Hi all, I would second this proposal in toto, from George Pinto. It could promote compassion and understanding among people, when out in the open; rather than in a coutroom where only a few people are privy. There is a lot of sense in it. The so called laws of Blasphemy should be repealed all over the world; starting with Muslim and Islamic Countries to begin with, since Islamism is like a dictatorship and Fascist movement and intrinsically so. Fast on their track is the Hindutva fascist program of the RSS and BJP. When this BJP and VHP were asked for a dialogue, some years ago by the Church Authorities in New Delhi, these groups just refused to talk, as their sinister plans would be exposed. When the Popes visit came, these groups insisted a Sadhu be present at the Ceremony of Holy Mass by the Pope as main celebrant. This was so silly as if it could prove anything like all religions are equal. Will these groups make 'such a demand' from Muslim religious? Bloody hypocretes! In the end they only made a fool of themselves. The helpless Sadhu looked and felt like a 'Fish Out of Water' totally lost physically and spirtually! Such is the communally charged atmosphere in India. Wake Up now and arrest this. Nascy Caldeira
________________________________ From: George Pinto <georgejpi...@yahoo.com> To: Goanet <goa...@goanet.org> Sent: Monday, 28 May 2012 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [Goanet] Sanal Edamaruku trial My view is that the Sanal Edamaruku case should not be adjudicated in a court of law but in an open public forum with both sides presenting their views and moderated by an independent person. The Indian courts are clogged enough and emphasis should be on violent crimes, including where real injury of life and limb is suffered like murder, rape, etc. and measurable like financial loss and theft of property, etc. In a democracy, one can make the same arguments in an open public forum, as vigorously and robustly as in a court of law. This can be done in a calm, civilized manner. Indian courts of law which derive their legitimacy from a secular constitution, are still a notch below in matters of truth than an open public discussion of such matters, better settled in the court of public opinion. Imagine if all of India through public forums, television, newspapers engaged in these discussions rather than the narrow confines of a court of law. And Sanal and his accusers would be no less wrong or no less right at the end of such a forum, where the public can make up its own mind after hearing both sides. Towards this end, I would hope the Christian group withdraws its legal case (would that be the Christian thing to do?) and instead makes available a church hall and invites Sanal and his colleagues to an open public discussion about his statements and about miracles, religious offense, Church impropriety, etc. Let each side present its case without fear or favor. The truths which result are no less true than those derived in court, but substantially more valid when derived in the court of public opinion. And yes, I believe the public is free and capable of making up its own mind. That is how democracy should work. George P.S. I have intentionally not used the word "debate" for such a proposed forum, a male-oriented word which implies confrontation as opposed to discussion. In fact, most of the voices on this issue are male, and they seem to prefer to resolve this issue as they do war - the tone and language unmistakeably hostile. Perhaps it is time to seek civil resolutions - again, for one aggrieved party would that be the Christian thing to do?
