Discussion:
Re.: I am your fan, President to Remo
(too old to reply)
Anthony M Barreto
2007-04-05 13:26:06 UTC
Permalink
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.
Tony Martin


******************************************************************************
Anthony M Barreto aka Tony Martin
Freelance Writer and Author
Galgibaga, Canacona, Goa -- 403728
M: 9422390701 R: 91-0832-2632012
www.canacona.net
*****************************************************************************




____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
Aristo
2007-04-06 06:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony M Barreto
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.
Tony Martin
Hi Tony,

Don't really dismiss Kalam as being a genuine fan of Remo. I am
sometimes amazed when I meet older non-goan Indians who will suddenly
start "Ooh La La, ooh la la, maaaii ocean queeeeen" when the word Remo
comes up!

Cheers,
Aristo.
JoeGoaUk
2007-04-07 20:34:30 UTC
Permalink
[Goanet] Re.: I am your fan, President to Remo

I may not be a Remo's fan but I am a big fan of our President Dr. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM
(for that matter, I am a fan of our PM too, Mr. Manmohan singh).

Our president may be a son of an illiterate fisherman but he is very popular, infact most
popular amongst the Indian politicians.

His website http://presidentofindia.nic.in/ registered record number of hits. Sept. 12 last
year alone, there were 2.4million hits and on August 15 there were 10.12 millions hits,
average per month for the year 2006 was 9.6 millions (3.2 lakhs hits per day).

He might appear old (76) but he is very young at heart (like me).
Very popular with the children too.

So, he being a fan of Remo, cannot be ruled out.

Moreover, our Remo may not have that many fans in Goa but he has plenty of fans through out
India.

As I am posting Goa related songs/dances etc on the net, I received several queries from
outside Goa as to why I was not posting Remo's songs on the net despite me and Remo both
being from Goa. Believe me or not, this had never cross my mind, and I did that (posted)
because they told me what they want. I still get requests to give some more songs of Remo
playing flute.

Anyone can be a fan of anyone (not necessarily from the same age group).

Now, you may like know how many fans I have in Goa political circle?
My answer is None. However, if I had choose at least one then my choice would be Mathany
Saldanha (present MLA of Cortalim Constituency).

If Remo is not my fan, how come I posted several songs ?
Well, this is not always what I want or what I like, apart from him being a Goan and performed
in Goa, I also did that because you ask for it or that's what most of you wanted.
http://konkan.tv/view/f4f24853fc4192689aa7 about 1900 hits so far.

For that matter, Churchill Alemao, never been my favourite but I did post his speech in two
parts because I know most south (Salcette & Gulfies) are fans of his and some of them even
hero worship him.
to my surprised there were 500 hits
so far (I) followed by 450 (II). Putting both sites together.


Quote:
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.



Joegoauk at yahoo.co.uk

for Goa & NRI related info...
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/GOAN-NRI/

Konkani Songs, Goan Photos, Tiatr/Film VCDs, Bank interest rates etc etc
(for updates etc click below)
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/GOAN-NRI/files/




___________________________________________________________
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk
Carvalho
2007-04-08 05:52:15 UTC
Permalink
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate advocating
censorship of any sort but Easter is really tough on
my agnostic, secular philosophy of life. It seems
Easter has brought out of the woodworks, among Albert
(yes, yes, I know I was missing you and all), many
others who insist on telling us the meaning of Good
Friday, the superiority of the Christian way of life,
etc.

If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and blatantly
embarrassed by the messages posted on this forum,I can
well imagine how offended my Hindu and Muslim fellow
members must be feeling. Not only am I offended by the
religious sentiments expressed but I'm acutely
embarrassed by the sheer ignorance that is perpetrated
in the name of religion.

So let's in the spirit of brotherhood, advocate a
little bit of self-censorship and refrain from
foisting upon the world our own religious views. The
world is too polite and perhaps indifferent to counter
you, but that doesn't mean you have carte blanche to
inflict yourself onto its religious sensibilities.

selma



____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-09 17:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Actually, a secularist would not be offended by such
public display of parochial religious credo. An Indian
secularist is a pluralist. She has no problems
tolerating sectarian propaganda in a public forum, as
long as it is peaceful. On the scales of true
secularism exhibition of self-centered religious
certitude weighs no less than strong public criticism
of pious superstitions and frauds. We need an equal
measure of both on Goanet.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Carvalho
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate
advocating
censorship of any sort but Easter is really tough on
my agnostic, secular philosophy of life. It seems
Easter has brought out of the woodworks, among
Albert
(yes, yes, I know I was missing you and all), many
others who insist on telling us the meaning of Good
Friday, the superiority of the Christian way of
life,
etc.
If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and
blatantly
embarrassed by the messages posted on this forum,I
can
well imagine how offended my Hindu and Muslim fellow
members must be feeling. Not only am I offended by
the
religious sentiments expressed but I'm acutely
embarrassed by the sheer ignorance that is
perpetrated
in the name of religion.
Carvalho
2007-04-10 18:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Actually, a secularist would not be offended by such
public display of parochial religious credo. An
Indian
secularist is a pluralist. She has no problems
tolerating sectarian propaganda in a public forum,
as
long as it is peaceful.
--------------------------------

Dear Santosh,

Not because I have any ideological differences with
you on this one :-), but because it's a slow Tuesday
and because I like to argue, let me be the contrarian
here. What constitutes peaceful propaganda?

To me, an agnostic who doesn't believe in the divinity
of Jesus Christ it is offensive to be told repeatedly
that he is the only way to salvation. Isn't it akin to
the RSS telling its disciples that Hindutva is the
only national ideology for India's political and
religious advancement, and an Islamic Imam telling its
followers that all infidels will burn in hell. There
is no nobility in using Goanet as a megaphone to
recruit into the fold, however peacefully it is done.
Sometimes passive maybe more insidious that
aggressive.

You are absolutely spot on when you say an Indian
secularist is a pluralist but I'm not an Indian
secularist. I believe there is virtue in the
homogenisation of society, as long as it doesn't rob
us of our individuality, and I feel very strongly
about the separation of church and state. It is
fundamental to sustaining thought that moves us
forward and not backward.

Take care,
selma



____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
Mario Goveia
2007-04-10 19:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carvalho
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate
advocating censorship of any sort but Easter is
really tough on my agnostic, secular philosophy of
life. It seems Easter has brought out of the
woodworks, among Albert (yes, yes, I know I was
missing you and all), many others who insist on
telling us the meaning of Good Friday, the
superiority of the Christian way of life, etc.
Mario observes:
Hey, Selma,
I knew there had to be a "but" at the end of an
opening sentence that begins with, "I'm a great fan of
free speech,...":-))
This is an open public forum, kiddo, so, if you are
really secular and really a great fan of free speech
you take the agreeable with the disagreeable, right?
No ifs, ands or buts. The principle of free speech
was conceived precisely to protect disagreeable
speech, right? Agreeable speech needs no protection.
I'm just happy that Albert now titles his posts with a
recognizable subject line, rather than his previous,
"Albert writes", so that we can decide whether to open
his posts before we put our hip boots on:-))
Post by Carvalho
If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and
blatantly embarrassed by the messages posted on
this forum,I can well imagine how offended my Hindu
and Muslim fellow members must be feeling. Not only
am I offended by the religious sentiments expressed
but I'm acutely embarrassed by the sheer ignorance
that is perpetrated in the name of religion.
Mario asks:
Perhaps you are so offended BECAUSE you are, by your
own repetitious admissions, a "lapsed Catholic", for
whom closely held Catholic religious beliefs and
sentiments, based on faith alone, are, by definition,
ignorant, offensive and embarrassing.
Are you sure that religious Hindus or Muslims would be
offended? To begin with, are there any "religious"
Hindus or Muslims on Goanet? If so, I didn't see any
of them say so. Besides, I suspect they may have
their hands full and their heads down with what their
own fanatics and radicals are perpetrating, in India
and elsewhere, which is far more deadly to their
unbelievers and protagonists than any "sentiment",
however offensive.
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-12 07:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Dear Selma,

We should remember that being a secularist is an ideal
that is enshrined in the Indian constitution. As I
have said on many occasions here, India is a secular
democratic republic. Accordingly, all Indian citizens
should be proud secularists. Being a non-secularist
would be an unenviable thing. Such a person would not
have a serious commitment to religious tolerance or to
separation of church and state. Typically, we would
find him to be a pharisaical religious chauvinist.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Carvalho
Dear Santosh,
Not because I have any ideological differences with
you on this one :-), but because it's a slow Tuesday
and because I like to argue, let me be the
contrarian here. What constitutes peaceful
propaganda?
Vidyadhar Gadgil
2007-04-12 11:47:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 04:06 -0700, goanet-request at lists.goanet.org
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Secularists and non-secularists
We should remember that being a secularist is an ideal
that is enshrined in the Indian constitution. As I
have said on many occasions here, India is a secular
democratic republic.
The preamble to the Indian constitution says India is a sovereign
socialist secular democratic republic. I quote below the first few lines
from the preamble:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India
into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to
all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity
and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November,
1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS
CONSTITUTION.

I do not know if the order in which the points occur is indicative of
any hieracrchy :-), though obviously sovereignty would be above all
else. All the points are vital -- what the Supreme Court has called the
basic character of the constitution.
--
Question everything -- Karl Marx
Carvalho
2007-04-13 05:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Dear Selma,
Being a non-secularist
Post by Santosh Helekar
would be an unenviable thing. Such a person would
not
have a serious commitment to religious tolerance or
to
separation of church and state. Typically, we would
find him to be a pharisaical religious chauvinist.
Cheers,
Santosh
------------------------------------------
Dear Santosh,

Here atlast is a debate I can wrap my arms around. I
never said I'm a non-secularist, I said I'm not an
Indian secularist.

Let me construct a hypothetical example to illustrate
why a true secularist would not have "religious
tolerance" and "separation of church and state" on the
same side of the balance sheet.

A and B live on an island. The only other inhabitant
is C, who also acts as general arbitrator of disputes.
The island is home to about 50 armadillos who for
ecological reasons must not be killed. A is fine with
this. B on the other hand believes in ritually killing
atleast 2 armadillos every year to propitiate his God.
A, tired after years of suffering the stench of dead
armadillos calls on C to arbitrate. C says, he has to
be tolerant of B's religious beliefs and cannot do
anything. In time, all the armadillos are dead, A and
B have grown to hate each other, C dies of cholera or
boredom and the island is on the brink of an
ecological disaster.

Now, my example may seem facile and absurd but far
more absurd things are tolerated in the name of
religion, from female circumcision, to polygamy,
denying women their rights, body mutilation,
self-flagellation, denying children education, honour
killings, the list is endless.

It is not the duty of a truly secular state to be
tolerant of religious ideology. The state's primary
responsibility is in continuously creating a society
devoid of religious ideology and one based on
scientific reasoning, the tenets of common law and
commonsense morality.

Yes, I am deeply respectful of people's sensibilities
especially religious ones, be they Hindu, Muslim or
astrologists, but that is not because I am "tolerant"
of their ideology. It is because I am respectful of
them as human beings who all share the common bond of
DNA, a moral compass and the deeply human ability to
experience pain, suffering, injustice, rebuke and
offense.

There is no difference between Albert denouncing
homosexuality and abortion and inferring the
superiority of Christianity, based on his beliefs, and
a Christian zealot from the bible belt of America, or
a Muslim fundamentalist from Afghanistan, blowing up
clinics, or beheading a homosexual in the name of
Allah. Passivity does not make one's ideology any less
benign and we must, absolutely must denounce it when
it we see it raise its ugly head.

selma





____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
Bosco D'Mello
2007-04-13 05:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carvalho
Yes, I am deeply respectful of people's sensibilities
especially religious ones, be they Hindu, Muslim or
astrologists, but that is not because I am "tolerant"
of their ideology. It is because I am respectful of
them as human beings who all share the common bond of
DNA, a moral compass and the deeply human ability to
experience pain, suffering, injustice, rebuke and
offense.
There is no difference between Albert denouncing
homosexuality and abortion and inferring the
superiority of Christianity, based on his beliefs, and
a Christian zealot from the bible belt of America, or
a Muslim fundamentalist from Afghanistan, blowing up
clinics, or beheading a homosexual in the name of
Allah.
RESPONSE: Selma, while comparing Albert to a kracker-jack who "blows up
clinics, or beheads homosexuals", you've just succeeded in rebuking him,
don't you think? Or is this respect thingy all 'fluff'??

I was surprised to see you swing from yearning for Albert's messages to
castigating his writings - all within 24 hours. Geez!!

- Bosco
Eddie Fernandes
2007-04-13 15:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Headline: The Goans get tough and mystery remains

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald. 14 April 2007: News - Opinion section.
http://www.smh.com.au/

By Philip Knightley.

