Discussion:
ARE WE CHRISTIANS OR HINDUS IN INDIA SECULAR COUNTRY?
(too old to reply)
Stephen Dias
2014-07-25 22:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Statement made by Dy Chief Minister Francisco d"Sousa and Minister of PWD
Sudin Dhavalikar on Hindutava in the floor of assembly was irrelevant and
offensive for the minorities group in India especially in Goa. The Dy.Chief
Minister even said that we are all Hindus and that he himself is Hindu
Christian. How come he has decided to keep the names for his children as
Christian names and why he has baptized them. Moreover he married a
Catholic women. When we are born as Hindus there was no need to baptize.
Once a person is baptized then he/she becomes catholic. He is still free
to change his Christian name into Hindu name. Nobody has any objection but
he remains Christian.

Stephen Dias
D.Paula
Joe Lobo
2014-07-26 04:48:16 UTC
Permalink
When a politician speaks , ..... you have to understand that he
speaks " out both sides of his mouth "........he hopes to deceive
everybody so that he is voted in the next time...........most
politicians are more interestd in their own survival in power than the
interests of their constituents.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Dias" <steve.dias60 at gmail.com>
To: "Goanet" <goanet at goanet.org>; "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!"
<goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 6:37 PM
Subject: [Goanet] ARE WE CHRISTIANS OR HINDUS IN INDIA SECULAR COUNTRY?
Post by Stephen Dias
Statement made by Dy Chief Minister Francisco d"Sousa and Minister of PWD
Sudin Dhavalikar on Hindutava in the floor of assembly was irrelevant and
offensive for the minorities group in India especially in Goa. The Dy.Chief
Minister even said that we are all Hindus and that he himself is Hindu
Christian. How come he has decided to keep the names for his children as
Christian names and why he has baptized them. Moreover he married a
Catholic women. When we are born as Hindus there was no need to baptize.
Once a person is baptized then he/she becomes catholic. He is still free
to change his Christian name into Hindu name. Nobody has any objection but
he remains Christian.
Stephen Dias
D.Paula
Venantius J Pinto
2014-07-26 04:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Being Hindu for a Christian can be a layer, a cultural affirmation of
rootedness. Its has to be a choice.

Christians do not have to accept it though, neither should The Dy.Chief
Minister have said that "we are all Hindus." Something is coming down the
pike.

Personally, I see myself as a Hindu Christian, but have never expected any
one to see themselves that way. I also know what I am doing and that to me,
and for myself is what matters. There is more but lets stop here.

Best.

Venantius J Pinto


On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Stephen Dias <steve.dias60 at gmail.com>
Post by Stephen Dias
Statement made by Dy Chief Minister Francisco d"Sousa and Minister of PWD
Sudin Dhavalikar on Hindutava in the floor of assembly was irrelevant and
offensive for the minorities group in India especially in Goa. The Dy.Chief
Minister even said that we are all Hindus and that he himself is Hindu
Christian. How come he has decided to keep the names for his children as
Christian names and why he has baptized them. Moreover he married a
Catholic women. When we are born as Hindus there was no need to baptize.
Once a person is baptized then he/she becomes catholic. He is still free
to change his Christian name into Hindu name. Nobody has any objection but
he remains Christian.
Stephen Dias
D.Paula
--
+++++++++++++
Venantius J Pinto
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2014-07-26 12:13:29 UTC
Permalink
1: Stephen Dias wrote: Statement made by Dy Chief Minister Francisco
d"Sousa and Minister of PWD Sudin Dhavalikar on Hindutava in the floor of
assembly was irrelevant and offensive for the minorities group in India
especially in Goa.

2: Joe Lobo wrote: When a politician speaks , ..... you have to
understand that he speaks " out both sides of his mouth "........he
hopes to deceive everybody so that he is voted in the next
time...........most politicians are more interestd in their own
survival in power than the interests of their constituents.

3: Venantius Pinto wrote: Personally, I see myself as a Hindu Christian,
but have never expected any one to see themselves that way. I also know
what I am doing and that to me, and for myself is what matters

COMMENT:

There is a well known Bollywood film dance choreographer and director now
known as Remo D'Souza. He was born Ramesh Gopi in Gujarat. He changed his
name and took his wife's surname when he converted to Christianity.

In the field of cricket is the former Pakistani cricket captain Yousuf
Youhana who converted from Christianity to Islam and changed his name to
Mohammad Yousuf.

