BOUNDARY OF RELIGION IN A SECULAR DEMOCRATIC STATE

[Agnostic_Indian]

In a secular democratic state can religion be allowed to interfere in politics,social issues,goverment decisions, etc ? If yes where all, how, how far ,and when should??
should they be allowed to openly support or oppose a political party ?
when govt. Make laws like stem cell research,family planning,personal laws etc which in case go against a religions official stand what is ideal way to protest against govt or party which support the law ?should they Call their believers to not to vote for that party ?
is it right to use places like church, temple and mosq for politicaly motivated speech ?

 

[muse]

In a secular democratic state can religion be allowed to interfere in politics,social issues,goverment decisions, etc ? If yes where all, how, how far ,and when should??
should they be allowed to openly support or oppose a political party ?
when govt. Make laws like stem cell research,family planning,personal laws etc which in case go against a religions official stand what is ideal way to protest against govt or party which support the law ?should they Call their believers to not to vote for that party ?
is it right to use places like church, temple and mosq for politicaly motivated speech ?

Super thread -- In a Democratic secular state, religion must certainly can have any role including a political role, that it chooses - But it comes with a cost. Mixing the Sacred and the profane does not elevate the profane, rather it diminishes the sacred.

Religion has a role in culture and in conscience, regardless of whether it is a secular or otherwise state - And I would argue that confined to this role, that is in culture and in particular, in conscience, that the sacred best serves society.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

In my state (Kerala)christian church is actively working against communist govt.
here local elections are coming and priests are reading letters from church council which says (indirectly) ,not to vote for communists.
if this bad example encourage or mislead hindus and tomorrow they issue letters asking to vote for hindu ideology party only, can we blame them ?

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

In US Church influences politics,in india all christian and muslim bargain a lot showing vote bank. Majority hindu's are not united(cast system) so are not a great strength and i feel they are much tolerant (not bjp or rss but comman man)than rest of the religions. (no offence just my observation)

 

[M82]

if religion is allowed in politics etc. then how can the state be called as democratic state...???

the vote bank was the result suppression of lower caste people by the upper caste... and our politicians divided caste on the basis of religion so that they can earn votes. typical implementation of British ideology divide and rule. We people often hate others(especially different religion, caste) so they are bringing religion into everything which will guarantee votes...

In US nowadays Church dont play an important role...

My humble opinion is: dont corner anyone or a group with respect to religion or caste. they are human like everyone. following a religion his/her owns wish. dont support the parties which raises voice for a group...

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Well said mr.M82. I believe and wish the same.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

I believe religion is personal and should be kept personal only but what if a govt or a political party put forward something which contradicts your religious teachings. How would you or the religious group react or protest this ?

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

I wonder how do these things work in china ?

 

[M82]

I believe religion is personal and should be kept personal only but what if a govt or a political party put forward something which contradicts your religious teachings. How would you or the religious group react or protest this ?

Here in India best way to protest is to neglect those parties.. bcoz when you raise your voice against them, you will be tagged as an anti- Hindu or anti- christian or anti- muslim,etc.

we have lot of other parties to vote.. but till on date no party is secular...( on the religion front congress and communist r better even though they are worst in administration). its always best to be at peace until a nuke wipe us out...

I wonder how do these things work in china ?

In China people are not so emotional as the south asians. they respect others religion.. they are not separated in the name of religion like us. so for them religion not a matter of big concern...

 

[muse]

In my state (Kerala)christian church is actively working against communist govt.
here local elections are coming and priests are reading letters from church council which says (indirectly) ,not to vote for communists.
if this bad example encourage or mislead hindus and tomorrow they issue letters asking to vote for hindu ideology party only, can we blame them ?

I think the problem you are having and most South Asians have the same problem, they misunderstand the notion of "Secular governance" - There are two variety or understanding of "secular", OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE -- Objective secularism in governance is where the government is silent on the subject of religion expressed through culture and conscience, Subjective secularism, would deny even expression in culture and conscience.

If by "democractic secular" government you mean where all segments/stake holders of society have an equal right to participate, then you cannot deny as significant a segment as religion whatever role they wish to play within the law - if you did, you would have neither "democractic" nor "secular" governance -- recall "secular" does not mean hostility towards religion, it merely means silence on the subject, as it is informed by sciences other than religious ones.

If an appeal to conscinece is launched by Hindus or Christians or Muslims or Agnostics or whomever; such an appeal is the business of those who made the appeal and those who found the appeal compeling (here we are assuming that appeals are within the law)

 

[T-Rex]

Super thread -- Mixing the Sacred and the profane does not elevate the profane, rather it diminishes the sacred.

Religion has a role in culture and in conscience, .

There's profanity everywhere, including culture and conscience. So, if you allow religion in culture, according to your theory you're mixing sacred and the profane and thus it diminisehs the sacred. If people are to believe this crap produced by the secular minds then religion has no place in life for life is full of profanity. Of course, the easiest way to keep it that way is to keep religion out of everything, including politics. Now, many secularists want to say this but somehow they're shy about it for they know the very idea is profane.

 

[muse]

Must be a language problem - how did you get from here to

If people are to believe this crap produced by the secular minds then religion has no place in life for life is full of profanity.

Of course, the easiest way to keep it that way is to keep religion out of everything, including politics. Now, many secularists want to say this but somehow they're shy about it for they know the very idea is profane

.

I'm sure it's important, perhaps you could put it a lit intelligibly -

So "secular" minds produce crap?

Religion has no place in a place full of profanity?? Much like sinners need not apply to any religion, they are all booked up because there are so many saints already taking up all the room there is?

One of us, and it isn't me. is terribly confused about basic definitions.

 

[gubbi]

Super thread -- In a Democratic secular state, religion must certainly can have any role including a political role, that it chooses - But it comes with a cost. Mixing the Sacred and the profane does not elevate the profane, rather it diminishes the sacred.

Religion has a role in culture and in conscience, regardless of whether it is a secular or otherwise state - And I would argue that confined to this role, that is in culture and in particular, in conscience, that the sacred best serves society.

Excellently put, Muse. Religion is a necessary evil to keep the flock's morals and ethics under control, lest they go astray leading to a society's decay.

Your argument for objective secularism against subject secularism is perhaps the ideal manner for a secular democratic government to function. However this very objective secularism is being usurped by individuals and groups who take advantage of this Achilles heel to drive religious votebank politics. What do you suppose should be done to counter this?

 

[jeypore]

Your argument for objective secularism against subject secularism is perhaps the ideal manner for a secular democratic government to function.

And I would ask, Give me one Democratic Gov't system in the world? Infact, there is none, not even US. US as a system is still a Republic system not a Democratic system. There is this form of euphoria to solve problems of minorities in countries that are secular, but the problem is there is none because there is no true democracy in the world that exist today, it is a Republic (Which means majority rules)...

 

[roach]

I'm all for Secularism as I think it's the lesser of other evils i.e, a Nation based on a particular religion or one that rejects religion (communism). A Secular state, IMO, is based on the least number of contradictions.

In India, we have so many holidays because we accommodate the festivals of ALL religions. The witnesses oath in court is on the Bhagvad Gita, and the flag has Saffron and Green.

I guess what I'm trying to say that a secular state like India is based a lot on wisdom and tradition of it's accumulated religious traditions. The point is that the Constitution trumps any religious text. It's a power struggle, make no mistake about it.

A successful 'Secular' state wins most of the time.