Excerpts:

Who really discovered Australia? Captain James Cook, who landed at Botany
Bay in 1770? . the author Peter Trickett has backed the Portuguese explorer
Captain Cristovao Mendonca .

the search for evidence has been hampered by the lack of Portuguese archives
for the period . Five years ago I found them. They were stored in the
Department of Antiquities, a rambling building in the old quarter of
Panaji...

All Goan life was documented in these official diaries - births, deaths,
marriages, wills, land deals, official announcements and appointments, the
comings and goings of ships and, of great interest to me, the reports of
their captains .

the head of the Department of Antiquities told me that the books were not
being examined in any organised way. There was no budget to do so. It was
politically sensitive. The Indian government in Delhi preferred to forget
that the Portuguese had held Goa for so many centuries...

I have found a Goan who reads old Portuguese and who has actually done some
work on the archives for the Indian customs department .

Full text 1044 words.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-goans-get-tough-and-mystery-remains/2
007/04/13/1175971344776.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

If the link does not work, check out Goan Voice UK -
http://www.goanvoice.org.uk/

==========================================
Philip Knightley resides in Goa and is a contributor to the Goan Observer.
Check out his bio at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Knightley

I visited the Dept of Antiquities earlier this year and met the head of
Dept. I can well understand the problems in getting information from there.
I was refused information about the main resources held there or permission
to photograph any part of the interior of the building.

Eddie Fernandes
Carvalho
2007-04-13 21:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bosco D'Mello
RESPONSE: Selma, while comparing Albert to a
kracker-jack who "blows up
clinics, or beheads homosexuals", you've just
succeeded in rebuking him,
don't you think? Or is this respect thingy all
'fluff'??
I was surprised to see you swing from yearning for
Albert's messages to
castigating his writings - all within 24 hours.
Geez!!
- Bosco
------------------------------------------

Dear Bosco,
Are you saying nothing in our society should be
rebuked? We're going all "Imus" here aren't we?

I like Albert very much. I did miss him in his
absence. Albert is an individual who is truly without
malice on this forum and I'm sure so clean of heart he
would put most of us to shame. But here is an
individual whose philosophy in life is so behind the
times, we might just be able to excavate it from
ruins. When we hold opinions such as these, even if
held without malice, they tend to gather momentum
especially when sanctioned by silence.

selma



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Sachin Phadte
2007-04-14 05:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Santosh Helkar wrote: "We should remember that being a secularist is an
ideal that is enshrined in the Indian constitution."

I am being technical here. When the Constitution was adopted immediately
after independence, India was defined as a democratic republic. During the
Emergency of 1975-77, it was amended and India was defined as a secular,
socialist, democratic republic. The word secular has not been defined
anywhere in the Constitution. The objective of the amendment had nothing to
do with upholding the principles of either secularism or socialism.

Having said this, I do believe strongly in secularism, which I define to
mean that the state does not recognise the communal identity of the citizen
in dealing with him or her.

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
Sign in and get updated on all the action from Formula One
http://content.msn.co.in/Sports/FormulaOne/Default
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-14 20:58:02 UTC
Permalink
The word secular has not been defined anywhere in
the >Constitution.
This statement is utterly meaningless. The words
democratic and republic have also not been defined
anywhere in the constitution.

The Indian constitution, as originally formulated and
today, makes the meaning of secularism and the
conviction that India is a secular state absolutely
clear. The preamble itself states that its purpose is
"to secure to all its citizens", among other things,
"LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship". Please see:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/preamble.html

One of the fundamental rights in our constitution is
the "right to freedom of religion", under which no
religion receives any kind of special treatment, and
the State dissociates itself completely from any and
all forms of religious activity. The statements that
are most appealing to me in this regard are the
following:

"(1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any
educational institution wholly maintained out of State
funds."

"(3) No person attending any educational institution
recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State
funds shall be required to take part in any religious
instruction that may be imparted in such institution
or to attend any religious worship that may be
conducted in such institution or in any premises
attached thereto unless such person or, if such person
is a minor, his guardian has given his consent
thereto."

Please see:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03.html
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03028.html
Having said this, I do believe strongly in
secularism, which I define to mean that the state
does >not recognise the communal identity of the
citizen in >dealing with him or her.
I think this principle has very little to do with
secularism per se. It is subsumed in the "right to
equality".

Here is how it is stated in the constitution:

"(1) The State shall not discriminate against any
citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex,
place of birth or any of them."

Please see:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03015.html

Cheers,

Santosh
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-15 17:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Dear Selma,

Religious tolerance in a secular state applies
unconditionally to beliefs in general. The tolerance
to practice, however, is conditional, the condition
being that the religious practice must not be harmful
to the individual and the society as a whole. Your
example is therefore inappropriate. Tolerance also
does not mean that one cannot speak out against absurd
beliefs. It only means that one cannot suppress them.

You are as free to criticize Albert's beliefs as
Albert is to express them.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Carvalho
Dear Santosh,
Here atlast is a debate I can wrap my arms around. I
never said I'm a non-secularist, I said I'm not an
Indian secularist.
Let me construct a hypothetical example to
illustrate
why a true secularist would not have "religious
tolerance" and "separation of church and state" on
the
same side of the balance sheet.
Sachin Phadte
2007-04-16 06:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Thank you, Santosh, for your erudite post. Can you please comment on the
reasons why the words 'socialist' and 'secular' were introduced during the
time of the Emergency?

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
Sign in and get updated on all the action from Formula One
http://content.msn.co.in/Sports/FormulaOne/Default
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-16 17:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sachin Phadte
Thank you, Santosh, for your erudite post. Can you
please comment on the reasons why the words
'socialist' and 'secular' were introduced during the
time of the Emergency?
Sachin,

I think most likely for political reasons. But I
submit that no one can deny that India was constituted
in 1950 to be a secular republic. I have already told
you why. Please ask someone else to explain to you why
it is a socialist republic. I don't have much interest
in that topic.

Cheers,

Santosh
Sachin Phadte
2007-04-18 05:28:32 UTC
Permalink
I agree with Santosh Helekar when he says that the word secular was
introduced in the preamble of the constitution during the Emergency for
political reasons, and had nothing to do with the upholding the principles
of secularism. Such type of duplicity was quite common with Indira Gandhi.

I also agree with him that the consitution set out in 1950 intended India to
be secular. However, since the definition of secularism has been kept vague.

This has lead to many funny situations. For example, when members of Shiv
Sena leave the organisation to join the Congress party they always said that
they were doing so to uphold the principles of secularism! In fact, one such
member, upon joining the Congress party, asked what is wrong with being
secular. This clearly implied that he was not a secular person while in the
Shiv Sena. An even funnier part is that the person was a member of
parliament and had taken an oath to uphold the principles of secularism.

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
The idiot box is no longer pass?; it's making news and how!
http://content.msn.co.in/Entertainment/TV/Default.aspx
Anthony M Barreto
2007-04-05 13:26:06 UTC
Permalink
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.
Tony Martin


******************************************************************************
Anthony M Barreto aka Tony Martin
Freelance Writer and Author
Galgibaga, Canacona, Goa -- 403728
M: 9422390701 R: 91-0832-2632012
www.canacona.net
*****************************************************************************




____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
Aristo
2007-04-06 06:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony M Barreto
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.
Tony Martin
Hi Tony,

Don't really dismiss Kalam as being a genuine fan of Remo. I am
sometimes amazed when I meet older non-goan Indians who will suddenly
start "Ooh La La, ooh la la, maaaii ocean queeeeen" when the word Remo
comes up!

Cheers,
Aristo.
JoeGoaUk
2007-04-07 20:34:30 UTC
Permalink
[Goanet] Re.: I am your fan, President to Remo

I may not be a Remo's fan but I am a big fan of our President Dr. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM
(for that matter, I am a fan of our PM too, Mr. Manmohan singh).

Our president may be a son of an illiterate fisherman but he is very popular, infact most
popular amongst the Indian politicians.

His website http://presidentofindia.nic.in/ registered record number of hits. Sept. 12 last
year alone, there were 2.4million hits and on August 15 there were 10.12 millions hits,
average per month for the year 2006 was 9.6 millions (3.2 lakhs hits per day).

He might appear old (76) but he is very young at heart (like me).
Very popular with the children too.

So, he being a fan of Remo, cannot be ruled out.

Moreover, our Remo may not have that many fans in Goa but he has plenty of fans through out
India.

As I am posting Goa related songs/dances etc on the net, I received several queries from
outside Goa as to why I was not posting Remo's songs on the net despite me and Remo both
being from Goa. Believe me or not, this had never cross my mind, and I did that (posted)
because they told me what they want. I still get requests to give some more songs of Remo
playing flute.

Anyone can be a fan of anyone (not necessarily from the same age group).

Now, you may like know how many fans I have in Goa political circle?
My answer is None. However, if I had choose at least one then my choice would be Mathany
Saldanha (present MLA of Cortalim Constituency).

If Remo is not my fan, how come I posted several songs ?
Well, this is not always what I want or what I like, apart from him being a Goan and performed
in Goa, I also did that because you ask for it or that's what most of you wanted.
http://konkan.tv/view/f4f24853fc4192689aa7 about 1900 hits so far.

For that matter, Churchill Alemao, never been my favourite but I did post his speech in two
parts because I know most south (Salcette & Gulfies) are fans of his and some of them even
hero worship him. http://youtu.be/IekxqNpptNo to my surprised there were 500 hits
so far (I) followed by 450 (II). Putting both sites together.


Quote:
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.



Joegoauk at yahoo.co.uk

for Goa & NRI related info...
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/GOAN-NRI/

Konkani Songs, Goan Photos, Tiatr/Film VCDs, Bank interest rates etc etc
(for updates etc click below)
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/GOAN-NRI/files/




___________________________________________________________
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk
Carvalho
2007-04-08 05:52:15 UTC
Permalink
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate advocating
censorship of any sort but Easter is really tough on
my agnostic, secular philosophy of life. It seems
Easter has brought out of the woodworks, among Albert
(yes, yes, I know I was missing you and all), many
others who insist on telling us the meaning of Good
Friday, the superiority of the Christian way of life,
etc.

If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and blatantly
embarrassed by the messages posted on this forum,I can
well imagine how offended my Hindu and Muslim fellow
members must be feeling. Not only am I offended by the
religious sentiments expressed but I'm acutely
embarrassed by the sheer ignorance that is perpetrated
in the name of religion.

So let's in the spirit of brotherhood, advocate a
little bit of self-censorship and refrain from
foisting upon the world our own religious views. The
world is too polite and perhaps indifferent to counter
you, but that doesn't mean you have carte blanche to
inflict yourself onto its religious sensibilities.

selma



____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-09 17:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Actually, a secularist would not be offended by such
public display of parochial religious credo. An Indian
secularist is a pluralist. She has no problems
tolerating sectarian propaganda in a public forum, as
long as it is peaceful. On the scales of true
secularism exhibition of self-centered religious
certitude weighs no less than strong public criticism
of pious superstitions and frauds. We need an equal
measure of both on Goanet.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Carvalho
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate
advocating
censorship of any sort but Easter is really tough on
my agnostic, secular philosophy of life. It seems
Easter has brought out of the woodworks, among
Albert
(yes, yes, I know I was missing you and all), many
others who insist on telling us the meaning of Good
Friday, the superiority of the Christian way of
life,
etc.
If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and
blatantly
embarrassed by the messages posted on this forum,I
can
well imagine how offended my Hindu and Muslim fellow
members must be feeling. Not only am I offended by
the
religious sentiments expressed but I'm acutely
embarrassed by the sheer ignorance that is
perpetrated
in the name of religion.
Carvalho
2007-04-10 18:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Actually, a secularist would not be offended by such
public display of parochial religious credo. An
Indian
secularist is a pluralist. She has no problems
tolerating sectarian propaganda in a public forum,
as
long as it is peaceful.
--------------------------------

Dear Santosh,

Not because I have any ideological differences with
you on this one :-), but because it's a slow Tuesday
and because I like to argue, let me be the contrarian
here. What constitutes peaceful propaganda?

To me, an agnostic who doesn't believe in the divinity
of Jesus Christ it is offensive to be told repeatedly
that he is the only way to salvation. Isn't it akin to
the RSS telling its disciples that Hindutva is the
only national ideology for India's political and
religious advancement, and an Islamic Imam telling its
followers that all infidels will burn in hell. There
is no nobility in using Goanet as a megaphone to
recruit into the fold, however peacefully it is done.
Sometimes passive maybe more insidious that
aggressive.

You are absolutely spot on when you say an Indian
secularist is a pluralist but I'm not an Indian
secularist. I believe there is virtue in the
homogenisation of society, as long as it doesn't rob
us of our individuality, and I feel very strongly
about the separation of church and state. It is
fundamental to sustaining thought that moves us
forward and not backward.

