On Wednesday 10 Aug 2011 8:33:29 am Arjun Guha wrote: > I find this thread to be a thought-provoking one in which secularism and > the freedom to practice multiple religions within a secular democracy have > been discussed. Not clear what its relationship is to Swamy's article. Can > secularism wipe out Islamic terror? The issue is a serious one. >
The relationship to Swamy's article is as follows. Swamy's article represents an extreme right wing viewpoint of a type that is almost never discussed on this list. It is easier to dismiss than discuss - just like society would rather dismiss the smell of someone's fart at a formal dinner than discuss it. Personal comfort levels are violated less by dismissal. There is another contradiction in that article that has an interesting, if roundabout connection with Silk list. That is the question of "assuming goodwill". It would be difficult for anyone reading that article to assume that there is much goodwill in there. On those grounds alone the article fails to qualify for discussion on here :) IMO In my view, given the two fundamental premises of this list - 'Intelligent Conversation" and "Assume goodwill" that article poses a challenge. Any intention of discussing that article on here would mean accepting that lack of goodwill is a fact of life and a political fact and it might be necessary, in the interest of "intelligent conversation" to discuss viewpoints and articles in which lack of goodwill is prominent. That demands that any differences of opinion on this list would require assumption of the very goodwill that the article lacks. If someone supports Swamy's conclusions on this list, other listmembers would have to assume goodwill. That sets up some interesting challenges! LOL. I found that idea really fascinating. :D I am honestly tickled by such dilemmas. Just my views. The diversion into a disucssion of secularism was mine. but the value, and my own learning, came from some great inputs from others. Intelligent conversation is still possible. shiv
