and equality, even if the beliefs are against human rights but they will oppose even valid criticism against their beliefs. That is my principal grouse against religion and its adherents. That they do not believe in the principles of reciprocity. The ugly genie of religious intolerance will keep popping out from the religious lamps that they hold. They want full freedoms but will deny others theirs. If somebody will say anything that goes against their beliefs, they will complain about sentiments being hurt. They will also indulge in violent activities, street rioting, mob violence, fatwas and will do anything and everything to suppress the other person’s rights and freedoms. A short time back, I posted the following two articles: Johann Hari: Why should I respect these oppressive religions? http://tinyurl.com/d8u5ok Johann Hari: Despite these riots, I stand by what I wrote http://tinyurl.com/bny9ma The arguments used by the author to support his contentions are nothing short of brilliant. I agree entirely with what he says. In a true democracy, the cherished principles of Freedom of speech and expression must cut both ways. If you want to say that religion is good, you must also hear out why religion is bad. The “Quid Pro Quo” must exist without which reform just won’t happen. Cheers, Sandeep
Re: [Goanet] 'Khawateen cant discard purdah for politics'
In a secular democracy with full rights and liberties, one ought to be free to do the following: 1. Voluntarily wear the burqa. 2. Use loudspeakers with the permission of the local community and authorities. 3. Impart religious education in private schools, not supported by tax payer or public funds. 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. 5. Peacefully oppose or complain about criticism by others of their religious views. 6. Criticize or peacefully oppose religion and religious views, or irreligiosity and irreligious views. 7. Peacefully convert others to one's own religion or irreligiousness. 8. Peacefully dissuade others from converting to a different religion or to irreligiousness. Cheers, Santosh --- On Fri, 3/12/10, Sandeep Heble sandeephe...@gmail.com wrote: If I had the power to legislate, I would fully support the right to criticize religions. I would also ban the forcible imposition of the burqa, loudspeakers in religious places, religious education in schools and other educational institutions for children, caste and other discriminatory practices, etc. I would also demolish all the illegalities happening in the name of religion like illegal roadside shrines. In my opinion, a true secular society would think on these lines. The sad part about our democracy is that the believers want the right to freely propagate their own beliefs, even if the beliefs might be unscientific, irrational, absurd and weird, even if the beliefs are against the cherished principles of freedom, liberty and equality, even if the beliefs are against human rights but they will oppose even valid criticism against their beliefs. That is my principal grouse against religion and its adherents. That they do not believe in the principles of reciprocity. The ugly genie of religious intolerance will keep popping out from the religious lamps that they hold. They want full freedoms but will deny others theirs. If somebody will say anything that goes against their beliefs, they will complain about sentiments being hurt. They will also indulge in violent activities, street rioting, mob violence, fatwas and will do anything and everything to suppress the other person’s rights and freedoms.
[Goanet] 'Khawateen cant discard purdah for politics'
Samir With extremists and fundamentalists from both sides feeding on each other, it is those who are caught in the middle who are the victims. Unfortunately, we seem to have begun to accept that two wrongs make a right. We also seem to suffer from an inferiority complex that we always seem to compare ourselves with the lowest common denominator and benchmark ourselves and our values against what is lower than ours rather than what is superior or ideal for us. No wonder all our resources and economic gains are frittered away in destructive activities. In a lighter vein, your question to Sandeep and me reminds me of an anecdote that I read. Khrushchev had just succeeded Stalin and was addressing the General Assembly for the first time. He criticised Stalin severely, denounced him and found upteen faults with his policies. At which point someone from the audience interrupted his speech by shouting out loudly 'what were you doing when all this was going on?' There was a stunned silence. No one knew what to expect next. Khrushchev, himself was taken off-guard and lost his composure. After a while, he composed himself, and looking in the direction from where the voice came, asked 'will the gentleman who said that kindly stand up and introduce himself?' There followed a pin drop silence. Khrushchev repeated his question once again, only to be followed by deafening silence. He then said ' I was doing exactly what this gentleman is doing now'. He then went on to complete his speech. Freedom of Speech or expression is not absolute. It is restricted and contained by the conditions around us. That is why Tendulkar and Gavaskar cannot speak freely on certain issues in Bombay. That is why Karan Johar, Amitabh Bachhan, Shah Rukh Khan and other artistes have to obtain 'clearances' even after receiving the Censor's certificate before their films can be shown. Regards, Marshall
Re: [Goanet] 'Khawateen cant discard purdah for politics'
Let me respond to each of the points made by Santosh: In a secular democracy with full rights and liberties, one ought to be free to do the following: 1. Voluntarily wear the burqa. I agree but presently the Islamic society is allowing only a one-sided propaganda which is what I strongly object to. Those who criticize the burqa must be allowed to air their views with the same freedom that those who support the burqa have. A woman may then decide for herself what is right and wrong for her. 2. Use loudspeakers with the permission of the local community and authorities. What I am opposed to is the persistent and day-to-day use of Loudspeakers by religious institutions which is hazardous to the health of the nearby residents and disturbs their Peace and tranquility. The right to live in peace is a fundamental right and the use of blaring loudspeakers directly violates this right. Concessions may however be given by the State to Religious Institutions on Festive occasions. 3. Impart religious education in private schools, not supported by tax payer or public funds. In my opinion, it is the fundamental duty of the State to ensure that every child receives modern scientific education and grows up learning concepts of freedom, liberty, equality and secularism. Religious education, which violates these cherished principles, must be disallowed. 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. I agree entirely. I am not proposing a ban on God and Religion :- ) 5. Peacefully oppose or complain about criticism by others of their religious views. I agree. It is the violence that I am opposed to and strongly condemn. 6. Criticize or peacefully oppose religion and religious views, or irreligiosity and irreligious views. I agree entirely. However, criticism of religion often ends up getting messy with the adherents of religion resorting to the politics of threats, intimidation and violence. This is my principal grouse against religion and its adherents. 7. Peacefully convert others to one's own religion or irreligiousness. I am ok with Conversion so long as it is not done by force, fraud or allurement. 8. Peacefully dissuade others from converting to a different religion or to irreligiousness. Yes, so long as this too is not done by force, fraud or allurement. Cheers, Sandeep