Take care,
selma



____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
Mario Goveia
2007-04-10 19:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carvalho
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate
advocating censorship of any sort but Easter is
really tough on my agnostic, secular philosophy of
life. It seems Easter has brought out of the
woodworks, among Albert (yes, yes, I know I was
missing you and all), many others who insist on
telling us the meaning of Good Friday, the
superiority of the Christian way of life, etc.
Mario observes:
Hey, Selma,
I knew there had to be a "but" at the end of an
opening sentence that begins with, "I'm a great fan of
free speech,...":-))
This is an open public forum, kiddo, so, if you are
really secular and really a great fan of free speech
you take the agreeable with the disagreeable, right?
No ifs, ands or buts. The principle of free speech
was conceived precisely to protect disagreeable
speech, right? Agreeable speech needs no protection.
I'm just happy that Albert now titles his posts with a
recognizable subject line, rather than his previous,
"Albert writes", so that we can decide whether to open
his posts before we put our hip boots on:-))
Post by Carvalho
If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and
blatantly embarrassed by the messages posted on
this forum,I can well imagine how offended my Hindu
and Muslim fellow members must be feeling. Not only
am I offended by the religious sentiments expressed
but I'm acutely embarrassed by the sheer ignorance
that is perpetrated in the name of religion.
Mario asks:
Perhaps you are so offended BECAUSE you are, by your
own repetitious admissions, a "lapsed Catholic", for
whom closely held Catholic religious beliefs and
sentiments, based on faith alone, are, by definition,
ignorant, offensive and embarrassing.
Are you sure that religious Hindus or Muslims would be
offended? To begin with, are there any "religious"
Hindus or Muslims on Goanet? If so, I didn't see any
of them say so. Besides, I suspect they may have
their hands full and their heads down with what their
own fanatics and radicals are perpetrating, in India
and elsewhere, which is far more deadly to their
unbelievers and protagonists than any "sentiment",
however offensive.
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-12 07:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Dear Selma,

We should remember that being a secularist is an ideal
that is enshrined in the Indian constitution. As I
have said on many occasions here, India is a secular
democratic republic. Accordingly, all Indian citizens
should be proud secularists. Being a non-secularist
would be an unenviable thing. Such a person would not
have a serious commitment to religious tolerance or to
separation of church and state. Typically, we would
find him to be a pharisaical religious chauvinist.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Carvalho
Dear Santosh,
Not because I have any ideological differences with
you on this one :-), but because it's a slow Tuesday
and because I like to argue, let me be the
contrarian here. What constitutes peaceful
propaganda?
Vidyadhar Gadgil
2007-04-12 11:47:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 04:06 -0700, goanet-request at lists.goanet.org
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Secularists and non-secularists
We should remember that being a secularist is an ideal
that is enshrined in the Indian constitution. As I
have said on many occasions here, India is a secular
democratic republic.
The preamble to the Indian constitution says India is a sovereign
socialist secular democratic republic. I quote below the first few lines
from the preamble:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India
into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to
all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity
and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November,
1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS
CONSTITUTION.

I do not know if the order in which the points occur is indicative of
any hieracrchy :-), though obviously sovereignty would be above all
else. All the points are vital -- what the Supreme Court has called the
basic character of the constitution.
--
Question everything -- Karl Marx
Carvalho
2007-04-13 05:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Dear Selma,
Being a non-secularist
Post by Santosh Helekar
would be an unenviable thing. Such a person would
not
have a serious commitment to religious tolerance or
to
separation of church and state. Typically, we would
find him to be a pharisaical religious chauvinist.
Cheers,
Santosh
------------------------------------------
Dear Santosh,

Here atlast is a debate I can wrap my arms around. I
never said I'm a non-secularist, I said I'm not an
Indian secularist.

Let me construct a hypothetical example to illustrate
why a true secularist would not have "religious
tolerance" and "separation of church and state" on the
same side of the balance sheet.

A and B live on an island. The only other inhabitant
is C, who also acts as general arbitrator of disputes.
The island is home to about 50 armadillos who for
ecological reasons must not be killed. A is fine with
this. B on the other hand believes in ritually killing
atleast 2 armadillos every year to propitiate his God.
A, tired after years of suffering the stench of dead
armadillos calls on C to arbitrate. C says, he has to
be tolerant of B's religious beliefs and cannot do
anything. In time, all the armadillos are dead, A and
B have grown to hate each other, C dies of cholera or
boredom and the island is on the brink of an
ecological disaster.

Now, my example may seem facile and absurd but far
more absurd things are tolerated in the name of
religion, from female circumcision, to polygamy,
denying women their rights, body mutilation,
self-flagellation, denying children education, honour
killings, the list is endless.

It is not the duty of a truly secular state to be
tolerant of religious ideology. The state's primary
responsibility is in continuously creating a society
devoid of religious ideology and one based on
scientific reasoning, the tenets of common law and
commonsense morality.

Yes, I am deeply respectful of people's sensibilities
especially religious ones, be they Hindu, Muslim or
astrologists, but that is not because I am "tolerant"
of their ideology. It is because I am respectful of
them as human beings who all share the common bond of
DNA, a moral compass and the deeply human ability to
experience pain, suffering, injustice, rebuke and
offense.

There is no difference between Albert denouncing
homosexuality and abortion and inferring the
superiority of Christianity, based on his beliefs, and
a Christian zealot from the bible belt of America, or
a Muslim fundamentalist from Afghanistan, blowing up
clinics, or beheading a homosexual in the name of
Allah. Passivity does not make one's ideology any less
benign and we must, absolutely must denounce it when
it we see it raise its ugly head.

selma





____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
Bosco D'Mello
2007-04-13 05:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carvalho
Yes, I am deeply respectful of people's sensibilities
especially religious ones, be they Hindu, Muslim or
astrologists, but that is not because I am "tolerant"
of their ideology. It is because I am respectful of
them as human beings who all share the common bond of
DNA, a moral compass and the deeply human ability to
experience pain, suffering, injustice, rebuke and
offense.
There is no difference between Albert denouncing
homosexuality and abortion and inferring the
superiority of Christianity, based on his beliefs, and
a Christian zealot from the bible belt of America, or
a Muslim fundamentalist from Afghanistan, blowing up
clinics, or beheading a homosexual in the name of
Allah.
RESPONSE: Selma, while comparing Albert to a kracker-jack who "blows up
clinics, or beheads homosexuals", you've just succeeded in rebuking him,
don't you think? Or is this respect thingy all 'fluff'??

I was surprised to see you swing from yearning for Albert's messages to
castigating his writings - all within 24 hours. Geez!!

- Bosco
Eddie Fernandes
2007-04-13 15:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Headline: The Goans get tough and mystery remains

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald. 14 April 2007: News - Opinion section.
http://www.smh.com.au/

By Philip Knightley.

Excerpts:

Who really discovered Australia? Captain James Cook, who landed at Botany
Bay in 1770? . the author Peter Trickett has backed the Portuguese explorer
Captain Cristovao Mendonca .

the search for evidence has been hampered by the lack of Portuguese archives
for the period . Five years ago I found them. They were stored in the
Department of Antiquities, a rambling building in the old quarter of
Panaji...

All Goan life was documented in these official diaries - births, deaths,
marriages, wills, land deals, official announcements and appointments, the
comings and goings of ships and, of great interest to me, the reports of
their captains .

the head of the Department of Antiquities told me that the books were not
being examined in any organised way. There was no budget to do so. It was
politically sensitive. The Indian government in Delhi preferred to forget
that the Portuguese had held Goa for so many centuries...

I have found a Goan who reads old Portuguese and who has actually done some
work on the archives for the Indian customs department .

Full text 1044 words.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-goans-get-tough-and-mystery-remains/2
007/04/13/1175971344776.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

If the link does not work, check out Goan Voice UK -
http://www.goanvoice.org.uk/

==========================================
Philip Knightley resides in Goa and is a contributor to the Goan Observer.
Check out his bio at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Knightley

I visited the Dept of Antiquities earlier this year and met the head of
Dept. I can well understand the problems in getting information from there.
I was refused information about the main resources held there or permission
to photograph any part of the interior of the building.

Eddie Fernandes
Carvalho
2007-04-13 21:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bosco D'Mello
RESPONSE: Selma, while comparing Albert to a
kracker-jack who "blows up
clinics, or beheads homosexuals", you've just
succeeded in rebuking him,
don't you think? Or is this respect thingy all
'fluff'??
I was surprised to see you swing from yearning for
Albert's messages to
castigating his writings - all within 24 hours.
Geez!!
- Bosco
------------------------------------------

Dear Bosco,
Are you saying nothing in our society should be
rebuked? We're going all "Imus" here aren't we?

I like Albert very much. I did miss him in his
absence. Albert is an individual who is truly without
malice on this forum and I'm sure so clean of heart he
would put most of us to shame. But here is an
individual whose philosophy in life is so behind the
times, we might just be able to excavate it from
ruins. When we hold opinions such as these, even if
held without malice, they tend to gather momentum
especially when sanctioned by silence.

selma



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Sachin Phadte
2007-04-14 05:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Santosh Helkar wrote: "We should remember that being a secularist is an
ideal that is enshrined in the Indian constitution."

I am being technical here. When the Constitution was adopted immediately
after independence, India was defined as a democratic republic. During the
Emergency of 1975-77, it was amended and India was defined as a secular,
socialist, democratic republic. The word secular has not been defined
anywhere in the Constitution. The objective of the amendment had nothing to
do with upholding the principles of either secularism or socialism.

Having said this, I do believe strongly in secularism, which I define to
mean that the state does not recognise the communal identity of the citizen
in dealing with him or her.

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
Sign in and get updated on all the action from Formula One
http://content.msn.co.in/Sports/FormulaOne/Default
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-14 20:58:02 UTC
Permalink
The word secular has not been defined anywhere in
the >Constitution.
This statement is utterly meaningless. The words
democratic and republic have also not been defined
anywhere in the constitution.

The Indian constitution, as originally formulated and
today, makes the meaning of secularism and the
conviction that India is a secular state absolutely
clear. The preamble itself states that its purpose is
"to secure to all its citizens", among other things,
"LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship". Please see:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/preamble.html

One of the fundamental rights in our constitution is
the "right to freedom of religion", under which no
religion receives any kind of special treatment, and
the State dissociates itself completely from any and
all forms of religious activity. The statements that
are most appealing to me in this regard are the
following:

"(1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any
educational institution wholly maintained out of State
funds."

"(3) No person attending any educational institution
recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State
funds shall be required to take part in any religious
instruction that may be imparted in such institution
or to attend any religious worship that may be
conducted in such institution or in any premises
attached thereto unless such person or, if such person
is a minor, his guardian has given his consent
thereto."

Please see:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03.html
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03028.html
Having said this, I do believe strongly in
secularism, which I define to mean that the state
does >not recognise the communal identity of the
citizen in >dealing with him or her.
I think this principle has very little to do with
secularism per se. It is subsumed in the "right to
equality".

Here is how it is stated in the constitution:

"(1) The State shall not discriminate against any
citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex,
place of birth or any of them."

Please see:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03015.html

Cheers,

Santosh
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-15 17:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Dear Selma,

Religious tolerance in a secular state applies
unconditionally to beliefs in general. The tolerance
to practice, however, is conditional, the condition
being that the religious practice must not be harmful
to the individual and the society as a whole. Your
example is therefore inappropriate. Tolerance also
does not mean that one cannot speak out against absurd
beliefs. It only means that one cannot suppress them.

You are as free to criticize Albert's beliefs as
Albert is to express them.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Carvalho
Dear Santosh,
Here atlast is a debate I can wrap my arms around. I
never said I'm a non-secularist, I said I'm not an
Indian secularist.
Let me construct a hypothetical example to
illustrate
why a true secularist would not have "religious
tolerance" and "separation of church and state" on
the
same side of the balance sheet.
Sachin Phadte
2007-04-16 06:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Thank you, Santosh, for your erudite post. Can you please comment on the
reasons why the words 'socialist' and 'secular' were introduced during the
time of the Emergency?

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
Sign in and get updated on all the action from Formula One
http://content.msn.co.in/Sports/FormulaOne/Default
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-16 17:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sachin Phadte
Thank you, Santosh, for your erudite post. Can you
please comment on the reasons why the words
'socialist' and 'secular' were introduced during the
time of the Emergency?
Sachin,

I think most likely for political reasons. But I
submit that no one can deny that India was constituted
in 1950 to be a secular republic. I have already told
you why. Please ask someone else to explain to you why
it is a socialist republic. I don't have much interest
in that topic.

Cheers,

Santosh
Sachin Phadte
2007-04-18 05:28:32 UTC
Permalink
I agree with Santosh Helekar when he says that the word secular was
introduced in the preamble of the constitution during the Emergency for
political reasons, and had nothing to do with the upholding the principles
of secularism. Such type of duplicity was quite common with Indira Gandhi.

I also agree with him that the consitution set out in 1950 intended India to
be secular. However, since the definition of secularism has been kept vague.