How one chooses to worship, if one does so, and/or how one chooses to live
one's life is one's own business as long as No One Else is harmed by it.
The above are examples of personal choices. It is very similar to
Venantius' position on himself.

I do not agree with Stephen Dias. Furthermore, I am not sure WHY
'irrelevant' statements should be considered offensive. I agree with Joe
Lobo. There are many folks who "dress for and speak according to the
location, occasion and audience". That is how politicians and some others
operate.

There is, however, one point of concern with reference to religious bigots:
Give them power and they will subjugate you, be it by way of the Apartheid
caste system of India, the imposition of modified languages (as in
hyperSanskritized Hindi & Konkani or hyperPersianized Urdu), forced Merger
of states, destruction of religious worship sites and forced conversions in
this allegedly modern era...et al

Francisco d'Souza and Wilfred Mesquita are exactly who they are....on a
given day or during a given season. They are politicians. What they say is
not really offensive. Nobody of import take such statements from them
seriously.

jc
Albert Peres
2014-07-26 17:19:12 UTC
Permalink
You can call yourself a Hindu Christian. The breath of Christianity is
wide, as is Hinduism. Combinations abound. You can't be a Roman Catholic
and Hindu at the same time. Roman Catholic Church is exclusive. There
are number of Catholic Churches in communion with the Roman Catholics.
You can be a Roman Catholic and an Indian. You can be any, or neither
combination, and Goan. There is no guarantee that your children will
choose to interpret their belief, membership, or existence in the same
way as you. You may also alter your interpret during your existance.
Every citizen is both a part of a minority and majority in the country
the live in. Identity and ties both weakened and strengthened over time.
Language is independent of all of this. As is name. That's belief,
family life and citizenship today. This may seem messy, but that's
exactly the kind of flexibility that helped shape and give rise to the
modern world.
--
Albert Peres

afperes at 3129.ca
416.660.0847 cell
Venantius J Pinto
2014-07-27 02:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Calling oneself something; allowing oneself to be regarding as something;
living a religion, or even living by taking strands from other path/s (to
not necessarily mean a religion) including in aestheticism; and following
are all different with some dovetailing. Nationality is nationality.
Christianity across its many altars plays a great role, even if it be via
some of its cultural strands in many lives including that of
non-christians.

+ + +
venantius j pinto
Post by Albert Peres
You can call yourself a Hindu Christian. The breath of Christianity is
wide, as is Hinduism. Combinations abound. You can't be a Roman Catholic
and Hindu at the same time. Roman Catholic Church is exclusive. There are
number of Catholic Churches in communion with the Roman Catholics. You can
be a Roman Catholic and an Indian. You can be any, or neither combination,
and Goan. There is no guarantee that your children will choose to interpret
their belief, membership, or existence in the same way as you. You may also
alter your interpret during your existance. Every citizen is both a part of
a minority and majority in the country the live in. Identity and ties both
weakened and strengthened over time. Language is independent of all of
this. As is name. That's belief, family life and citizenship today. This
may seem messy, but that's exactly the kind of flexibility that helped
shape and give rise to the modern world.
--
Albert Peres
afperes at 3129.ca
416.660.0847 cell
--
+++++++++++++
Venantius J Pinto
Venantius J Pinto
2014-07-27 05:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Worth a listen. A suggestion to grasp the weltanschauung.
+ +

IN THE BEGINNING WAS CONSCIOUSNESS
by Seyyed Hossein Nasr

"One alone is the Dawn beaming over all this.
It is the One that severally becomes all this."
Rg-Veda, VIII, 58:2

"The nameless [Tao] is the beginning of Heaven and Earth,
The named [Tao] is the mother of ten thousand things."
Tao Te Ching, ch. 1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him;
and without him was not any thing made that was made. "
Gospel of John, 1:1-3
+ +
vjp




