########################################################################## # If Goanet stops reaching you, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
Mario Goveia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But how the hell can you, as a Muslim, oppose freedom and democracy for fellow Muslims, well knowing that there are very few Muslim democracies, and well knowing that Muslims. There really is a lot of religious labelling going on at Goanet, of which the above posting is but one example. There are plenty more in all the discussions on US elections, Iraq and on the discussion on caste. What I mean by 'religious labelling' is analysing other people's views and postings on the basis of assumed religious affiliation. What does Tariq being a Muslim (if that's what he is, I have never found him identifying himself as such) have to do with the statements he made? How does a person being a Hindu become the basis for criticising the comments s/he makes on caste. And why is another person's being a Christian dragged in gratuituously into the discussion? This approach makes me very uncomfortable. If asked to identify myself, religious affiliation would not even figure in the first hundred items. Okay, I am an atheist, but I think for most people their religious affiliation is not an overwhelming part of their identity, and certainly not of their social and political views. So, let us stop this business of 'X is a Muslim/Christian/Hindu/whatever posting a certain view' and respond to the merits of the argument rather than the assumed religious affiliation of the person making them. Further, why are we assuming some monolithic structure to a faith, which makes all the people of that faith have the same views? Why can't Christian differ with Christian, Hindu with Hindu, and Muslim with Muslim and etc. with etc. on the subject of Iraq or US elections or whatever. BTW, on the subject of whether a person can be identified as a Hindu based on whether s/he believes in God or not, in India the legal position is that anybody born of Hindu parents is 'Hindu', unless converted to another religion. Further, I think one is legally whatever religion one describes oneself as. Suppose X says s/he is Christian, whether going to church or not, believing in God or not, who is to dispute this? Maybe there might be exceptions to this general rule like Zoroastrinism...