This has lead to many funny situations. For example, when members of Shiv
Sena leave the organisation to join the Congress party they always said that
they were doing so to uphold the principles of secularism! In fact, one such
member, upon joining the Congress party, asked what is wrong with being
secular. This clearly implied that he was not a secular person while in the
Shiv Sena. An even funnier part is that the person was a member of
parliament and had taken an oath to uphold the principles of secularism.

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
The idiot box is no longer pass?; it's making news and how!
http://content.msn.co.in/Entertainment/TV/Default.aspx
Anthony M Barreto
2007-04-05 13:26:06 UTC
Permalink
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.
Tony Martin


******************************************************************************
Anthony M Barreto aka Tony Martin
Freelance Writer and Author
Galgibaga, Canacona, Goa -- 403728
M: 9422390701 R: 91-0832-2632012
www.canacona.net
*****************************************************************************




____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
Aristo
2007-04-06 06:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony M Barreto
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.
Tony Martin
Hi Tony,

Don't really dismiss Kalam as being a genuine fan of Remo. I am
sometimes amazed when I meet older non-goan Indians who will suddenly
start "Ooh La La, ooh la la, maaaii ocean queeeeen" when the word Remo
comes up!

Cheers,
Aristo.
JoeGoaUk
2007-04-07 20:34:30 UTC
Permalink
[Goanet] Re.: I am your fan, President to Remo

I may not be a Remo's fan but I am a big fan of our President Dr. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM
(for that matter, I am a fan of our PM too, Mr. Manmohan singh).

Our president may be a son of an illiterate fisherman but he is very popular, infact most
popular amongst the Indian politicians.

His website http://presidentofindia.nic.in/ registered record number of hits. Sept. 12 last
year alone, there were 2.4million hits and on August 15 there were 10.12 millions hits,
average per month for the year 2006 was 9.6 millions (3.2 lakhs hits per day).

He might appear old (76) but he is very young at heart (like me).
Very popular with the children too.

So, he being a fan of Remo, cannot be ruled out.

Moreover, our Remo may not have that many fans in Goa but he has plenty of fans through out
India.

As I am posting Goa related songs/dances etc on the net, I received several queries from
outside Goa as to why I was not posting Remo's songs on the net despite me and Remo both
being from Goa. Believe me or not, this had never cross my mind, and I did that (posted)
because they told me what they want. I still get requests to give some more songs of Remo
playing flute.

Anyone can be a fan of anyone (not necessarily from the same age group).

Now, you may like know how many fans I have in Goa political circle?
My answer is None. However, if I had choose at least one then my choice would be Mathany
Saldanha (present MLA of Cortalim Constituency).

If Remo is not my fan, how come I posted several songs ?
Well, this is not always what I want or what I like, apart from him being a Goan and performed
in Goa, I also did that because you ask for it or that's what most of you wanted.
http://konkan.tv/view/f4f24853fc4192689aa7 about 1900 hits so far.

For that matter, Churchill Alemao, never been my favourite but I did post his speech in two
parts because I know most south (Salcette & Gulfies) are fans of his and some of them even
hero worship him. http://youtu.be/IekxqNpptNo to my surprised there were 500 hits
so far (I) followed by 450 (II). Putting both sites together.


Quote:
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.



Joegoauk at yahoo.co.uk

for Goa & NRI related info...
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/GOAN-NRI/

Konkani Songs, Goan Photos, Tiatr/Film VCDs, Bank interest rates etc etc
(for updates etc click below)
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/GOAN-NRI/files/




___________________________________________________________
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk
Carvalho
2007-04-08 05:52:15 UTC
Permalink
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate advocating
censorship of any sort but Easter is really tough on
my agnostic, secular philosophy of life. It seems
Easter has brought out of the woodworks, among Albert
(yes, yes, I know I was missing you and all), many
others who insist on telling us the meaning of Good
Friday, the superiority of the Christian way of life,
etc.

If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and blatantly
embarrassed by the messages posted on this forum,I can
well imagine how offended my Hindu and Muslim fellow
members must be feeling. Not only am I offended by the
religious sentiments expressed but I'm acutely
embarrassed by the sheer ignorance that is perpetrated
in the name of religion.

So let's in the spirit of brotherhood, advocate a
little bit of self-censorship and refrain from
foisting upon the world our own religious views. The
world is too polite and perhaps indifferent to counter
you, but that doesn't mean you have carte blanche to
inflict yourself onto its religious sensibilities.

selma



____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-09 17:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Actually, a secularist would not be offended by such
public display of parochial religious credo. An Indian
secularist is a pluralist. She has no problems
tolerating sectarian propaganda in a public forum, as
long as it is peaceful. On the scales of true
secularism exhibition of self-centered religious
certitude weighs no less than strong public criticism
of pious superstitions and frauds. We need an equal
measure of both on Goanet.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Carvalho
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate
advocating
censorship of any sort but Easter is really tough on
my agnostic, secular philosophy of life. It seems
Easter has brought out of the woodworks, among
Albert
(yes, yes, I know I was missing you and all), many
others who insist on telling us the meaning of Good
Friday, the superiority of the Christian way of
life,
etc.
If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and
blatantly
embarrassed by the messages posted on this forum,I
can
well imagine how offended my Hindu and Muslim fellow
members must be feeling. Not only am I offended by
the
religious sentiments expressed but I'm acutely
embarrassed by the sheer ignorance that is
perpetrated
in the name of religion.
Carvalho
2007-04-10 18:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Actually, a secularist would not be offended by such
public display of parochial religious credo. An
Indian
secularist is a pluralist. She has no problems
tolerating sectarian propaganda in a public forum,
as
long as it is peaceful.
--------------------------------

Dear Santosh,

Not because I have any ideological differences with
you on this one :-), but because it's a slow Tuesday
and because I like to argue, let me be the contrarian
here. What constitutes peaceful propaganda?

To me, an agnostic who doesn't believe in the divinity
of Jesus Christ it is offensive to be told repeatedly
that he is the only way to salvation. Isn't it akin to
the RSS telling its disciples that Hindutva is the
only national ideology for India's political and
religious advancement, and an Islamic Imam telling its
followers that all infidels will burn in hell. There
is no nobility in using Goanet as a megaphone to
recruit into the fold, however peacefully it is done.
Sometimes passive maybe more insidious that
aggressive.

You are absolutely spot on when you say an Indian
secularist is a pluralist but I'm not an Indian
secularist. I believe there is virtue in the
homogenisation of society, as long as it doesn't rob
us of our individuality, and I feel very strongly
about the separation of church and state. It is
fundamental to sustaining thought that moves us
forward and not backward.

Take care,
selma



____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
Mario Goveia
2007-04-10 19:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carvalho
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate
advocating censorship of any sort but Easter is
really tough on my agnostic, secular philosophy of
life. It seems Easter has brought out of the
woodworks, among Albert (yes, yes, I know I was
missing you and all), many others who insist on
telling us the meaning of Good Friday, the
superiority of the Christian way of life, etc.
Mario observes:
Hey, Selma,
I knew there had to be a "but" at the end of an
opening sentence that begins with, "I'm a great fan of
free speech,...":-))
This is an open public forum, kiddo, so, if you are
really secular and really a great fan of free speech
you take the agreeable with the disagreeable, right?
No ifs, ands or buts. The principle of free speech
was conceived precisely to protect disagreeable
speech, right? Agreeable speech needs no protection.
I'm just happy that Albert now titles his posts with a
recognizable subject line, rather than his previous,
"Albert writes", so that we can decide whether to open
his posts before we put our hip boots on:-))
Post by Carvalho
If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and
blatantly embarrassed by the messages posted on
this forum,I can well imagine how offended my Hindu
and Muslim fellow members must be feeling. Not only
am I offended by the religious sentiments expressed
but I'm acutely embarrassed by the sheer ignorance
that is perpetrated in the name of religion.
Mario asks:
Perhaps you are so offended BECAUSE you are, by your
own repetitious admissions, a "lapsed Catholic", for
whom closely held Catholic religious beliefs and
sentiments, based on faith alone, are, by definition,
ignorant, offensive and embarrassing.
Are you sure that religious Hindus or Muslims would be
offended? To begin with, are there any "religious"
Hindus or Muslims on Goanet? If so, I didn't see any
of them say so. Besides, I suspect they may have
their hands full and their heads down with what their
own fanatics and radicals are perpetrating, in India
and elsewhere, which is far more deadly to their
unbelievers and protagonists than any "sentiment",
however offensive.
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-12 07:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Dear Selma,

We should remember that being a secularist is an ideal
that is enshrined in the Indian constitution. As I
have said on many occasions here, India is a secular
democratic republic. Accordingly, all Indian citizens
should be proud secularists. Being a non-secularist
would be an unenviable thing. Such a person would not
have a serious commitment to religious tolerance or to
separation of church and state. Typically, we would
find him to be a pharisaical religious chauvinist.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Carvalho
Dear Santosh,
Not because I have any ideological differences with
you on this one :-), but because it's a slow Tuesday
and because I like to argue, let me be the
contrarian here. What constitutes peaceful
propaganda?
Vidyadhar Gadgil
2007-04-12 11:47:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 04:06 -0700, goanet-request at lists.goanet.org
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Secularists and non-secularists
We should remember that being a secularist is an ideal
that is enshrined in the Indian constitution. As I
have said on many occasions here, India is a secular
democratic republic.
The preamble to the Indian constitution says India is a sovereign
socialist secular democratic republic. I quote below the first few lines
from the preamble:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India
into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to
all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity
and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November,
1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS
CONSTITUTION.

I do not know if the order in which the points occur is indicative of
any hieracrchy :-), though obviously sovereignty would be above all
else. All the points are vital -- what the Supreme Court has called the
basic character of the constitution.
--
Question everything -- Karl Marx
Carvalho
2007-04-13 05:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Dear Selma,
Being a non-secularist
Post by Santosh Helekar
would be an unenviable thing. Such a person would
not
have a serious commitment to religious tolerance or
to
separation of church and state. Typically, we would
find him to be a pharisaical religious chauvinist.
Cheers,
Santosh
------------------------------------------
Dear Santosh,

Here atlast is a debate I can wrap my arms around. I
never said I'm a non-secularist, I said I'm not an
Indian secularist.

Let me construct a hypothetical example to illustrate
why a true secularist would not have "religious
tolerance" and "separation of church and state" on the
same side of the balance sheet.

A and B live on an island. The only other inhabitant
is C, who also acts as general arbitrator of disputes.
The island is home to about 50 armadillos who for
ecological reasons must not be killed. A is fine with
this. B on the other hand believes in ritually killing
atleast 2 armadillos every year to propitiate his God.
A, tired after years of suffering the stench of dead
armadillos calls on C to arbitrate. C says, he has to
be tolerant of B's religious beliefs and cannot do
anything. In time, all the armadillos are dead, A and
B have grown to hate each other, C dies of cholera or
boredom and the island is on the brink of an
ecological disaster.

Now, my example may seem facile and absurd but far
more absurd things are tolerated in the name of
religion, from female circumcision, to polygamy,
denying women their rights, body mutilation,
self-flagellation, denying children education, honour
killings, the list is endless.

It is not the duty of a truly secular state to be
tolerant of religious ideology. The state's primary
responsibility is in continuously creating a society
devoid of religious ideology and one based on
scientific reasoning, the tenets of common law and
commonsense morality.

Yes, I am deeply respectful of people's sensibilities
especially religious ones, be they Hindu, Muslim or
astrologists, but that is not because I am "tolerant"
of their ideology. It is because I am respectful of
them as human beings who all share the common bond of
DNA, a moral compass and the deeply human ability to
experience pain, suffering, injustice, rebuke and
offense.

There is no difference between Albert denouncing
homosexuality and abortion and inferring the
superiority of Christianity, based on his beliefs, and
a Christian zealot from the bible belt of America, or
a Muslim fundamentalist from Afghanistan, blowing up
clinics, or beheading a homosexual in the name of
Allah. Passivity does not make one's ideology any less
benign and we must, absolutely must denounce it when
it we see it raise its ugly head.

selma





____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
Bosco D'Mello
2007-04-13 05:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carvalho
Yes, I am deeply respectful of people's sensibilities
especially religious ones, be they Hindu, Muslim or
astrologists, but that is not because I am "tolerant"
of their ideology. It is because I am respectful of
them as human beings who all share the common bond of
DNA, a moral compass and the deeply human ability to
experience pain, suffering, injustice, rebuke and
offense.
There is no difference between Albert denouncing
homosexuality and abortion and inferring the
superiority of Christianity, based on his beliefs, and
a Christian zealot from the bible belt of America, or
a Muslim fundamentalist from Afghanistan, blowing up
clinics, or beheading a homosexual in the name of
Allah.
RESPONSE: Selma, while comparing Albert to a kracker-jack who "blows up
clinics, or beheads homosexuals", you've just succeeded in rebuking him,
don't you think? Or is this respect thingy all 'fluff'??

