--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Santosh is my friend and colleague. I and a majority >of cyber-Goans,have much respect for him. However >let's analyze his post below: Is his beef (which we >have all read) against religion or is it against >an individual? And does he make that distinction is >his diatribe against the religious belief at issue? >
Dear Gilbert, Thanks for the customary kindness. But your charges against me are false. You are misrepresenting my views horribly. Have you read my posts on religious issues and ever tried to understand them? With all due respect, your gratuitous analysis of my response to Pat de Sousa is way off the mark. First, my beef is against people who try to impose their religious views on others, who want special exemptions for religious matters in secular/pluralistic public forums such as this one, and who brazenly exhibit their holier than thou attitude (like you do in every single one of your posts) in public. > >But it is difficult to excuse a very intelligent >person who does not take the trouble to separate them. >As mentioned in the past: On cyber-Goa: When does an >intelligent expose end and a personal activism >(sometimes ignorant oversight) begin? > What are you talking about here? What is the purpose of this innuendo? The excerpt of mine to which you are referring simply states the following: 1. Religious belief and piety does not necessarily make a person good. 2. There are many among the religious and the pious who have a sick and depraved mentality. 3. Religious issues should not receive immunity against criticism in secular public forums. 4. Those who have a sick and depraved mentality (and I now add those who are scamming or misinforming the public) should not be allowed to hide behind religious immunity. Do you disagree with any of the above assertions? If you do, please explain yourself. Cut out the rest of the nonsense. > >What I find disconcerting about Santosh's posts of >religion is: He care-freely walks away from Hinduism >by just stating that he no longer follows it. Then he >goes on to pontificate / bash very other religion >except about the Belief where he could make the >greatest impact, if he chooses to do so. (And I have >no doubt about his sincerity). > Nonsense! I have criticized Hinduism and all harmful Hindu notions and practices on Goanet and Goa-Goans for the last 10 years. I have rebutted the views of Hindutva sympathizers whenever they have ventured in these forums. If you care to go through the archives you will find my criticisms against the following presently relevant, harmful and anti-scientific practices of Hinduism: 1. Casteism 2. Astrology 3. Vastushashtra 4. Quackery in the name of Ayurveda 5. Vedic Mathematics 6. Hindutva philosophy and historical revisionism 7. Hindu godmen such as Satya Sai Baba 8. Hindu cults such as ISKCON 9. Hindu miracles and miracle hysteria such as lactophilic Ganesh idols 10. Contradictions in the Bhagvad Gita. 11. Hindu pseudospiritualism 12. Unwaranted bloated depictions of the knowledge and achievements of our ancestors. Will you retract your above false charge against me after reading through the archives? > >I noticed how the topic of homosexuals in the Catholic >faith suddenly ended, when the issues being discussed >were defined or when the contradictions or non-issues >exposed. > Gilbert, the problem with you is you give too much credit to yourself, which frankly you don't deserve. Honestly, your posts on the issue of homosexuals did not make any sense at all. I did not respond to what you wrote because I did not want to digress into unrelated and confused matters that you raised. For instance, you say that Fr. Ivo and Nasci Caldeira are right about homosexuality, when they claim based on no evidence that it is a sickness. And then you turn around and say that I am also right about this issue when I say and present a professional consensus statement of the American Psychiatric Association that homosexuality is not a sickness. Do you think this type of confusion and obfuscation, coming from an intelligent person, deserves a response? Do you tell your patient that the oncologist who says he has cancer is right, and that the other oncologist who says he does not have cancer is also right? Cheers, Santosh