As a matter of fact my position should have been clear from my first post in which I talked about possible disastrous effect of the chain reaction of retaliation by competing countries by banning rival religions.
Your 'appropriate' judgment seems to be unethical. Angola has taken away the religious rights of some groups within Angola. Would it not be unethical for another country to take away the religious rights of some other groups? Are you not justifying the demolition of temples in Bangladesh as a reaction to demolition of the Babri Mosque in India?
Sent from my iPhone
Yes, Mr. Chakraborty, now I can understand your point. You have generalized your view in the last post. Dr. Bain promotes generalized views like, "Barbaric acts should not be retaliated with barbaric acts," and you support it. Both of you identify something as barbaric act, but do not support similar reaction to that. This is exactly Gandhism, whether you realize it or not.
You said, "My point is: Angola has banned Islam, so another country will have to retaliate by banning Christianity---that cannot be a wise step."
Now, I can agree with you - this is an extreme reaction, but not totally inappropriate in the realm of appropriate reactions.Saudi Arabia has practiced religious discrimination for thousands of years, and the world has looked the other way, which has resulted the spreading of religious discrimination (virus) in other Muslim majority countries too. If you think clearly you will have no difficulty to see the host country for this virus. I am puzzled by the fact that you guys have so much difficulty to see this reality. And, in that line of thinking, I judge Angolan action as extreme, but not inappropriate.Jiten Roy