I was surprised to see you swing from yearning for Albert's messages to
castigating his writings - all within 24 hours. Geez!!

- Bosco
Eddie Fernandes
2007-04-13 15:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Headline: The Goans get tough and mystery remains

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald. 14 April 2007: News - Opinion section.
http://www.smh.com.au/

By Philip Knightley.

Excerpts:

Who really discovered Australia? Captain James Cook, who landed at Botany
Bay in 1770? . the author Peter Trickett has backed the Portuguese explorer
Captain Cristovao Mendonca .

the search for evidence has been hampered by the lack of Portuguese archives
for the period . Five years ago I found them. They were stored in the
Department of Antiquities, a rambling building in the old quarter of
Panaji...

All Goan life was documented in these official diaries - births, deaths,
marriages, wills, land deals, official announcements and appointments, the
comings and goings of ships and, of great interest to me, the reports of
their captains .

the head of the Department of Antiquities told me that the books were not
being examined in any organised way. There was no budget to do so. It was
politically sensitive. The Indian government in Delhi preferred to forget
that the Portuguese had held Goa for so many centuries...

I have found a Goan who reads old Portuguese and who has actually done some
work on the archives for the Indian customs department .

Full text 1044 words.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-goans-get-tough-and-mystery-remains/2
007/04/13/1175971344776.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

If the link does not work, check out Goan Voice UK -
http://www.goanvoice.org.uk/

==========================================
Philip Knightley resides in Goa and is a contributor to the Goan Observer.
Check out his bio at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Knightley

I visited the Dept of Antiquities earlier this year and met the head of
Dept. I can well understand the problems in getting information from there.
I was refused information about the main resources held there or permission
to photograph any part of the interior of the building.

Eddie Fernandes
Carvalho
2007-04-13 21:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bosco D'Mello
RESPONSE: Selma, while comparing Albert to a
kracker-jack who "blows up
clinics, or beheads homosexuals", you've just
succeeded in rebuking him,
don't you think? Or is this respect thingy all
'fluff'??
I was surprised to see you swing from yearning for
Albert's messages to
castigating his writings - all within 24 hours.
Geez!!
- Bosco
------------------------------------------

Dear Bosco,
Are you saying nothing in our society should be
rebuked? We're going all "Imus" here aren't we?

I like Albert very much. I did miss him in his
absence. Albert is an individual who is truly without
malice on this forum and I'm sure so clean of heart he
would put most of us to shame. But here is an
individual whose philosophy in life is so behind the
times, we might just be able to excavate it from
ruins. When we hold opinions such as these, even if
held without malice, they tend to gather momentum
especially when sanctioned by silence.

selma



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Sachin Phadte
2007-04-14 05:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Santosh Helkar wrote: "We should remember that being a secularist is an
ideal that is enshrined in the Indian constitution."

I am being technical here. When the Constitution was adopted immediately
after independence, India was defined as a democratic republic. During the
Emergency of 1975-77, it was amended and India was defined as a secular,
socialist, democratic republic. The word secular has not been defined
anywhere in the Constitution. The objective of the amendment had nothing to
do with upholding the principles of either secularism or socialism.

Having said this, I do believe strongly in secularism, which I define to
mean that the state does not recognise the communal identity of the citizen
in dealing with him or her.

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
Sign in and get updated on all the action from Formula One
http://content.msn.co.in/Sports/FormulaOne/Default
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-14 20:58:02 UTC
Permalink
The word secular has not been defined anywhere in
the >Constitution.
This statement is utterly meaningless. The words
democratic and republic have also not been defined
anywhere in the constitution.

The Indian constitution, as originally formulated and
today, makes the meaning of secularism and the
conviction that India is a secular state absolutely
clear. The preamble itself states that its purpose is
"to secure to all its citizens", among other things,
"LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship". Please see:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/preamble.html

One of the fundamental rights in our constitution is
the "right to freedom of religion", under which no
religion receives any kind of special treatment, and
the State dissociates itself completely from any and
all forms of religious activity. The statements that
are most appealing to me in this regard are the
following:

"(1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any
educational institution wholly maintained out of State
funds."

"(3) No person attending any educational institution
recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State
funds shall be required to take part in any religious
instruction that may be imparted in such institution
or to attend any religious worship that may be
conducted in such institution or in any premises
attached thereto unless such person or, if such person
is a minor, his guardian has given his consent
thereto."

Please see:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03.html
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03028.html
Having said this, I do believe strongly in
secularism, which I define to mean that the state
does >not recognise the communal identity of the
citizen in >dealing with him or her.
I think this principle has very little to do with
secularism per se. It is subsumed in the "right to
equality".

Here is how it is stated in the constitution:

"(1) The State shall not discriminate against any
citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex,
place of birth or any of them."

Please see:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03015.html

Cheers,

Santosh
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-15 17:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Dear Selma,

Religious tolerance in a secular state applies
unconditionally to beliefs in general. The tolerance
to practice, however, is conditional, the condition
being that the religious practice must not be harmful
to the individual and the society as a whole. Your
example is therefore inappropriate. Tolerance also
does not mean that one cannot speak out against absurd
beliefs. It only means that one cannot suppress them.

You are as free to criticize Albert's beliefs as
Albert is to express them.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Carvalho
Dear Santosh,
Here atlast is a debate I can wrap my arms around. I
never said I'm a non-secularist, I said I'm not an
Indian secularist.
Let me construct a hypothetical example to
illustrate
why a true secularist would not have "religious
tolerance" and "separation of church and state" on
the
same side of the balance sheet.
Sachin Phadte
2007-04-16 06:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Thank you, Santosh, for your erudite post. Can you please comment on the
reasons why the words 'socialist' and 'secular' were introduced during the
time of the Emergency?

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
Sign in and get updated on all the action from Formula One
http://content.msn.co.in/Sports/FormulaOne/Default
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-16 17:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sachin Phadte
Thank you, Santosh, for your erudite post. Can you
please comment on the reasons why the words
'socialist' and 'secular' were introduced during the
time of the Emergency?
Sachin,

I think most likely for political reasons. But I
submit that no one can deny that India was constituted
in 1950 to be a secular republic. I have already told
you why. Please ask someone else to explain to you why
it is a socialist republic. I don't have much interest
in that topic.

Cheers,

Santosh
Sachin Phadte
2007-04-18 05:28:32 UTC
Permalink
I agree with Santosh Helekar when he says that the word secular was
introduced in the preamble of the constitution during the Emergency for
political reasons, and had nothing to do with the upholding the principles
of secularism. Such type of duplicity was quite common with Indira Gandhi.

I also agree with him that the consitution set out in 1950 intended India to
be secular. However, since the definition of secularism has been kept vague.

This has lead to many funny situations. For example, when members of Shiv
Sena leave the organisation to join the Congress party they always said that
they were doing so to uphold the principles of secularism! In fact, one such
member, upon joining the Congress party, asked what is wrong with being
secular. This clearly implied that he was not a secular person while in the
Shiv Sena. An even funnier part is that the person was a member of
parliament and had taken an oath to uphold the principles of secularism.

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
The idiot box is no longer pass?; it's making news and how!
http://content.msn.co.in/Entertainment/TV/Default.aspx
Anthony M Barreto
2007-04-05 13:26:06 UTC
Permalink
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.
Tony Martin


******************************************************************************
Anthony M Barreto aka Tony Martin
Freelance Writer and Author
Galgibaga, Canacona, Goa -- 403728
M: 9422390701 R: 91-0832-2632012
www.canacona.net
*****************************************************************************




____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
Aristo
2007-04-06 06:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony M Barreto
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.
Tony Martin
Hi Tony,

Don't really dismiss Kalam as being a genuine fan of Remo. I am
sometimes amazed when I meet older non-goan Indians who will suddenly
start "Ooh La La, ooh la la, maaaii ocean queeeeen" when the word Remo
comes up!

Cheers,
Aristo.
JoeGoaUk
2007-04-07 20:34:30 UTC
Permalink
[Goanet] Re.: I am your fan, President to Remo

I may not be a Remo's fan but I am a big fan of our President Dr. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM
(for that matter, I am a fan of our PM too, Mr. Manmohan singh).

Our president may be a son of an illiterate fisherman but he is very popular, infact most
popular amongst the Indian politicians.

His website http://presidentofindia.nic.in/ registered record number of hits. Sept. 12 last
year alone, there were 2.4million hits and on August 15 there were 10.12 millions hits,
average per month for the year 2006 was 9.6 millions (3.2 lakhs hits per day).

He might appear old (76) but he is very young at heart (like me).
Very popular with the children too.

So, he being a fan of Remo, cannot be ruled out.

Moreover, our Remo may not have that many fans in Goa but he has plenty of fans through out
India.

As I am posting Goa related songs/dances etc on the net, I received several queries from
outside Goa as to why I was not posting Remo's songs on the net despite me and Remo both
being from Goa. Believe me or not, this had never cross my mind, and I did that (posted)
because they told me what they want. I still get requests to give some more songs of Remo
playing flute.

Anyone can be a fan of anyone (not necessarily from the same age group).

Now, you may like know how many fans I have in Goa political circle?
My answer is None. However, if I had choose at least one then my choice would be Mathany
Saldanha (present MLA of Cortalim Constituency).

If Remo is not my fan, how come I posted several songs ?
Well, this is not always what I want or what I like, apart from him being a Goan and performed
in Goa, I also did that because you ask for it or that's what most of you wanted.
http://konkan.tv/view/f4f24853fc4192689aa7 about 1900 hits so far.

For that matter, Churchill Alemao, never been my favourite but I did post his speech in two
parts because I know most south (Salcette & Gulfies) are fans of his and some of them even
hero worship him. http://youtu.be/IekxqNpptNo to my surprised there were 500 hits
so far (I) followed by 450 (II). Putting both sites together.


Quote:
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.



Joegoauk at yahoo.co.uk

for Goa & NRI related info...
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/GOAN-NRI/

Konkani Songs, Goan Photos, Tiatr/Film VCDs, Bank interest rates etc etc
(for updates etc click below)
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/GOAN-NRI/files/




___________________________________________________________
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk
Carvalho
2007-04-08 05:52:15 UTC
Permalink
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate advocating
censorship of any sort but Easter is really tough on
my agnostic, secular philosophy of life. It seems
Easter has brought out of the woodworks, among Albert
(yes, yes, I know I was missing you and all), many
others who insist on telling us the meaning of Good
Friday, the superiority of the Christian way of life,
etc.

If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and blatantly
embarrassed by the messages posted on this forum,I can
well imagine how offended my Hindu and Muslim fellow
members must be feeling. Not only am I offended by the
religious sentiments expressed but I'm acutely
embarrassed by the sheer ignorance that is perpetrated
in the name of religion.

So let's in the spirit of brotherhood, advocate a
little bit of self-censorship and refrain from
foisting upon the world our own religious views. The
world is too polite and perhaps indifferent to counter
you, but that doesn't mean you have carte blanche to
inflict yourself onto its religious sensibilities.

selma



____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-09 17:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Actually, a secularist would not be offended by such
public display of parochial religious credo. An Indian
secularist is a pluralist. She has no problems
tolerating sectarian propaganda in a public forum, as
long as it is peaceful. On the scales of true
secularism exhibition of self-centered religious
certitude weighs no less than strong public criticism
of pious superstitions and frauds. We need an equal
measure of both on Goanet.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Carvalho
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate
advocating
censorship of any sort but Easter is really tough on
my agnostic, secular philosophy of life. It seems
Easter has brought out of the woodworks, among
Albert
(yes, yes, I know I was missing you and all), many
others who insist on telling us the meaning of Good
Friday, the superiority of the Christian way of
life,
etc.
If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and
blatantly
embarrassed by the messages posted on this forum,I
can
well imagine how offended my Hindu and Muslim fellow
members must be feeling. Not only am I offended by
the
religious sentiments expressed but I'm acutely
embarrassed by the sheer ignorance that is
perpetrated
in the name of religion.
Carvalho
2007-04-10 18:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Actually, a secularist would not be offended by such
public display of parochial religious credo. An
Indian
secularist is a pluralist. She has no problems
tolerating sectarian propaganda in a public forum,
as
long as it is peaceful.
--------------------------------

Dear Santosh,

Not because I have any ideological differences with
you on this one :-), but because it's a slow Tuesday
and because I like to argue, let me be the contrarian
here. What constitutes peaceful propaganda?

To me, an agnostic who doesn't believe in the divinity
of Jesus Christ it is offensive to be told repeatedly
that he is the only way to salvation. Isn't it akin to
the RSS telling its disciples that Hindutva is the
only national ideology for India's political and
religious advancement, and an Islamic Imam telling its
followers that all infidels will burn in hell. There
is no nobility in using Goanet as a megaphone to
recruit into the fold, however peacefully it is done.
Sometimes passive maybe more insidious that
aggressive.

