But, Mr. Prakash...

[Kartik Ramachandran <ramachan@grinnell.edu>]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Prakash,

While respecting your views on 'temples' being 'private property' and
therefore beyond the purview of the government, I would like to push this
discussion on a slightly more abstract level:

If one of the intentions of governance, ultimately, is to provide some sense
of equality amongst its citizens (whether it is defined as absolute equality,
equality of opportunity, or equality restricted to certain aspects of life),
then the question is what value we, as a society, place on access to a
religious site.

Now if we consider the importance of religious sites in our society, I think
we would agree that there is a strong value placed on them by a high
percentage of our population. Given the unique position of religious sites
within society (where they are closer, I believe, to political institutions
and public institutions), should they not be left open to all?

Aren't pluralist views that often seem desirable, ideal only in an ideal
situation? Shouldn't a system of governance strive to achieve something
that a
society collectively feels is required? While these may be ambiguous in the
fields of economic/developmental policy, isn't the goal of non-discrimination
worth pursuing?

Kartik Ramachandran

>===== Original Message From debate@indiapolicy.org =====
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>what is important here is not the money, but the principle. An
>avowedly secular government cannot control temples - or their
>administration - whether this be the active control like tirupati or
>the elimination of sects like the case of the branch davidians in
>waco, texas. I would go ahead and say that civil code laws like
>marriage codes are also wrong as any consensual activity between
>adults ought to be allowed. Nobody should have the right to dictate
>the living terms between two adults.
>
>when a temple like guruvayur wants to debar any non-hindus from its
>premises, we feel that it is acting in an obscurantist fashion. But
>then, so does crossroads when it disallowed the entry of people
>without cellphones or credit cards. different religion -different god.
>(although some people would say money is the universal god)
>but what is important in a free society is the right to be a wonk and
>yet be allowed to live unmolested. That is tolerance. when these
>temples are taken away from the government's control and subject to
>the same rules as companies, then they will slowly realise their own
>follies. If they don't , well and good - nobody is forcing you to
>visit any temple. I do not believe in legislating free, universal
>access to temples as it is a violation of property rights.
>
>regards
>prakash
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
>Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------


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