On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Venantius J Pinto <
Post by Venantius J Pinto
Calling oneself something; allowing oneself to be regarding as something;
living a religion, or even living by taking strands from other path/s (to
not necessarily mean a religion) including in aestheticism; and following
are all different with some dovetailing. Nationality is nationality.
Christianity across its many altars plays a great role, even if it be via
some of its cultural strands in many lives including that of
non-christians.
+ + +
venantius j pinto
Post by Albert Peres
You can call yourself a Hindu Christian. The breath of Christianity is
wide, as is Hinduism. Combinations abound. You can't be a Roman Catholic
and Hindu at the same time. Roman Catholic Church is exclusive. There are
number of Catholic Churches in communion with the Roman Catholics. You can
be a Roman Catholic and an Indian. You can be any, or neither combination,
and Goan. There is no guarantee that your children will choose to interpret
their belief, membership, or existence in the same way as you. You may also
alter your interpret during your existance. Every citizen is both a part of
a minority and majority in the country the live in. Identity and ties both
weakened and strengthened over time. Language is independent of all of
this. As is name. That's belief, family life and citizenship today. This
may seem messy, but that's exactly the kind of flexibility that helped
shape and give rise to the modern world.
--
Albert Peres
afperes at 3129.ca
416.660.0847 cell
--
+++++++++++++
Venantius J Pinto
--
+++++++++++++
Venantius J Pinto
George Pinto
2014-07-27 14:16:16 UTC
Permalink
Today God looked at all the nonsense going on this world in the name of religion and declared herself atheist.

George
roland.francis
2014-07-26 20:09:05 UTC
Permalink
In civilized and constantly evolving societies as opposed to backward countries like some Muslim majority ones, religion should not play any part in people's public lives. For a start out should go all the altars, icons and picture frames of gods and godesses of all beliefs in all public areas including government as well as private offices.?

Both India's constitutional creators and the nature of Hinduism allows for a secular environment.

When religion plays a big part in people's public lives, is when misery begins.

Roland.


Sent from Samsung Mobile
Siyona G Gaunkar
2014-07-27 14:36:42 UTC
Permalink
ARE WE CHRISTIANS OR HINDUS IN INDIA SECULAR COUNTRY?


People living in this part of the Indian subcontinent Hindustan are called Hindustanis or people living in India are called Indians,?people living in America are called Americans,?People living in Pakistan are called Pakistanis and people living in Iran are called Iranis, people living in Afghanistan are called Afghans, People living in Europe are called Europeans, ?people living in Africa are called Africans, People living in Srilanka are called Srilankans.

Further more we come across Irani Indians, or East Indians or Portuguese Goans or ...
further more we come across Konkankars, Maratha Goans or Kannada Goans .....

If there is anything else it too should be respected ... the artificial frameworks like Democratic setups and territorial boundaries or what ever for the purpose of Governance, along with age old cultural setups it is the way of life and the economic benefits enjoyed .... is the ray of hope which is the source of life nothing else .......comment here

Siyona
Marshall Mendonza
2014-07-28 09:14:26 UTC
Permalink
George Pinto:
Today God looked at all the nonsense going on this world in the name of
religion and declared herself atheist.

Response:
Atheism has also been considered as a religion. See weblink below. Also
recently I came across a news report that a Court in USA has held atheism
to be a religion.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_is_a_religion

Regards

Marshall
Mervyn Lobo
2014-07-29 03:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marshall Mendonza
Atheism has also been considered as a religion. See weblink below. Also
recently I came across a news report that a Court in USA has held atheism
to be a religion.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_is_a_religion
Marshall,
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines religion as:
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods?

Atheism, on the other hand, is defined as:
:? the doctrine that there is no deity

If one needs to search websites to find meanings of words, sooner or later one will find the perfect website i.e. with the meanings that fit perfectly with one's own definition of the word.?

The question I have for the Catholics here is, how does one stop being a Catholic? I was told that the easiest way was to be caught plotting to overthrow the Pope. That seems a long road to take in order to declare independence from religion.

In this regard, perhaps both Catholic's and Hindu's face the same challenge when they want to escape religion in a secular country like India. ?

Mervyn
Marshall Mendonza
2014-07-29 11:39:32 UTC
Permalink
Mervyn Lobo:

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines religion as:
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods?

Atheism, on the other hand, is defined as:
:? the doctrine that there is no deity


Response:

Dictionary meanings are not cast in stone. It evolves.


Atheism is a religion according to a 2005 Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on
the matter of *Kaufman v. McCaughtry*, as well as the *Torcaso v. Watkins* case
by the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court "the highest court in the land" where court
rulings become national law. Refer:


http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488


Regards,


Marshall
Santosh Helekar
2014-07-30 00:55:48 UTC
Permalink
There certainly are atheistic religions such as some of the prominent sects of Buddhism and Jainism. But the claim below that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Atheism is a religion is false. All that that court has done is recognized that atheism is "equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the First Amendment", and rightfully so. Those who do not have a religious belief should get the same protection under the constitution as those who have such a belief. Here is a statement from one such U. S. Supreme Court ruling:

QUOTE
At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one?s own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.
UNQUOTE
....U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)

Please note the phrase: "First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all".?