You are absolutely spot on when you say an Indian
secularist is a pluralist but I'm not an Indian
secularist. I believe there is virtue in the
homogenisation of society, as long as it doesn't rob
us of our individuality, and I feel very strongly
about the separation of church and state. It is
fundamental to sustaining thought that moves us
forward and not backward.

Take care,
selma



____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
Mario Goveia
2007-04-10 19:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carvalho
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate
advocating censorship of any sort but Easter is
really tough on my agnostic, secular philosophy of
life. It seems Easter has brought out of the
woodworks, among Albert (yes, yes, I know I was
missing you and all), many others who insist on
telling us the meaning of Good Friday, the
superiority of the Christian way of life, etc.
Mario observes:
Hey, Selma,
I knew there had to be a "but" at the end of an
opening sentence that begins with, "I'm a great fan of
free speech,...":-))
This is an open public forum, kiddo, so, if you are
really secular and really a great fan of free speech
you take the agreeable with the disagreeable, right?
No ifs, ands or buts. The principle of free speech
was conceived precisely to protect disagreeable
speech, right? Agreeable speech needs no protection.
I'm just happy that Albert now titles his posts with a
recognizable subject line, rather than his previous,
"Albert writes", so that we can decide whether to open
his posts before we put our hip boots on:-))
Post by Carvalho
If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and
blatantly embarrassed by the messages posted on
this forum,I can well imagine how offended my Hindu
and Muslim fellow members must be feeling. Not only
am I offended by the religious sentiments expressed
but I'm acutely embarrassed by the sheer ignorance
that is perpetrated in the name of religion.
Mario asks:
Perhaps you are so offended BECAUSE you are, by your
own repetitious admissions, a "lapsed Catholic", for
whom closely held Catholic religious beliefs and
sentiments, based on faith alone, are, by definition,
ignorant, offensive and embarrassing.
Are you sure that religious Hindus or Muslims would be
offended? To begin with, are there any "religious"
Hindus or Muslims on Goanet? If so, I didn't see any
of them say so. Besides, I suspect they may have
their hands full and their heads down with what their
own fanatics and radicals are perpetrating, in India
and elsewhere, which is far more deadly to their
unbelievers and protagonists than any "sentiment",
however offensive.
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-12 07:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Dear Selma,

We should remember that being a secularist is an ideal
that is enshrined in the Indian constitution. As I
have said on many occasions here, India is a secular
democratic republic. Accordingly, all Indian citizens
should be proud secularists. Being a non-secularist
would be an unenviable thing. Such a person would not
have a serious commitment to religious tolerance or to
separation of church and state. Typically, we would
find him to be a pharisaical religious chauvinist.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Carvalho
Dear Santosh,
Not because I have any ideological differences with
you on this one :-), but because it's a slow Tuesday
and because I like to argue, let me be the
contrarian here. What constitutes peaceful
propaganda?
Vidyadhar Gadgil
2007-04-12 11:47:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 04:06 -0700, goanet-request at lists.goanet.org
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Secularists and non-secularists
We should remember that being a secularist is an ideal
that is enshrined in the Indian constitution. As I
have said on many occasions here, India is a secular
democratic republic.
The preamble to the Indian constitution says India is a sovereign
socialist secular democratic republic. I quote below the first few lines
from the preamble:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India
into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to
all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity
and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November,
1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS
CONSTITUTION.

I do not know if the order in which the points occur is indicative of
any hieracrchy :-), though obviously sovereignty would be above all
else. All the points are vital -- what the Supreme Court has called the
basic character of the constitution.
--
Question everything -- Karl Marx
Carvalho
2007-04-13 05:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Dear Selma,
Being a non-secularist
Post by Santosh Helekar
would be an unenviable thing. Such a person would
not
have a serious commitment to religious tolerance or
to
separation of church and state. Typically, we would
find him to be a pharisaical religious chauvinist.
Cheers,
Santosh
------------------------------------------
Dear Santosh,

Here atlast is a debate I can wrap my arms around. I
never said I'm a non-secularist, I said I'm not an
Indian secularist.

Let me construct a hypothetical example to illustrate
why a true secularist would not have "religious
tolerance" and "separation of church and state" on the
same side of the balance sheet.

A and B live on an island. The only other inhabitant
is C, who also acts as general arbitrator of disputes.
The island is home to about 50 armadillos who for
ecological reasons must not be killed. A is fine with
this. B on the other hand believes in ritually killing
atleast 2 armadillos every year to propitiate his God.
A, tired after years of suffering the stench of dead
armadillos calls on C to arbitrate. C says, he has to
be tolerant of B's religious beliefs and cannot do
anything. In time, all the armadillos are dead, A and
B have grown to hate each other, C dies of cholera or
boredom and the island is on the brink of an
ecological disaster.

Now, my example may seem facile and absurd but far
more absurd things are tolerated in the name of
religion, from female circumcision, to polygamy,
denying women their rights, body mutilation,
self-flagellation, denying children education, honour
killings, the list is endless.

It is not the duty of a truly secular state to be
tolerant of religious ideology. The state's primary
responsibility is in continuously creating a society
devoid of religious ideology and one based on
scientific reasoning, the tenets of common law and
commonsense morality.

Yes, I am deeply respectful of people's sensibilities
especially religious ones, be they Hindu, Muslim or
astrologists, but that is not because I am "tolerant"
of their ideology. It is because I am respectful of
them as human beings who all share the common bond of
DNA, a moral compass and the deeply human ability to
experience pain, suffering, injustice, rebuke and
offense.

There is no difference between Albert denouncing
homosexuality and abortion and inferring the
superiority of Christianity, based on his beliefs, and
a Christian zealot from the bible belt of America, or
a Muslim fundamentalist from Afghanistan, blowing up
clinics, or beheading a homosexual in the name of
Allah. Passivity does not make one's ideology any less
benign and we must, absolutely must denounce it when
it we see it raise its ugly head.

selma





____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
Bosco D'Mello
2007-04-13 05:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carvalho
Yes, I am deeply respectful of people's sensibilities
especially religious ones, be they Hindu, Muslim or
astrologists, but that is not because I am "tolerant"
of their ideology. It is because I am respectful of
them as human beings who all share the common bond of
DNA, a moral compass and the deeply human ability to
experience pain, suffering, injustice, rebuke and
offense.
There is no difference between Albert denouncing
homosexuality and abortion and inferring the
superiority of Christianity, based on his beliefs, and
a Christian zealot from the bible belt of America, or
a Muslim fundamentalist from Afghanistan, blowing up
clinics, or beheading a homosexual in the name of
Allah.
RESPONSE: Selma, while comparing Albert to a kracker-jack who "blows up
clinics, or beheads homosexuals", you've just succeeded in rebuking him,
don't you think? Or is this respect thingy all 'fluff'??

I was surprised to see you swing from yearning for Albert's messages to
castigating his writings - all within 24 hours. Geez!!

- Bosco
Eddie Fernandes
2007-04-13 15:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Headline: The Goans get tough and mystery remains

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald. 14 April 2007: News - Opinion section.
http://www.smh.com.au/

By Philip Knightley.

Excerpts:

Who really discovered Australia? Captain James Cook, who landed at Botany
Bay in 1770? . the author Peter Trickett has backed the Portuguese explorer
Captain Cristovao Mendonca .

the search for evidence has been hampered by the lack of Portuguese archives
for the period . Five years ago I found them. They were stored in the
Department of Antiquities, a rambling building in the old quarter of
Panaji...

All Goan life was documented in these official diaries - births, deaths,
marriages, wills, land deals, official announcements and appointments, the
comings and goings of ships and, of great interest to me, the reports of
their captains .

the head of the Department of Antiquities told me that the books were not
being examined in any organised way. There was no budget to do so. It was
politically sensitive. The Indian government in Delhi preferred to forget
that the Portuguese had held Goa for so many centuries...

I have found a Goan who reads old Portuguese and who has actually done some
work on the archives for the Indian customs department .

Full text 1044 words.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-goans-get-tough-and-mystery-remains/2
007/04/13/1175971344776.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

If the link does not work, check out Goan Voice UK -
http://www.goanvoice.org.uk/

==========================================
Philip Knightley resides in Goa and is a contributor to the Goan Observer.
Check out his bio at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Knightley

I visited the Dept of Antiquities earlier this year and met the head of
Dept. I can well understand the problems in getting information from there.
I was refused information about the main resources held there or permission
to photograph any part of the interior of the building.

Eddie Fernandes
Carvalho
2007-04-13 21:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bosco D'Mello
RESPONSE: Selma, while comparing Albert to a
kracker-jack who "blows up
clinics, or beheads homosexuals", you've just
succeeded in rebuking him,
don't you think? Or is this respect thingy all
'fluff'??
I was surprised to see you swing from yearning for
Albert's messages to
castigating his writings - all within 24 hours.
Geez!!
- Bosco
------------------------------------------

Dear Bosco,
Are you saying nothing in our society should be
rebuked? We're going all "Imus" here aren't we?

I like Albert very much. I did miss him in his
absence. Albert is an individual who is truly without
malice on this forum and I'm sure so clean of heart he
would put most of us to shame. But here is an
individual whose philosophy in life is so behind the
times, we might just be able to excavate it from
ruins. When we hold opinions such as these, even if
held without malice, they tend to gather momentum
especially when sanctioned by silence.

selma



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Sachin Phadte
2007-04-14 05:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Santosh Helkar wrote: "We should remember that being a secularist is an
ideal that is enshrined in the Indian constitution."

I am being technical here. When the Constitution was adopted immediately
after independence, India was defined as a democratic republic. During the
Emergency of 1975-77, it was amended and India was defined as a secular,
socialist, democratic republic. The word secular has not been defined
anywhere in the Constitution. The objective of the amendment had nothing to
do with upholding the principles of either secularism or socialism.

Having said this, I do believe strongly in secularism, which I define to
mean that the state does not recognise the communal identity of the citizen
in dealing with him or her.

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
Sign in and get updated on all the action from Formula One
http://content.msn.co.in/Sports/FormulaOne/Default
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-14 20:58:02 UTC
Permalink
The word secular has not been defined anywhere in
the >Constitution.
This statement is utterly meaningless. The words
democratic and republic have also not been defined
anywhere in the constitution.

The Indian constitution, as originally formulated and
today, makes the meaning of secularism and the
conviction that India is a secular state absolutely
clear. The preamble itself states that its purpose is
"to secure to all its citizens", among other things,
"LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship". Please see:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/preamble.html

One of the fundamental rights in our constitution is
the "right to freedom of religion", under which no
religion receives any kind of special treatment, and
the State dissociates itself completely from any and
all forms of religious activity. The statements that
are most appealing to me in this regard are the
following:

"(1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any
educational institution wholly maintained out of State
funds."

"(3) No person attending any educational institution
recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State
funds shall be required to take part in any religious
instruction that may be imparted in such institution
or to attend any religious worship that may be
conducted in such institution or in any premises
attached thereto unless such person or, if such person
is a minor, his guardian has given his consent
thereto."

Please see:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03.html
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03028.html
Having said this, I do believe strongly in
secularism, which I define to mean that the state
does >not recognise the communal identity of the
citizen in >dealing with him or her.
I think this principle has very little to do with
secularism per se. It is subsumed in the "right to
equality".

Here is how it is stated in the constitution:

"(1) The State shall not discriminate against any
citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex,
place of birth or any of them."

Please see:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03015.html

Cheers,

Santosh
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-15 17:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Dear Selma,

Religious tolerance in a secular state applies
unconditionally to beliefs in general. The tolerance
to practice, however, is conditional, the condition
being that the religious practice must not be harmful
to the individual and the society as a whole. Your
example is therefore inappropriate. Tolerance also
does not mean that one cannot speak out against absurd
beliefs. It only means that one cannot suppress them.

You are as free to criticize Albert's beliefs as
Albert is to express them.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Carvalho
Dear Santosh,
Here atlast is a debate I can wrap my arms around. I
never said I'm a non-secularist, I said I'm not an
Indian secularist.
Let me construct a hypothetical example to
illustrate
why a true secularist would not have "religious
tolerance" and "separation of church and state" on
the
same side of the balance sheet.
Sachin Phadte
2007-04-16 06:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Thank you, Santosh, for your erudite post. Can you please comment on the
reasons why the words 'socialist' and 'secular' were introduced during the
time of the Emergency?

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
Sign in and get updated on all the action from Formula One
http://content.msn.co.in/Sports/FormulaOne/Default
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-16 17:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sachin Phadte
Thank you, Santosh, for your erudite post. Can you
please comment on the reasons why the words
'socialist' and 'secular' were introduced during the
time of the Emergency?
Sachin,

I think most likely for political reasons. But I
submit that no one can deny that India was constituted
in 1950 to be a secular republic. I have already told
you why. Please ask someone else to explain to you why
it is a socialist republic. I don't have much interest
in that topic.

