<p class="bodytext">A conference was organised in New Delhi recently wherein speakers representing various religions spoke in one voice that all religions should focus on propagating tolerance and diversity. </p>.<p class="bodytext">One wonders, if instilling the sense of one’s own religion being superior to all other religions in the world is not impressed in the young minds by the religious dogma of religions through educational framework then, from where else seeds of intolerance would sprout in the minds of the people necessitating the need for such seminars? What other sources people have to imbibe such intolerance and become fanatic demanding conformity to one and only Messiah of god or one and only messenger of Almighty or the one and only avtar?</p>.<p class="bodytext">No religion says that there may be other ways as well equally valid (if not more than one’s own) to attain the religious goal of human beings? If dogma of any religion doesn’t encourage its followers to imbibe ultimate openness then what is the point in organising such conferences ? </p>.<p class="bodytext">Can the propagation of double speak become the cure for double speak ?</p>.<p class="bodytext">It is not uncommon to see certain speakers speaking one thing at one forum and speaking another thing at another forum taking totally opposite stances. Among such seminarists an entirely well-meaning speaker might be made to appear entirely tilted and slanted if not out and out sold out or intentional offender or fanatic or fundamentalist. Moreover, when eminent persons indulge in double speak it creates confusion in society. </p>.<p class="bodytext">Religions teach tolerance, religion teaches diversity. But then the question arises instead of teaching openness to seek, who teaches unquestioning conformity to one’s belief?</p>.<p class="bodytext">Point that I am trying to bring to your notice is about behaviour and practice. Speaking metaphorically, until ker ( banana plant) and ber (thorny plum shrub ) are afar from one another, there is no problem but when they have to live in same space then? </p>.<p class="bodytext">Wouldn’t one shear through another one’s authenticity of behaviour or so to say by practicing freedom of belief/religion spontaneously?</p>.<p class="bodytext">Why religion shouldn’t (or should) be kept an entirely private affair of every individual confined to individual? Think about it.</p>
<p class="bodytext">A conference was organised in New Delhi recently wherein speakers representing various religions spoke in one voice that all religions should focus on propagating tolerance and diversity. </p>.<p class="bodytext">One wonders, if instilling the sense of one’s own religion being superior to all other religions in the world is not impressed in the young minds by the religious dogma of religions through educational framework then, from where else seeds of intolerance would sprout in the minds of the people necessitating the need for such seminars? What other sources people have to imbibe such intolerance and become fanatic demanding conformity to one and only Messiah of god or one and only messenger of Almighty or the one and only avtar?</p>.<p class="bodytext">No religion says that there may be other ways as well equally valid (if not more than one’s own) to attain the religious goal of human beings? If dogma of any religion doesn’t encourage its followers to imbibe ultimate openness then what is the point in organising such conferences ? </p>.<p class="bodytext">Can the propagation of double speak become the cure for double speak ?</p>.<p class="bodytext">It is not uncommon to see certain speakers speaking one thing at one forum and speaking another thing at another forum taking totally opposite stances. Among such seminarists an entirely well-meaning speaker might be made to appear entirely tilted and slanted if not out and out sold out or intentional offender or fanatic or fundamentalist. Moreover, when eminent persons indulge in double speak it creates confusion in society. </p>.<p class="bodytext">Religions teach tolerance, religion teaches diversity. But then the question arises instead of teaching openness to seek, who teaches unquestioning conformity to one’s belief?</p>.<p class="bodytext">Point that I am trying to bring to your notice is about behaviour and practice. Speaking metaphorically, until ker ( banana plant) and ber (thorny plum shrub ) are afar from one another, there is no problem but when they have to live in same space then? </p>.<p class="bodytext">Wouldn’t one shear through another one’s authenticity of behaviour or so to say by practicing freedom of belief/religion spontaneously?</p>.<p class="bodytext">Why religion shouldn’t (or should) be kept an entirely private affair of every individual confined to individual? Think about it.</p>