"None at all" cannot be deemed to be a religious faith by any stretch of the imagination when it is contrasted with religious faith itself by the court.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Marshall Mendonza
Atheism is a religion according to a 2005 Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on
the matter of *Kaufman v. McCaughtry*, as well as the *Torcaso v. Watkins* case
by the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court "the highest court in the land" where court
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488
Regards,
Marshall
Mervyn Lobo
2014-07-30 02:55:09 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7/29/14, Marshall Mendonza wrote:
Dictionary meanings are not cast in stone. It evolves.
Atheism is a religion according to a 2005 Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of *Kaufman v. McCaughtry*, as well as the
*Torcaso v. Watkins* case by the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court "the highest court in the land" where court rulings become national law. Refer:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488
---------------------------------------------------

Marshall,
1) My first guess is that you are trying to be silly.
2) If you are serious, I am glad to know that a) you subject yourself to the rulings of a foreign court and b) that you also accept US rulings such as in Roe v. Wade.
3) ?Sometimes when I'm faced with an atheist, I am tempted to invite him to the greatest gourmet dinner that one could ever serve, and when we have finished eating that magnificent dinner, to ask him if he believes there's a cook.? - Ronald Reagan -

Mervyn
Dr. J. Colaco
2014-07-31 14:40:08 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:55 PM, Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca> wrote:

Marshall,
1) My first guess is that you are trying to be silly.
2) If you are serious, I am glad to know that a) you *subject yourself *to
the rulings of *a foreign court* and b) that you also *accept* US rulings
such as in Roe v. Wade.

COMMENT:

Dear Mervyn,

An individual in India or anywhere else in Common Law countries does not
have to "Subject" himself or herself to any rulings. That is the law of the
land where the ruling was made, UNTIL over-ruled by a superior court OR
until the Legislature enacts a law which differs from the Judge made law.

Marshall, being in the legal field, knows that Judge-made law from other
(foreign) jurisdictions are often referred to and often too, are
'persuasive' in courts of other jurisdictions..

Indian courts often quote the Stare Decisis from other (foreign) Common
Law jurisdictions as supportive of their own judgements.

So, what is there for Marshall to 'subject himself' to?

Not very sure why Roe v Wade came up here. Why does Marshall or (say) any
of his fellow Indian or US Catholics HAVE to accept it? Is that judgement
in contradiction with present Indian law? If it is not, whether it is
personally accepted or not, it is the Law.

BTW: I hope we ALL have read Roe v Wade......in its entirety.

jc
Marshall Mendonza
2014-07-30 16:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Santosh Helekar:

Please note the phrase: "First Amendment embraces the right to select any
religious faith or none at all".?

"None at all" cannot be deemed to be a religious faith by any stretch of
the imagination when it is contrasted with religious faith itself by the
court.

Response:
Santosh is entitled to his own interpretations and if it gives him
satisfaction, I have no problem. It's no skin off my nose. However, the
fact remains that those who profess atheism are as rigid and blinkered in
their beliefs and have a closed mind to beliefs which do not fit into their
world view.

In the last couple of centuries, the greatest grief to mankind has been
caused by those who professed atheism like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Closer
home Veer Savarkar the founder of hindutva and Jinnah caused enough grief
in this sub-continent. We have seen what the followers of hindutva are
capable of doing in Gujarat, Kandhamal, Mangalore, Muzaffarnagar and
elsewhere. With the coming to power of the BJP, hindutva forces have got
fresh wings as is evident from the various incidents occurring in various
parts of the country and the utterances of Dhavalikar, Laxman, Giriraj
Singh, Togadia, Singhal et al.

And in Santosh, who is a self- confessed atheist, we have witnessed his
defence/ justification of the rapes, killings and destruction of property
of innocent people in Kandhamal. So much for atheism and atheists.