Cheers,

Santosh
Sachin Phadte
2007-04-18 05:28:32 UTC
Permalink
I agree with Santosh Helekar when he says that the word secular was
introduced in the preamble of the constitution during the Emergency for
political reasons, and had nothing to do with the upholding the principles
of secularism. Such type of duplicity was quite common with Indira Gandhi.

I also agree with him that the consitution set out in 1950 intended India to
be secular. However, since the definition of secularism has been kept vague.

This has lead to many funny situations. For example, when members of Shiv
Sena leave the organisation to join the Congress party they always said that
they were doing so to uphold the principles of secularism! In fact, one such
member, upon joining the Congress party, asked what is wrong with being
secular. This clearly implied that he was not a secular person while in the
Shiv Sena. An even funnier part is that the person was a member of
parliament and had taken an oath to uphold the principles of secularism.

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
The idiot box is no longer pass?; it's making news and how!
http://content.msn.co.in/Entertainment/TV/Default.aspx
Anthony M Barreto
2007-04-05 13:26:06 UTC
Permalink
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.
Tony Martin


******************************************************************************
Anthony M Barreto aka Tony Martin
Freelance Writer and Author
Galgibaga, Canacona, Goa -- 403728
M: 9422390701 R: 91-0832-2632012
www.canacona.net
*****************************************************************************




____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
Aristo
2007-04-06 06:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony M Barreto
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.
Tony Martin
Hi Tony,

Don't really dismiss Kalam as being a genuine fan of Remo. I am
sometimes amazed when I meet older non-goan Indians who will suddenly
start "Ooh La La, ooh la la, maaaii ocean queeeeen" when the word Remo
comes up!

Cheers,
Aristo.
JoeGoaUk
2007-04-07 20:34:30 UTC
Permalink
[Goanet] Re.: I am your fan, President to Remo

I may not be a Remo's fan but I am a big fan of our President Dr. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM
(for that matter, I am a fan of our PM too, Mr. Manmohan singh).

Our president may be a son of an illiterate fisherman but he is very popular, infact most
popular amongst the Indian politicians.

His website http://presidentofindia.nic.in/ registered record number of hits. Sept. 12 last
year alone, there were 2.4million hits and on August 15 there were 10.12 millions hits,
average per month for the year 2006 was 9.6 millions (3.2 lakhs hits per day).

He might appear old (76) but he is very young at heart (like me).
Very popular with the children too.

So, he being a fan of Remo, cannot be ruled out.

Moreover, our Remo may not have that many fans in Goa but he has plenty of fans through out
India.

As I am posting Goa related songs/dances etc on the net, I received several queries from
outside Goa as to why I was not posting Remo's songs on the net despite me and Remo both
being from Goa. Believe me or not, this had never cross my mind, and I did that (posted)
because they told me what they want. I still get requests to give some more songs of Remo
playing flute.

Anyone can be a fan of anyone (not necessarily from the same age group).

Now, you may like know how many fans I have in Goa political circle?
My answer is None. However, if I had choose at least one then my choice would be Mathany
Saldanha (present MLA of Cortalim Constituency).

If Remo is not my fan, how come I posted several songs ?
Well, this is not always what I want or what I like, apart from him being a Goan and performed
in Goa, I also did that because you ask for it or that's what most of you wanted.
http://konkan.tv/view/f4f24853fc4192689aa7 about 1900 hits so far.

For that matter, Churchill Alemao, never been my favourite but I did post his speech in two
parts because I know most south (Salcette & Gulfies) are fans of his and some of them even
hero worship him. http://youtu.be/IekxqNpptNo to my surprised there were 500 hits
so far (I) followed by 450 (II). Putting both sites together.


Quote:
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.



Joegoauk at yahoo.co.uk

for Goa & NRI related info...
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/GOAN-NRI/

Konkani Songs, Goan Photos, Tiatr/Film VCDs, Bank interest rates etc etc
(for updates etc click below)
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/GOAN-NRI/files/




___________________________________________________________
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk
Carvalho
2007-04-08 05:52:15 UTC
Permalink
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate advocating
censorship of any sort but Easter is really tough on
my agnostic, secular philosophy of life. It seems
Easter has brought out of the woodworks, among Albert
(yes, yes, I know I was missing you and all), many
others who insist on telling us the meaning of Good
Friday, the superiority of the Christian way of life,
etc.

If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and blatantly
embarrassed by the messages posted on this forum,I can
well imagine how offended my Hindu and Muslim fellow
members must be feeling. Not only am I offended by the
religious sentiments expressed but I'm acutely
embarrassed by the sheer ignorance that is perpetrated
in the name of religion.

So let's in the spirit of brotherhood, advocate a
little bit of self-censorship and refrain from
foisting upon the world our own religious views. The
world is too polite and perhaps indifferent to counter
you, but that doesn't mean you have carte blanche to
inflict yourself onto its religious sensibilities.

selma



____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-09 17:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Actually, a secularist would not be offended by such
public display of parochial religious credo. An Indian
secularist is a pluralist. She has no problems
tolerating sectarian propaganda in a public forum, as
long as it is peaceful. On the scales of true
secularism exhibition of self-centered religious
certitude weighs no less than strong public criticism
of pious superstitions and frauds. We need an equal
measure of both on Goanet.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Carvalho
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate
advocating
censorship of any sort but Easter is really tough on
my agnostic, secular philosophy of life. It seems
Easter has brought out of the woodworks, among
Albert
(yes, yes, I know I was missing you and all), many
others who insist on telling us the meaning of Good
Friday, the superiority of the Christian way of
life,
etc.
If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and
blatantly
embarrassed by the messages posted on this forum,I
can
well imagine how offended my Hindu and Muslim fellow
members must be feeling. Not only am I offended by
the
religious sentiments expressed but I'm acutely
embarrassed by the sheer ignorance that is
perpetrated
in the name of religion.
Carvalho
2007-04-10 18:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Actually, a secularist would not be offended by such
public display of parochial religious credo. An
Indian
secularist is a pluralist. She has no problems
tolerating sectarian propaganda in a public forum,
as
long as it is peaceful.
--------------------------------

Dear Santosh,

Not because I have any ideological differences with
you on this one :-), but because it's a slow Tuesday
and because I like to argue, let me be the contrarian
here. What constitutes peaceful propaganda?

To me, an agnostic who doesn't believe in the divinity
of Jesus Christ it is offensive to be told repeatedly
that he is the only way to salvation. Isn't it akin to
the RSS telling its disciples that Hindutva is the
only national ideology for India's political and
religious advancement, and an Islamic Imam telling its
followers that all infidels will burn in hell. There
is no nobility in using Goanet as a megaphone to
recruit into the fold, however peacefully it is done.
Sometimes passive maybe more insidious that
aggressive.

You are absolutely spot on when you say an Indian
secularist is a pluralist but I'm not an Indian
secularist. I believe there is virtue in the
homogenisation of society, as long as it doesn't rob
us of our individuality, and I feel very strongly
about the separation of church and state. It is
fundamental to sustaining thought that moves us
forward and not backward.

Take care,
selma



____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
Mario Goveia
2007-04-10 19:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carvalho
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate
advocating censorship of any sort but Easter is
really tough on my agnostic, secular philosophy of
life. It seems Easter has brought out of the
woodworks, among Albert (yes, yes, I know I was
missing you and all), many others who insist on
telling us the meaning of Good Friday, the
superiority of the Christian way of life, etc.
Mario observes:
Hey, Selma,
I knew there had to be a "but" at the end of an
opening sentence that begins with, "I'm a great fan of
free speech,...":-))
This is an open public forum, kiddo, so, if you are
really secular and really a great fan of free speech
you take the agreeable with the disagreeable, right?
No ifs, ands or buts. The principle of free speech
was conceived precisely to protect disagreeable
speech, right? Agreeable speech needs no protection.
I'm just happy that Albert now titles his posts with a
recognizable subject line, rather than his previous,
"Albert writes", so that we can decide whether to open
his posts before we put our hip boots on:-))
Post by Carvalho
If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and
blatantly embarrassed by the messages posted on
this forum,I can well imagine how offended my Hindu
and Muslim fellow members must be feeling. Not only
am I offended by the religious sentiments expressed
but I'm acutely embarrassed by the sheer ignorance
that is perpetrated in the name of religion.
Mario asks:
Perhaps you are so offended BECAUSE you are, by your
own repetitious admissions, a "lapsed Catholic", for
whom closely held Catholic religious beliefs and
sentiments, based on faith alone, are, by definition,
ignorant, offensive and embarrassing.
Are you sure that religious Hindus or Muslims would be
offended? To begin with, are there any "religious"
Hindus or Muslims on Goanet? If so, I didn't see any
of them say so. Besides, I suspect they may have
their hands full and their heads down with what their
own fanatics and radicals are perpetrating, in India
and elsewhere, which is far more deadly to their
unbelievers and protagonists than any "sentiment",
however offensive.
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-12 07:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Dear Selma,

We should remember that being a secularist is an ideal
that is enshrined in the Indian constitution. As I
have said on many occasions here, India is a secular
democratic republic. Accordingly, all Indian citizens
should be proud secularists. Being a non-secularist
would be an unenviable thing. Such a person would not
have a serious commitment to religious tolerance or to
separation of church and state. Typically, we would
find him to be a pharisaical religious chauvinist.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Carvalho
Dear Santosh,
Not because I have any ideological differences with
you on this one :-), but because it's a slow Tuesday
and because I like to argue, let me be the
contrarian here. What constitutes peaceful
propaganda?
Vidyadhar Gadgil
2007-04-12 11:47:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 04:06 -0700, goanet-request at lists.goanet.org
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Secularists and non-secularists
We should remember that being a secularist is an ideal
that is enshrined in the Indian constitution. As I
have said on many occasions here, India is a secular
democratic republic.
The preamble to the Indian constitution says India is a sovereign
socialist secular democratic republic. I quote below the first few lines
from the preamble:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India
into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to
all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity
and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November,
1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS
CONSTITUTION.

I do not know if the order in which the points occur is indicative of
any hieracrchy :-), though obviously sovereignty would be above all
else. All the points are vital -- what the Supreme Court has called the
basic character of the constitution.
--
Question everything -- Karl Marx
Carvalho
2007-04-13 05:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Dear Selma,
Being a non-secularist
Post by Santosh Helekar
would be an unenviable thing. Such a person would
not
have a serious commitment to religious tolerance or
to
separation of church and state. Typically, we would
find him to be a pharisaical religious chauvinist.
Cheers,
Santosh
------------------------------------------
Dear Santosh,

Here atlast is a debate I can wrap my arms around. I
never said I'm a non-secularist, I said I'm not an
Indian secularist.

Let me construct a hypothetical example to illustrate
why a true secularist would not have "religious
tolerance" and "separation of church and state" on the
same side of the balance sheet.

A and B live on an island. The only other inhabitant
is C, who also acts as general arbitrator of disputes.
The island is home to about 50 armadillos who for
ecological reasons must not be killed. A is fine with
this. B on the other hand believes in ritually killing
atleast 2 armadillos every year to propitiate his God.
A, tired after years of suffering the stench of dead
armadillos calls on C to arbitrate. C says, he has to
be tolerant of B's religious beliefs and cannot do
anything. In time, all the armadillos are dead, A and
B have grown to hate each other, C dies of cholera or
boredom and the island is on the brink of an
ecological disaster.

Now, my example may seem facile and absurd but far
more absurd things are tolerated in the name of
religion, from female circumcision, to polygamy,
denying women their rights, body mutilation,
self-flagellation, denying children education, honour
killings, the list is endless.

It is not the duty of a truly secular state to be
tolerant of religious ideology. The state's primary
responsibility is in continuously creating a society
devoid of religious ideology and one based on
scientific reasoning, the tenets of common law and
commonsense morality.

Yes, I am deeply respectful of people's sensibilities
especially religious ones, be they Hindu, Muslim or
astrologists, but that is not because I am "tolerant"
of their ideology. It is because I am respectful of
them as human beings who all share the common bond of
DNA, a moral compass and the deeply human ability to
experience pain, suffering, injustice, rebuke and
offense.

There is no difference between Albert denouncing
homosexuality and abortion and inferring the
superiority of Christianity, based on his beliefs, and
a Christian zealot from the bible belt of America, or
a Muslim fundamentalist from Afghanistan, blowing up
clinics, or beheading a homosexual in the name of
Allah. Passivity does not make one's ideology any less
benign and we must, absolutely must denounce it when
it we see it raise its ugly head.

selma





____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
Bosco D'Mello
2007-04-13 05:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carvalho
Yes, I am deeply respectful of people's sensibilities
especially religious ones, be they Hindu, Muslim or
astrologists, but that is not because I am "tolerant"
of their ideology. It is because I am respectful of
them as human beings who all share the common bond of
DNA, a moral compass and the deeply human ability to
experience pain, suffering, injustice, rebuke and
offense.
There is no difference between Albert denouncing
homosexuality and abortion and inferring the
superiority of Christianity, based on his beliefs, and
a Christian zealot from the bible belt of America, or
a Muslim fundamentalist from Afghanistan, blowing up
clinics, or beheading a homosexual in the name of
Allah.
RESPONSE: Selma, while comparing Albert to a kracker-jack who "blows up
clinics, or beheads homosexuals", you've just succeeded in rebuking him,
don't you think? Or is this respect thingy all 'fluff'??

