91–100 of 126 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't we talking about religion-influenced restriction to the freedom of expression here? Why does religion go against us, but we should not go against it? They take pride in hurting whatever I consider worthy.
What you fail to acknowledge is that by going against someone over any disagrement you're hurting not only civility, but you transform yourself into the very thing you're fighting against.
The chairman of Press Council of India and has written to the Chief Minister of the state of Mumbai (Maharashtra) to intervene and sort out this issue citing "freedom of speech" Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian constitution [0]. [0] http://ibnlive.in.com/news/katju-writes-to-maha-cm-on-arrest...
Quoting the full paragraph here -
"" In the letter addressed to Chavan, Justice Katju has written: "It is alleged that she has been arrested for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. To my mind it is absurd to say that protesting against a bandh hurts religious sentiments. Under Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution, freedom of speech is a guaranteed fundamental right. We are living in a democracy, not a fascist dictatorship. In fact this arrest itself appears to be a criminal act since under sections 341 and 342 it is a crime to wrongfully arrest or wrongfully confine someone who has committed no crime. ""
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends. I would say that religions give a lot of people a meaningful life by providing values, hope and guidance on what they should aspire to. But there are always those on the extreme fringes, who make the rest look bad.
That's what they claim to give. And many of those people actually believe this, to the point of assuming that anyone who is not religious has no values or morals, and is obviously driven completely by hedonism. The question is not "what role does religion fulfil", but rather, "if religion wasn't there, would things have been better?". Because, e.g. many recreational drugs ALSO provide values, hope, and guidance (on o…
Be careful. I think the general consensus about these observations is that what's happening is that less stable and secure societies tend to make people more religious, rather than that religion tends to make societies less stable and secure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if India doesn't have a it, the question really is, shouldn't India have it. "Freedom of Expression" is not an American/French/Western concept. Shouldn't it be a natural human right? In any case, its a fundamental right, enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Its not really a part of the culture, even in highly educated circles. Part of that has to do with the Indian apathy towards Humanities and pursuit of pragm…
> "Freedom of Expression" is not an American/French/Western concept. Shouldn't it be a natural human right? It is a distinctly "western" thought[1] (as is "Human Rights"[2]). I actually didn't know whether it had been imported into India, given india's rather "mixed" (east/west) history. The concept of 'natural human rights' is also a western concept, so no, I don't think we should continue to talk like our (western)…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if India doesn't have a it, the question really is, shouldn't India have it. "Freedom of Expression" is not an American/French/Western concept. Shouldn't it be a natural human right? In any case, its a fundamental right, enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Its not really a part of the culture, even in highly educated circles. Part of that has to do with the Indian apathy towards Humanities and pursuit of pragm…
> "Freedom of Expression" is not an American/French/Western concept. Shouldn't it be a natural human right? It is a distinctly "western" thought[1] (as is "Human Rights"[2]). I actually didn't know whether it had been imported into India, given india's rather "mixed" (east/west) history. The concept of 'natural human rights' is also a western concept, so no, I don't think we should continue to talk like our (western)…
Wikipedia lists "western" examples because western canon is very well documented, and this documentation is reliable and extensive enough to quote from.
My readings of Indian history have led me to accept that the freedom of thought and speech have existed, formally and legally, for at least a thousand years - particularly, read up on the times of Asoka's rule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you fail to acknowledge is that by going against someone over any disagrement you're hurting not only civility, but you transform yourself into the very thing you're fighting against.
What should I do then? Sit on my bottom and pretend to be happy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a meaningless question. How would a world without religion come about? By flipping a switch, and everybody becomes well educated, peace loving, hyper-rational atheists? In that case, probably yeah, it'd be better. On the other hand, if you start lopping the heads of anyone found to be taking guidance from any teaching that isn't solidly grounded in hard science, then, no, it certainly won't be better.
That's right because all religious people are poorly educated war loving and irrational. Seriously... Do you forget what was responsible for spreading education so rapidly around the world (give you a hint, it wasn't atheists). There are a number of religions that are founded in rationality, and large components of others that are pure rationality. Just because you don't believe in (a) G/god doesn't mean you aren't r…
And still they think of themselves as an example for everyone to live up to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What should I do then? Sit on my bottom and pretend to be happy?
Hell no! Fight them back with better ideas, respect, and equality. But first of all, you have to understand what you're up against, study what they say, find cracks in their logic, and show that you're both on the same side. It's all a matter of perspective.
I think we should not be tolerant to people who violate basic human rights. They either behave or we should find a way to catapult them away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hell no! Fight them back with better ideas, respect, and equality. But first of all, you have to understand what you're up against, study what they say, find cracks in their logic, and show that you're both on the same side. It's all a matter of perspective.
You respect them and then they lynch you. When a tolerant culture meets untolerant culture, the former usually backs off even if it's more advanced. Take France as example. I think we should not be tolerant to people who violate basic human rights. They either behave or we should find a way to catapult them away.