Re: Modified addendum (religious)

[Abhijeet Pradhan <perdi420@yahoo.com>]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, this is the first time I am actively participating in an IPI debate so
please inform me if I am making mistakes in terms of adhering to the
protocols of the debate.

1..  I agree that minority communities require special attention in a
democracy.  However this attention is limited to making sure:
    a)  that the rights of minority communities are not abused, but are     
        protected.  
    b)  that minority communities are not discriminated against.  
    c)  that they are free to indulge in whichever actvity it is that makes 
        them a minority as long it does not trample the rights of any other 
        community.  
    d)  that they have the same opportunities for advancement as any other  
        community.  

2..  You should separate social, economic, religious and personal
aspirations, from each other.  The job of the government is to make sure
that the tools for reaching one's aspirations are provided, not to purchase
those aspirations for a part of its citizens, by using funds from the whole.
 By definition a "secular" government cannot subside religious aspirations. 


3..  "Have a heart" is not an objective reason for any course of action by a
government.  Being subjective and personal, this reason cannot be refuted by
logic.  Hence if allowed, "Have a heart" can be an misused or abused based
on personal preferences of politicians.  

Dr. Sabhlok's recommendations are fine.  A decade will give sufficient time
for those individuals who wish to subside other's religious aspirations to
build the infrastructure (trust funds etc) they need in order to do so.  

However, I am not clear on the tax break recommendation part.  If individual
or organization A gives a donation to religious organization B, then A
should not be given a tax break for those donations as they are part of the
common pool of funds.  Also organization B should not have to pay taxes on
those as taxes are already paid for by A.



--- "Dr. Sanjeev Sabhlok" <sanjeev@sabhlokcity.com> wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ashish wrote:
> -------------
> 
> >The dominant Hindu community should  remember that the minority needs
> >special attention in a democracy, cos their aspirations may not be
> >adequately represented in the First-Past-The-Post voting system.  C'mon
> >folks, have some heart; if Hajj pilgrimage is important for muslims (and
> >it is), we should be willingto spend a bit to this end.  Remember that
> >the aspiring Hajjis still have to provide most of the funds for their
> >travel.  
> >
> >Its like subsidising farmers for urea/rice/kerosene or pampering govt
> >workers - not efficient or fair, but serving a socio-economic purpose. 
> >Since we are discussing a manifesto, lets be focussed, and concentrate
> >on overhauling the features of our system that are most in need of
> >repair.  Chasing after "minority appeasement" issues are
> >counter-productive.  We will worry about them when the rest of our house
> >is in order.  
> 
> Ashish, I objected to religious subsidies not because I am a 'dominant
> Hindu' but because I am a minority myself - an agnostic. My aspiration is
> to NOT fund religious activity using my tax money.
> 
> In view of your objection, though, I propose the modified para as follows:
> 
> "While we would preserve and maintain all ancient religious sites
> as part of our cultural heritage, any direct subsidization of on-going
> religious activity by the state would be phased out over a decade since 
> it hurts those who do not believe in any religion. The state has strictly
> no 
> business in dabbling in religious activity. Instead, religious bodies
> registered 
> under a suitable law and which disclose their accounts publicly, including
> all 
> donations, would be provided income tax exemption on their donations, 
> just like the exemption provided to many other organizations.
> Further, no religious place of worship would be permitted to be
> constructed
> or to continue on public property such as roads."
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
> Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------