I was surprised to see you swing from yearning for Albert's messages to
castigating his writings - all within 24 hours. Geez!!

- Bosco
Eddie Fernandes
2007-04-13 15:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Headline: The Goans get tough and mystery remains

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald. 14 April 2007: News - Opinion section.
http://www.smh.com.au/

By Philip Knightley.

Excerpts:

Who really discovered Australia? Captain James Cook, who landed at Botany
Bay in 1770? . the author Peter Trickett has backed the Portuguese explorer
Captain Cristovao Mendonca .

the search for evidence has been hampered by the lack of Portuguese archives
for the period . Five years ago I found them. They were stored in the
Department of Antiquities, a rambling building in the old quarter of
Panaji...

All Goan life was documented in these official diaries - births, deaths,
marriages, wills, land deals, official announcements and appointments, the
comings and goings of ships and, of great interest to me, the reports of
their captains .

the head of the Department of Antiquities told me that the books were not
being examined in any organised way. There was no budget to do so. It was
politically sensitive. The Indian government in Delhi preferred to forget
that the Portuguese had held Goa for so many centuries...

I have found a Goan who reads old Portuguese and who has actually done some
work on the archives for the Indian customs department .

Full text 1044 words.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-goans-get-tough-and-mystery-remains/2
007/04/13/1175971344776.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

If the link does not work, check out Goan Voice UK -
http://www.goanvoice.org.uk/

==========================================
Philip Knightley resides in Goa and is a contributor to the Goan Observer.
Check out his bio at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Knightley

I visited the Dept of Antiquities earlier this year and met the head of
Dept. I can well understand the problems in getting information from there.
I was refused information about the main resources held there or permission
to photograph any part of the interior of the building.

Eddie Fernandes
Carvalho
2007-04-13 21:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bosco D'Mello
RESPONSE: Selma, while comparing Albert to a
kracker-jack who "blows up
clinics, or beheads homosexuals", you've just
succeeded in rebuking him,
don't you think? Or is this respect thingy all
'fluff'??
I was surprised to see you swing from yearning for
Albert's messages to
castigating his writings - all within 24 hours.
Geez!!
- Bosco
------------------------------------------

Dear Bosco,
Are you saying nothing in our society should be
rebuked? We're going all "Imus" here aren't we?

I like Albert very much. I did miss him in his
absence. Albert is an individual who is truly without
malice on this forum and I'm sure so clean of heart he
would put most of us to shame. But here is an
individual whose philosophy in life is so behind the
times, we might just be able to excavate it from
ruins. When we hold opinions such as these, even if
held without malice, they tend to gather momentum
especially when sanctioned by silence.

selma



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Sachin Phadte
2007-04-14 05:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Santosh Helkar wrote: "We should remember that being a secularist is an
ideal that is enshrined in the Indian constitution."

I am being technical here. When the Constitution was adopted immediately
after independence, India was defined as a democratic republic. During the
Emergency of 1975-77, it was amended and India was defined as a secular,
socialist, democratic republic. The word secular has not been defined
anywhere in the Constitution. The objective of the amendment had nothing to
do with upholding the principles of either secularism or socialism.

Having said this, I do believe strongly in secularism, which I define to
mean that the state does not recognise the communal identity of the citizen
in dealing with him or her.

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
Sign in and get updated on all the action from Formula One
http://content.msn.co.in/Sports/FormulaOne/Default
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-14 20:58:02 UTC
Permalink
The word secular has not been defined anywhere in
the >Constitution.
This statement is utterly meaningless. The words
democratic and republic have also not been defined
anywhere in the constitution.

The Indian constitution, as originally formulated and
today, makes the meaning of secularism and the
conviction that India is a secular state absolutely
clear. The preamble itself states that its purpose is
"to secure to all its citizens", among other things,
"LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship". Please see:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/preamble.html

One of the fundamental rights in our constitution is
the "right to freedom of religion", under which no
religion receives any kind of special treatment, and
the State dissociates itself completely from any and
all forms of religious activity. The statements that
are most appealing to me in this regard are the
following:

"(1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any
educational institution wholly maintained out of State
funds."

"(3) No person attending any educational institution
recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State
funds shall be required to take part in any religious
instruction that may be imparted in such institution
or to attend any religious worship that may be
conducted in such institution or in any premises
attached thereto unless such person or, if such person
is a minor, his guardian has given his consent
thereto."

Please see:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03.html
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03028.html
Having said this, I do believe strongly in
secularism, which I define to mean that the state
does >not recognise the communal identity of the
citizen in >dealing with him or her.
I think this principle has very little to do with
secularism per se. It is subsumed in the "right to
equality".

Here is how it is stated in the constitution:

"(1) The State shall not discriminate against any
citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex,
place of birth or any of them."

Please see:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03015.html

Cheers,

Santosh
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-15 17:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Dear Selma,

Religious tolerance in a secular state applies
unconditionally to beliefs in general. The tolerance
to practice, however, is conditional, the condition
being that the religious practice must not be harmful
to the individual and the society as a whole. Your
example is therefore inappropriate. Tolerance also
does not mean that one cannot speak out against absurd
beliefs. It only means that one cannot suppress them.

You are as free to criticize Albert's beliefs as
Albert is to express them.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Carvalho
Dear Santosh,
Here atlast is a debate I can wrap my arms around. I
never said I'm a non-secularist, I said I'm not an
Indian secularist.
Let me construct a hypothetical example to
illustrate
why a true secularist would not have "religious
tolerance" and "separation of church and state" on
the
same side of the balance sheet.
Sachin Phadte
2007-04-16 06:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Thank you, Santosh, for your erudite post. Can you please comment on the
reasons why the words 'socialist' and 'secular' were introduced during the
time of the Emergency?

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
Sign in and get updated on all the action from Formula One
http://content.msn.co.in/Sports/FormulaOne/Default
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-16 17:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sachin Phadte
Thank you, Santosh, for your erudite post. Can you
please comment on the reasons why the words
'socialist' and 'secular' were introduced during the
time of the Emergency?
Sachin,

I think most likely for political reasons. But I
submit that no one can deny that India was constituted
in 1950 to be a secular republic. I have already told
you why. Please ask someone else to explain to you why
it is a socialist republic. I don't have much interest
in that topic.

Cheers,

Santosh
Sachin Phadte
2007-04-18 05:28:32 UTC
Permalink
I agree with Santosh Helekar when he says that the word secular was
introduced in the preamble of the constitution during the Emergency for
political reasons, and had nothing to do with the upholding the principles
of secularism. Such type of duplicity was quite common with Indira Gandhi.

I also agree with him that the consitution set out in 1950 intended India to
be secular. However, since the definition of secularism has been kept vague.

This has lead to many funny situations. For example, when members of Shiv
Sena leave the organisation to join the Congress party they always said that
they were doing so to uphold the principles of secularism! In fact, one such
member, upon joining the Congress party, asked what is wrong with being
secular. This clearly implied that he was not a secular person while in the
Shiv Sena. An even funnier part is that the person was a member of
parliament and had taken an oath to uphold the principles of secularism.

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
The idiot box is no longer pass?; it's making news and how!
http://content.msn.co.in/Entertainment/TV/Default.aspx
Anthony M Barreto
2007-04-05 13:26:06 UTC
Permalink
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.
Tony Martin


******************************************************************************
Anthony M Barreto aka Tony Martin
Freelance Writer and Author
Galgibaga, Canacona, Goa -- 403728
M: 9422390701 R: 91-0832-2632012
www.canacona.net
*****************************************************************************




____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
Aristo
2007-04-06 06:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony M Barreto
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.
Tony Martin
Hi Tony,

Don't really dismiss Kalam as being a genuine fan of Remo. I am
sometimes amazed when I meet older non-goan Indians who will suddenly
start "Ooh La La, ooh la la, maaaii ocean queeeeen" when the word Remo
comes up!

Cheers,
Aristo.
JoeGoaUk
2007-04-07 20:34:30 UTC
Permalink
[Goanet] Re.: I am your fan, President to Remo

I may not be a Remo's fan but I am a big fan of our President Dr. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM
(for that matter, I am a fan of our PM too, Mr. Manmohan singh).

Our president may be a son of an illiterate fisherman but he is very popular, infact most
popular amongst the Indian politicians.

His website http://presidentofindia.nic.in/ registered record number of hits. Sept. 12 last
year alone, there were 2.4million hits and on August 15 there were 10.12 millions hits,
average per month for the year 2006 was 9.6 millions (3.2 lakhs hits per day).

He might appear old (76) but he is very young at heart (like me).
Very popular with the children too.

So, he being a fan of Remo, cannot be ruled out.

Moreover, our Remo may not have that many fans in Goa but he has plenty of fans through out
India.

As I am posting Goa related songs/dances etc on the net, I received several queries from
outside Goa as to why I was not posting Remo's songs on the net despite me and Remo both
being from Goa. Believe me or not, this had never cross my mind, and I did that (posted)
because they told me what they want. I still get requests to give some more songs of Remo
playing flute.

Anyone can be a fan of anyone (not necessarily from the same age group).

Now, you may like know how many fans I have in Goa political circle?
My answer is None. However, if I had choose at least one then my choice would be Mathany
Saldanha (present MLA of Cortalim Constituency).

If Remo is not my fan, how come I posted several songs ?
Well, this is not always what I want or what I like, apart from him being a Goan and performed
in Goa, I also did that because you ask for it or that's what most of you wanted.
http://konkan.tv/view/f4f24853fc4192689aa7 about 1900 hits so far.

For that matter, Churchill Alemao, never been my favourite but I did post his speech in two
parts because I know most south (Salcette & Gulfies) are fans of his and some of them even
hero worship him. http://youtu.be/IekxqNpptNo to my surprised there were 500 hits
so far (I) followed by 450 (II). Putting both sites together.


Quote:
The President loves Remo's pop. That's too far-fetched
imo.
I think the President should take a few tips on the
art of flattery.
May be just a 'well done' would have been more
genuine. I wish I could ask Mr Kalam the name of a
Remo number.



Joegoauk at yahoo.co.uk

for Goa & NRI related info...
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/GOAN-NRI/

Konkani Songs, Goan Photos, Tiatr/Film VCDs, Bank interest rates etc etc
(for updates etc click below)
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/GOAN-NRI/files/




___________________________________________________________
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk
Carvalho
2007-04-08 05:52:15 UTC
Permalink
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate advocating
censorship of any sort but Easter is really tough on
my agnostic, secular philosophy of life. It seems
Easter has brought out of the woodworks, among Albert
(yes, yes, I know I was missing you and all), many
others who insist on telling us the meaning of Good
Friday, the superiority of the Christian way of life,
etc.

If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and blatantly
embarrassed by the messages posted on this forum,I can
well imagine how offended my Hindu and Muslim fellow
members must be feeling. Not only am I offended by the
religious sentiments expressed but I'm acutely
embarrassed by the sheer ignorance that is perpetrated
in the name of religion.

So let's in the spirit of brotherhood, advocate a
little bit of self-censorship and refrain from
foisting upon the world our own religious views. The
world is too polite and perhaps indifferent to counter
you, but that doesn't mean you have carte blanche to
inflict yourself onto its religious sensibilities.

selma



____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Santosh Helekar
2007-04-09 17:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Actually, a secularist would not be offended by such
public display of parochial religious credo. An Indian
secularist is a pluralist. She has no problems
tolerating sectarian propaganda in a public forum, as
long as it is peaceful. On the scales of true
secularism exhibition of self-centered religious
certitude weighs no less than strong public criticism
of pious superstitions and frauds. We need an equal
measure of both on Goanet.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Carvalho
I'm a great fan of free speech, and I hate
advocating
censorship of any sort but Easter is really tough on
my agnostic, secular philosophy of life. It seems
Easter has brought out of the woodworks, among
Albert
(yes, yes, I know I was missing you and all), many
others who insist on telling us the meaning of Good
Friday, the superiority of the Christian way of
life,
etc.
If I as a lapsed Catholic feel offended and
blatantly
embarrassed by the messages posted on this forum,I
can
well imagine how offended my Hindu and Muslim fellow
members must be feeling. Not only am I offended by
the
religious sentiments expressed but I'm acutely
embarrassed by the sheer ignorance that is
perpetrated
in the name of religion.
Loading...