Re: [Goanet] 'Khawateen cant discard purdah for politics'
Sandeep, I see your solutions and point of view as being centered around a perspective which you accept as normal. That's the problem with all of us on such issues. We let our own point of view decide what is the norm, and then go about applying it to everyone! FN PS: Is there some mischief behind Tasleema's article, or is the author backtracking (see comments below the article)? http://www.twocircles.net/2010mar02/never_wrote_any_kannada_daily_says_taslima.html Sandeep Heble wrote: I endorse Taslima Nasreen’s views on the burqa (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?233670 ) and I fully share her concerns. I strongly condemn the violence that is being perpetrated against her by extremist elements and I also unequivocally condemn the Political parties (which include the Congress, the BJP, the Left and others) for adopting double standards and for failing to protect our Artists, writers and other creative and cultural practitioners
Re: [Goanet] 'Khawateen cant discard purdah for politics'
Secular and democracy means different things to different people. Indian secularism is a different animal from the Western European one. The West fumed when East Germany chose to call itself the German *Democratic* Republic. The US sees itself as one big demoracy, and India claims to be the largest democracy in the world (though the Americans are quick to change that terminology to the most populous democracy in the world for obvious reasons!) 1. Why should we be just discussing the burqa, when there are other dress codes considered inappropriate by members of a different community? 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!) 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? 4. Who decides what is personal or public harm? 5. Shouldn't criticism be sensitive and avoid situations which cause public riots and affray? Is the artistic freedom of a Hussein more crucial than disallowing communalism to be stoked needlessly? 6. Why would anyone want to/need to oppose someone else's views? 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? 7. It depends which religious tradition one belongs to, and the attitude of that religious tradition towards conversion. Some religions do not allow conversions, others do not see the need for it, while yet others adopt an embrace-and-extend policy on conversions. Semetic religions tend to be of the proselytising kind. Attitudes would depend on whose point of view carries weight in which part of the world. 8. Why dissuade? Don't people have the right to decide for themselves? Here again, the leftovers of our religious assumptions come into play. FN On 12 March 2010 20:09, Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com wrote: In a secular democracy with full rights and liberties, one ought to be free to do the following: 1. Voluntarily wear the burqa. 2. Use loudspeakers with the permission of the local community and authorities. 3. Impart religious education in private schools, not supported by tax payer or public funds. 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. 5. Peacefully oppose or complain about criticism by others of their religious views. 6. Criticize or peacefully oppose religion and religious views, or irreligiosity and irreligious views. 7. Peacefully convert others to one's own religion or irreligiousness. 8. Peacefully dissuade others from converting to a different religion or to irreligiousness.
Re: [Goanet] 'Khawateen cant discard purdah for politics'
It looks like Sandeep and I agree on all issues below, except one. The only point on which I disagree with him is on the freedom to impart and seek peaceful religious education through private schools and institutions that are not supported by tax payer money. I submit that in a secular democracy the state has no right to ban any kind of private education, as long as it does not promote violence, cause public harm, or cause personal physical harm. Cheers, Santosh --- On Fri, 3/12/10, Sandeep Heble sandeephe...@gmail.com wrote: Let me respond to each of the points made by Santosh: In a secular democracy with full rights and liberties, one ought to be free to do the following: 1. Voluntarily wear the burqa. I agree but presently the Islamic society is allowing only a one-sided propaganda which is what I strongly object to. Those who criticize the burqa must be allowed to air their views with the same freedom that those who support the burqa have. A woman may then decide for herself what is right and wrong for her. 2. Use loudspeakers with the permission of the local community and authorities. What I am opposed to is the persistent and day-to-day use of Loudspeakers by religious institutions which is hazardous to the health of the nearby residents and disturbs their Peace and tranquility. The right to live in peace is a fundamental right and the use of blaring loudspeakers directly violates this right. Concessions may however be given by the State to Religious Institutions on Festive occasions. 3. Impart religious education in private schools, not supported by tax payer or public funds. In my opinion, it is the fundamental duty of the State to ensure that every child receives modern scientific education and grows up learning concepts of freedom, liberty, equality and secularism. Religious education, which violates these cherished principles, must be disallowed. 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. I agree entirely. I am not proposing a ban on God and Religion :- ) 5. Peacefully oppose or complain about criticism by others of their religious views. I agree. It is the violence that I am opposed to and strongly condemn. 6. Criticize or peacefully oppose religion and religious views, or irreligiosity and irreligious views. I agree entirely. However, criticism of religion often ends up getting messy with the adherents of religion resorting to the politics of threats, intimidation and violence. This is my principal grouse against religion and its adherents. 7. Peacefully convert others to one's own religion or irreligiousness. I am ok with Conversion so long as it is not done by force, fraud or allurement. 8. Peacefully dissuade others from converting to a different religion or to irreligiousness. Yes, so long as this too is not done by force, fraud or allurement. Cheers, Sandeep
Re: [Goanet] 'Khawateen cant discard purdah for politics'
--- On Fri, 3/12/10, Frederick Noronha fredericknoro...@gmail.com 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
[Goanet] 'Khawateen cant discard purdah for politics'
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Khawateen-cant-discard-purdah-for-politics/articleshow/5673989.cms Marshall and Sandeep, defenders of freedom of speech, check this out. Have some guts to write a while diatribe against this! samir
