The recent controversy over Sethusamudram brought to the fore a number of issues. First, all religions are intolerant — some more so; some less. The book religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism that encourage proselytisation) more than others. We had better accept this and deal with it in the true spirit of secularism. We have now reached a stage where it is possible to annihilate mankind itself in defence of our beliefs. What is more important? Belief — right or wrong — or the survival of mankind? Apparently belief. To quote Sam Harris from his book, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason: “Certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one.”

As for “equal respect to all religions”, everybody knows that if you respect one religion, you cannot respect any other. What in reality is being asked is this: irrespective of your beliefs you should, at least in public, pretend to ‘show respect’ for the other person’s religion. Or at least don’t do anything to provoke him. Apparently religious people have a divine right to get provoked more easily than those who follow no faith. Equal respect to all religions encourages bad blood between faiths and is therefore responsible for causing riots. Besides, it can be deliberately misunderstood to mean that all religions are encouraged: ‘respect’ being the operative word. This, in effect, is competitive obscurantism.

Secularists in India skirt around the problem to avoid ‘giving offence’ to religionists. Everybody respects the religionist’s right to give offence in ‘defence’ of his faith. Therefore you have a right to get angry in defence of unreason. But I do not have a corresponding right to defend reason. By implication unreason is respectable, and should be respected, and reason is not and should not be respected.

... contd.