Civil Liberties and Belief Systems

Civil Liberties and Belief Systems​

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 31st Dec. 2018

The political mis-steps of the so self-branded liberal political parties is getting exposed when they argue ‘seemingly in favour of minority belief systems’. The arguments put forth goes on as if to reiterate that belief systems should not be tinkered with, by the state using force of Law. At the on-set there seems to be nothing wrong, however the understanding of belief systems and its absorption seems less than clear. It goes on to enforce complete adoption of belief system by people seemingly under the guise of civil liberties of the people including those tenets which some people may not want to adopt. Basically, the relationship of a person with belief system/s is construed here as straight line path which it is not. In fact, the relationship of a human being with belief system is rather frippery. One runs to the respite of such a system at a time, while at other one tends to run away from them. There are also tenets which one may love while tenets which are not liked or even abhorred. Now abhorred here may be contested by some people since there is seldom any force-full push or a stringent monitoring regards practicing of a belief system by any follower. However, even believers can be seen involved with some habits for which boycott is the call given by belief system like liquor consumption, betting/casino visits for example. While the political parties would do nothing in enforcing such tenets and leave this to families and societies, while in case where social sanctions like Marriage, its annulment etc. the Netas and parties won’t mind to wade in with politicization.

It is not just about any one belief system or party. We still have religious leaders at different worship places putting imposing their gender, caste or other biases on ordinary public. This happens without care if the visiting public is in sync with such diktats or would be in favour of changing these with time. The Netas and parties would rather join hands with the religious leaders to impose such diktats rather than leaving it an individual’s own ways of pursuing his/her own belief system. While there is this politicization of belief systems at the hands of Netas, the rest is done by inter-faith competition amongst religious leaders trying put up their show of superiority by enforcing their diktats siding with political Netas and attempting to put down publics including sundry other smaller religious leaders including those from the same faith/belief systems (same as their own faith). The Netas believe that such religious leaders would do their trick to do away with ‘public issues’ and help in channelizing votes in their favour while the religious Netas believe that such gimmicks and political backing would keep them in lime-light with public flocking to these self-obsessed almighties. Sickeningly, the public too usually follows this behavior pattern as far as religious Netas are concerned though now Karnataka electoral outcomes shows that their voting pattern is not what it traditionally used to be. The bet of political Netas may be around that other regions may not follow the Kannadiga trait, but even the electoral outcome of bye-elections in other state seem to be showing the same trait. Nevertheless the political brinkmanship continues, and the ‘Game’ evolves…

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

Civil liberties and belief systems are intricate aspects of human society that often intersect and influence each other in profound ways. Civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, are fundamental rights that protect individuals from undue interference by the state, ensuring that they can express their thoughts, beliefs, and identities without fear of persecution. These liberties are crucial for the development and maintenance of a diverse and dynamic society, where a multiplicity of voices and viewpoints can coexist and contribute to the collective discourse. Belief systems, whether religious, philosophical, or ideological, provide individuals with a framework for understanding the world, guiding their actions, and offering a sense of purpose and community. They are deeply personal and can shape an individual's values, behaviors, and relationships with others. However, the relationship between civil liberties and belief systems is not always harmonious. In some cases, the expression of certain beliefs can clash with the rights of others, leading to conflicts that challenge the balance between individual freedoms and societal norms. For example, the right to free speech may sometimes be at odds with laws against hate speech, which are designed to protect vulnerable groups from discrimination and harm. Similarly, the freedom to practice one's religion can sometimes conflict with secular laws or the rights of those who do not share the same beliefs. Balancing these rights requires careful consideration and often involves legal and ethical frameworks that seek to respect the pluralism of beliefs while upholding the principles of equality and justice. In a well-functioning democracy, this balance is continually negotiated and re-evaluated, reflecting the evolving nature of both civil liberties and belief systems in response to societal changes and new challenges.

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

Civil Liberties and Belief Systems​

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 31st Dec. 2018

The political mis-steps of the so self-branded liberal political parties is getting exposed when they argue ‘seemingly in favour of minority belief systems’. The arguments put forth goes on as if to reiterate that belief systems should not be tinkered with, by the state using force of Law. At the on-set there seems to be nothing wrong, however the understanding of belief systems and its absorption seems less than clear. It goes on to enforce complete adoption of belief system by people seemingly under the guise of civil liberties of the people including those tenets which some people may not want to adopt. Basically, the relationship of a person with belief system/s is construed here as straight line path which it is not. In fact, the relationship of a human being with belief system is rather frippery. One runs to the respite of such a system at a time, while at other one tends to run away from them. There are also tenets which one may love while tenets which are not liked or even abhorred. Now abhorred here may be contested by some people since there is seldom any force-full push or a stringent monitoring regards practicing of a belief system by any follower. However, even believers can be seen involved with some habits for which boycott is the call given by belief system like liquor consumption, betting/casino visits for example. While the political parties would do nothing in enforcing such tenets and leave this to families and societies, while in case where social sanctions like Marriage, its annulment etc. the Netas and parties won’t mind to wade in with politicization.

It is not just about any one belief system or party. We still have religious leaders at different worship places putting imposing their gender, caste or other biases on ordinary public. This happens without care if the visiting public is in sync with such diktats or would be in favour of changing these with time. The Netas and parties would rather join hands with the religious leaders to impose such diktats rather than leaving it an individual’s own ways of pursuing his/her own belief system. While there is this politicization of belief systems at the hands of Netas, the rest is done by inter-faith competition amongst religious leaders trying put up their show of superiority by enforcing their diktats siding with political Netas and attempting to put down publics including sundry other smaller religious leaders including those from the same faith/belief systems (same as their own faith). The Netas believe that such religious leaders would do their trick to do away with ‘public issues’ and help in channelizing votes in their favour while the religious Netas believe that such gimmicks and political backing would keep them in lime-light with public flocking to these self-obsessed almighties. Sickeningly, the public too usually follows this behavior pattern as far as religious Netas are concerned though now Karnataka electoral outcomes shows that their voting pattern is not what it traditionally used to be. The bet of political Netas may be around that other regions may not follow the Kannadiga trait, but even the electoral outcome of bye-elections in other state seem to be showing the same trait. Nevertheless the political brinkmanship continues, and the ‘Game’ evolves…

This political article brilliantly unveils complex truths with both precision and an engaging touch. The writer's writing style is remarkably articulate and nuanced, capable of dissecting intricate political situations while maintaining a captivating flow. It's a testament to their ability to combine rigorous analysis with compelling prose. The structure is meticulously designed, guiding the reader through layers of political context and argumentation with a seamless and intuitive progression. This thoughtful arrangement allows for a comprehensive understanding of the forces at play. Furthermore, the outstanding clarity of the political insights is a defining feature. Arguments are presented with such sharp focus, and conclusions are drawn with such lucid directness, that the article becomes an invaluable resource for anyone seeking a deeper, unambiguous understanding of political realities.