[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Corrigendum to my prev. note:

I must really stop participating in these debates now. Given my serious
constraints of time, I am perhaps reading people's mail so hastily that
I do not even know what I am objecting to!

My apologies to Ash: I said:

> Some of your statements might be misconstrued to imply that
> disrespecting other religions is acceptable, such as: "But I might have
> a faith that requires eliminating kaffirs, surely the state can forbid
> that?"
> I am not in favor of that. I do believe that anyone can think of the
> other as a kafir or whatever, but he/she cannot kill on the basis of
> that belief.
> The state HAS to forbid that since it involves the use of physical force
> as against persuasion or even 'economic incentive.' 

How miserable! I did not even read your words properly, Ash! You said
"the state CAN forbid that" - I did not see it and thought you wrote

I am now fully guilty of probably misinterpreting you. I see your
argument leading to the same conclusion that I have been making, i.e.,
the forbiding of physical force completely, by the state. So we were in
agreement all along? What fun! 

I do believe now that despite this error from my end - given the haste
with which one reads, and the haste with which one replies - that we
agree on the fundamental statements on tolerance, and that there is
nothing more to say.

Let us move on to more pressing things.


This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/