The conversion issue

[Robert Zydenbos]

At 22:38 19.01.99 -0500, Partha Banerjee wrote:

>Bijoy Misra writes:
>
>>Scholars study history, culture, rituals, politics,
>>but they aren't politicians.  Dogmas are left for
>>the preachers, evangelists, orators, who have taken
>>upon themselves the act of preaching.
>
>To believe that "scholars" cannot be political is dogmatic too. There have
>been many scholars who kept involved in political theorization and
>activism. I see no problems with that. We also need to define what is
>politics and what is not.

For scholarship to thrive, certain preconditions must be met: e.g., a free flow of information, and freedom of speech and the press. Freedom of conscience, freedom to discuss. These can indeed be considered political issues. We know what has happened to scholarship under totalitarian regimes that tried and try to obliterate these freedoms.

To speak up for such freedoms can be considered a very basic political deed, one that is (or at least: should be -- though postings on this list sometimes suggest otherwise) not controversial and supported by the majority of humanity.

>Like I said before, to play apolitical often is a ploy to keep critics and
>criticism out of the way. So, playing/preaching "apolitical" often is
>purposefully political.

E.g., when one senses that squashing a discussion in the name of being 'apolitical' would further a political development that is already underway.

RZ