Regards,

Marshall
Santosh Helekar
2014-07-31 03:09:57 UTC
Permalink
I have no idea why this Marshall below is gratuitously abusing me making false defamatory allegations against me breaking the decency rules of Goanet. I also have no idea how his personal abuse was allowed to appear on Goanet.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Santosh Helekar
Please note the phrase: "First Amendment embraces the right to select any
religious faith or none at all".?
"None at all" cannot be deemed to be a religious faith by any stretch of
the imagination when it is contrasted with religious faith itself by the
court.
Santosh is entitled to his own interpretations and if it gives him
satisfaction, I have no problem. It's no skin off my nose. However, the
fact remains that those who profess atheism are as rigid and blinkered in
their beliefs and have a closed mind to beliefs which do not fit into their
world view.
In the last couple of centuries, the greatest grief to mankind has been
caused by those who professed atheism like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Closer
home Veer Savarkar the founder of hindutva and Jinnah caused enough grief
in this sub-continent. We have seen what the followers of hindutva are
capable of doing in Gujarat, Kandhamal, Mangalore, Muzaffarnagar and
elsewhere. With the coming to power of the BJP, hindutva forces have got
fresh wings as is evident from the various incidents occurring in various
parts of the country and the utterances of Dhavalikar, Laxman, Giriraj
Singh, Togadia, Singhal et al.
And in Santosh, who is a self- confessed atheist, we have witnessed his
defence/ justification of the rapes, killings and destruction of property
of innocent people in Kandhamal. So much for atheism and atheists.
Regards,
Marshall
Marshall Mendonza
2014-07-31 06:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Santosh Helekar:
I have no idea why this Marshall below is gratuitously abusing me making
false defamatory allegations against me breaking the decency rules of
Goanet. I also have no idea how his personal abuse was allowed to appear on
Goanet.

Response:
Since when has a statement of facts become abuse and defamatory? When
doctors start interpreting laws and barbers become tailors, will be the day
when the theatre of the absurd is played out.

Regards,

Marshall
Santosh Helekar
2014-07-31 16:31:36 UTC
Permalink
It is a good thing that people can independently decide what is the truth and what is not. They can tell without much difficulty who is habitually bearing false witness against others. Otherwise, right-wing and left-wing political campaigners would have been easily able to tarnish the reputation of innocent people who do not belong to their religion or who do not hold their extremist views by falsely accusing the latter of supporting murder and rape, or equating them with Hitler, Stalin, etc.

But coming back to the main topic in this thread that Mervyn, George and others were contributing to, India is a secular country in which the rights of religious folk as well as non-religious folk need to be respected. The Indian courts like courts in other countries have tried to do exactly that. In doing so they and all genuinely secular thinkers have recognized that people commit crimes and atrocities, not because they belong to any particular religion or lack thereof, but because they are fundamentally immoral and abusive. They have a criminal mind, or a mind altered by substance abuse or serious mental illness. Secular courts and thinkers have also contended that there are more than a thousand different religions in this world with contrasting and competing beliefs, some of whom believe in a creator god and some who do not. They have understood that non-religious people may also have divergent beliefs that may or may not involve a belief in a
supreme entity or intelligence. The latter folk could also include those who do not have supernatural beliefs of any kind at all. Civilized secular people of today do not regard the nature of their beliefs or lack thereof as a reflection of the goodness of their character or morality, one way or the other. ??


Laws in many civilized democratic countries have defined religion for tax purposes because religious charities have been granted tax exempt status. In the U.S. the legal definition of religion according to the Internal Revenue Service is one which satisfies all the following criteria:

QUOTE
- a distinct legal existence,
- a recognized creed and form of worship,
- a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government,
- a formal code of doctrine and discipline
- a distinct religious history,
- a membership not associated with any other church or denomination,
- an organization of ordained ministers,
- ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies,
- a literature of its own,
- established places of worship,
- regular congregations,
- regular religious services,
- Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young,
- school for the preparation of its ministers.
UNQUOTE

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Santosh Helekar
I have no idea why this Marshall below is gratuitously abusing me making
false defamatory allegations against me breaking the decency rules of
Goanet. I also have no idea how his personal abuse was allowed to appear on
Goanet.
Since when has a statement of facts become abuse and defamatory? When
doctors start interpreting laws and barbers become tailors, will be the day
when the theatre of the absurd is played out.
Regards,
Marshall
Mervyn Lobo
2014-08-01 03:04:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7/31/14, Marshall Mendonza wrote:
Since when has a statement of facts become abuse and defamatory? When doctors start interpreting laws and barbers become tailors,
will be the day when the theatre of the absurd is played out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Marshall,
Often times, the courts are the very theater of the absurd. Think about it. Two parties arrive at the temple fully convinced by their lawyers that the law sides with them. During the theater, one party will certainly?find out that his/her lawyer was a bad thespian.

Canada's newspapers are full of stories of lawyers who get fined and even sent to jail because their interpretation of the law was, to say the least, faulty. On the other hand, members of the public are able to exonerate themselves from accusers by studying the law and representing themselves.

