Comment on the editorial : Faith and bad faith

---

Does the fact that a few persons sometimes pour water on the road for people following a different rite suffice to make them “tolerant” of other religions? I can surely throw some water under your feet for a day and deny you justice every day. I could even give a few thousand rupees for your religious ceremonies and continually deny your children an equitable access to education or posts and promotion in the civil service, if in my mindset, hypocrisy is a quality.

And should I be thankful that you so condescendingly tolerate the religions of other people?   Who asked you for tolerance?  We have to accept that other people can have their own belief systems that involve their free will and their conscience. It is their right and it have to be respected. Not tolerated.

“So what went wrong?” It’s been wrong for a long time and, if you would tolerate a twist of grammar, it has been getting “wronger”. Some people have been behaving as if they were the natural owners of the country. An unholy coalition of politicians and religious leaders has been corrupting our institutions. Our laws have been flouted to flatter the egos of their followers.

“Official religions”? One should not be writing about such important things if we do not know what we are talking about. There is nothing like official religions in our Constitution. This is a democracy. You do not even need to have a religion. You are entitled to freedom of conscience. As for the hastily-baked and self -serving “unwritten code”, I would encourage a search into the concept of “freedom of expression”.  It takes a lot of nerve to deny universal basic human rights enshrined in our Constitution on the basis of an “unwritten code”, perhaps the product of revelation to a newspaper columnist. This is Mauritius, not Malaysia.

The perpetrators of violence in Triolet were not taking the law into their hands. It does not require a lot of objectivity to realize that they were clearly acting outside the law. Condoning such behavior is simply immoral. The veiled sympathy expressed for them will only encourage their sorts. Did you say bad faith?
After decreeing “Official religions”, it is only natural that one would go on to qualify others as sects. We are tolerant … Aren’t we? A sect can only be a Christian group. Groups and godmen claiming to share the beliefs of other religions are never sects but are warmly welcomed by political leaders.

When I choose a religion, a political party, a restaurant or anything else, you would be right to infer that it is a preference over the ones I decide not to choose. You do not need to grow a complex that your choice or refusal to choose make you inferior unless you are not at liberty of following your own conscience.  In which case I’m so sorry …

I will not comment on your choice of using a photo of the Honorable Prime Minister for the article “When walking on fire does not burn”.

Roy