Santosh is my friend and colleague. I and a majority
of cyber-Goans,have much respect for him. However
let's analyze his post below: Is his beef (which we
have all read) against religion or is it against
an individual? And does he make that distinction is
his diatribe against the religious belief at issue?
Thanks for the customary kindness. But your charges
against me are false. You are misrepresenting my views
horribly. Have you read my posts on religious issues
and ever tried to understand them? With all
due respect, your gratuitous analysis of my response
to Pat de Sousa is way off the mark.
First, my beef is against people who try to impose
their religious views on others, who want special
exemptions for religious matters in
secular/pluralistic public forums such as this one,
and who brazenly exhibit their holier than thou
attitude (like you do in every single one of your
posts) in public.
But it is difficult to excuse a very intelligent
person who does not take the trouble to separate
them. >As mentioned in the past: On cyber-Goa: When
does an >intelligent expose end and a personal
activism >(sometimes ignorant oversight) begin?
What are you talking about here? What is the purpose
of this innuendo? The excerpt of mine to which you are
referring simply states the following:
1. Religious belief and piety does not necessarily
make a person good.
2. There are many among the religious and the pious
who have a sick and depraved mentality.
3. Religious issues should not receive immunity
against criticism in secular public forums.
4. Those who have a sick and depraved mentality (and I
now add those who are scamming or misinforming the
public) should not be allowed to hide behind religious
Do you disagree with any of the above assertions? If
you do, please explain yourself. Cut out the rest of
What I find disconcerting about Santosh's posts of
religion is: He care-freely walks away from Hinduism
by just stating that he no longer follows it. Then he
goes on to pontificate / bash very other religion
except about the Belief where he could make the
greatest impact, if he chooses to do so. (And I have
no doubt about his sincerity).
Nonsense! I have criticized Hinduism and all harmful
Hindu notions and practices on Goanet and Goa-Goans
for the last 10 years. I have rebutted the views of
Hindutva sympathizers whenever they have ventured in
these forums. If you care to go through the archives
you will find my criticisms against the following
presently relevant, harmful and anti-scientific
practices of Hinduism:
4. Quackery in the name of Ayurveda
5. Vedic Mathematics
6. Hindutva philosophy and historical revisionism
7. Hindu godmen such as Satya Sai Baba
8. Hindu cults such as ISKCON
9. Hindu miracles and miracle hysteria such as
lactophilic Ganesh idols
10. Contradictions in the Bhagvad Gita.
11. Hindu pseudospiritualism
12. Unwaranted bloated depictions of the knowledge and
Will you retract your above false charge against me
after reading through the archives?
I noticed how the topic of homosexuals in the
Catholic >faith suddenly ended, when the issues being
discussed >were defined or when the contradictions or
Gilbert, the problem with you is you give too much
credit to yourself, which frankly you don't deserve.
Honestly, your posts on the issue of homosexuals did
not make any sense at all. I did not respond to what
you wrote because I did not want to digress into
unrelated and confused matters that you raised. For
instance, you say that Fr. Ivo and Nasci Caldeira are
right about homosexuality, when they claim based on no
evidence that it is a sickness. And then you turn
around and say that I am also right about this issue
when I say and present a professional consensus
statement of the American Psychiatric Association that
homosexuality is not a sickness. Do you think this
type of confusion and obfuscation, coming from an
intelligent person, deserves a response?
Do you tell your patient that the oncologist who says
he has cancer is right, and that the other oncologist
who says he does not have cancer
is also right?