I work in an industry where the laws are constantly changing. Sometimes they change twice in a year. It is never a surprise when a member of the general population has a better grasp of a changed law, and its consequences, than a corporate lawyer has.

Returning to the topic in the subject line, when a religious person is confused enough to believe that what he believes in, is the absolute truth, his/her views can come across as absurdity. When the person insists that his beliefs are facts,?the secular court is (thankfully) available. Some only find this out the hard way.

Mervyn
"Needing to talk badly about others indicates low self-esteem. That means, 'I feel so low that instead of picking myself up I have to cut others down." - Pope Francis -
Mervyn Lobo
2014-08-01 01:50:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7/31/14, Dr. J. Colaco wrote:
An individual in India or anywhere else in Common Law countries does not have to "Subject" himself or herself to any rulings. That is the law of the land where the ruling was made, UNTIL over-ruled by a superior court OR until the Legislature enacts a law which differs from the Judge made law.?

Marshall, being in the legal field, knows that Judge-made law from other (foreign) jurisdictions are often referred to and often too, are
'persuasive' in courts of other jurisdictions..?

Indian courts often quote the Stare Decisis ?from other (foreign) Common Law jurisdictions as supportive of their
own judgements. So, what is there for Marshall to 'subject himself to?
---------------------------------------------------------------------



Doc,
To make this easy to understand, the dictionary has current meanings on what is theism and what is atheism. On the other hand, as you so eloquently pointed out, laws are made up and frequently changed. What is illegal one fine day, is legal the next. Perhaps you will now better understand the folly of those who depend on foreign laws to justify their understanding/meanings of common words.
Mervyn
Jose
2014-08-04 11:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Dear Mervyn,

It is possible that your post got delayed.

Two quick points: (1) I would be very surprised IF I eloquently or otherwise pointed out that "laws are made up and frequently changed". (2) I believe it is best that I absolutely defer to your views on financial matters (as I know very little about that subject), and that I do not debate matters related to medicine, law and Materia Portuguesa with you.

jc


On Jul 31, 2014, at 9:50 PM, Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca> wrote:
Doc,
To make this easy to understand, the dictionary has current meanings on what is theism and what is atheism. On the other hand, as you so eloquently pointed out, laws are made up and frequently changed. What is illegal one fine day, is legal the next. Perhaps you will now better understand the folly of those who depend on foreign laws to justify their understanding/meanings of common words.
Mervyn

On Thu, 7/31/14, Dr. J. Colaco wrote:
An individual in India or anywhere else in Common Law countries does not have to "Subject" himself or herself to any rulings. That is the law of the land where the ruling was made, UNTIL over-ruled by a superior court OR until the Legislature enacts a law which differs from the Judge made law.

Marshall, being in the legal field, knows that Judge-made law from other (foreign) jurisdictions are often referred to and often too, are 'persuasive' in courts of other jurisdictions..

Indian courts often quote the Stare Decisis from other (foreign) Common Law jurisdictions as supportive of their own judgements. So, what is there for Marshall to 'subject himself to?
Marshall Mendonza
2014-08-04 15:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Mervyn Lobo:
Often times, the courts are the very theater of the absurd. Think about it.
Two parties arrive at the temple fully convinced by their lawyers that the
law sides with them. During the theater, one party will certainly?find out
that his/her lawyer was a bad thespian.

Canada's newspapers are full of stories of lawyers who get fined and even
sent to jail because their interpretation of the law was, to say the least,
faulty. On the other hand, members of the public are able to exonerate
themselves from accusers by studying the law and representing themselves.

I work in an industry where the laws are constantly changing. Sometimes
they change twice in a year. It is never a surprise when a member of the
general population has a better grasp of a changed law, and its
consequences, than a corporate lawyer has.

Returning to the topic in the subject line, when a religious person is
confused enough to believe that what he believes in, is the absolute truth,
his/her views can come across as absurdity. When the person insists that
his beliefs are facts,?the secular court is (thankfully) available. Some
only find this out the hard way.

Response:

Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have
to say something--Plato
<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/plato.html>

Regards,

Marshall
Mervyn Lobo
2014-08-04 19:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marshall Mendonza
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have
to say something--Plato
<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/plato.html>
---------------------------------------
Marshall,
1) I am glad you found above quote.?
2) I hope you have been able to understand it.?
3) Plato did not utter those words.
4) You once again displayed the danger(s) of believing everything found on the internet.


Mervyn

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...