BOUNDARY OF RELIGION IN A SECULAR DEMOCRATIC STATE

[xdrive]

In a secular democratic state can religion be allowed to interfere in politics,social issues,goverment decisions, etc ?

No, religion should have nothing to do with government or laws.

 

[muse]

Don't get all radical on us --- You know 10 commandments? -- Here's what you are not following - the development of the notion of the "secular" arose in European discourse with the development of science - that is to say as alternate science, not in opposition to the religious sciences but as another branch of science.

Law and conscience (religious, secular, Agnostic, whatever) flow from the same fountain. These are all human endeavours, all have falliablity built into them - there is nothng perfect about them and we revise them as we need to.

 

[roach]

So this brings us to the next question....

Is there a default 'good' system that all states should follow?

>Secular
>Theocratic
>Atheist (communist)

Or is it a case of, to each their own? That's what seems to be the case these days. Doesn't seem to be working well, though. It seems to be building up to

(Rest Of the World) vs (Islam).

(please note sneaky inference that secularism is good for all)

 

[KS]

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...

Two mistakes in your post regarding India:

1)When u air anti-hindu views ur a fashionable,secular,broad minded liberal but on the contrary wen a anti-christian or anti-muslim views come then they automatically become fascist,communalist ,narrow minded religious bigotry. Sad but the true reality in India.

2)Congress is the most communal party in Indian history shamelessly using religion more than others to pander to their political gains.
Again they have become secular (sickular) only because they exhibit minorityism.

Other wise all u gentlemen have put in valid points.

Religion - watever it is must be kept at an arm's length from politics.

Excellent example - Turkey.

 

[muse]

Religion - watever it is must be kept at an arm's length from politics.

Excellent example - Turkey

Pssst! Clue : A K P

 

[muse]

Perfect example of objective secularism -- AKP arose from the culture and it's prime appeal was conscience

But look at the content of that appeal to conscience - look at the kind of society and the kind of state AKP has built, look at the kinds of policies it follows. Compare these to what in Pakistan and India are considered "Religious Parties".

You will notice no "communalism", no favoring of sects, no state position on state religion - it's not necessary.

Compare for instance Pakistan, once the governent turned on a section of the population, the Ahmadi, to favor opposing sect, in other words when the govt decided who was (filing in the blanks) it did not just bring harm to one group but to the entire fabric of society -- the lesson here is that the law applies to all or to no one -- isn't this what we are seeing in Pakistan -- see, if Ahmadi can be excommunicated, declared apostates, why not other sects? Are we not seeing this happen before our eyes?


By the way, Is Murder no murder to Hindus or Christians or Buddhists or Daoists or Agnostics? I mean there is already a legal definiton for it, the same for theft and what have you -- so where does this notion that the confession of a person or the confession a party puts forward automatically a negative? Don't we judge these propositions by the criteria of good, bad, right, wrong? Can Hindu (replace with any other confession) be right/wrong, good/bad?

On the Blasphemy thread I posted a piece written by a young man - I encourage you to read it -- Secular democracy without "Tolerance"? Tolerance of what? Pluralism

Our societies talk the talk but are unwilling to walk the walk - coward societies - yes, it''s OK for us but not for these people, can't trust them, you know, nah? That bunch of baniya so and so, what do they know of (fill in the blanks) - coward societies -- because CONSCIENCE has been driven out from us - heirs to religious traditon of thousands of years, of the holiest of scriptures, the best of teachers - Alas, empty from within - have no CONSCIENCE.


Sub chalta hay.

 

[KS]

Pssst! Clue : A K P

Sir...

if there is anything to go by the history of the fiercely secular Turkish Army then the days of the Islamist AKP are numbered if they continue treading the same path.

Any ways here im treading a path that I only have some knowledge and mayb the Turkish members can participate with their views here.

 

[muse]

May be you can check out threads in the Turkiye board to familarize yourself

 

[gubbi]

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)...

You are right Jeypore. But then again, do you have a better alternative in mind?

The majority you speak of is a general consensus of the population, where each group is unhappy with the "pie" they get but then happy because the other parties didnt get their say. Get it? That, imho, is the best way forward, even if that means everyone walks away displeased and yet a little happy. You cannot please all, neither can you please a few at the expense of others.

 

[jeypore]

Mr. Gubbi you ask me a question:

You are right Jeypore. But then again, do you have a better alternative in mind?

To your question, my answer is yes, but wait you have answer also:

The majority you speak of is a general consensus of the population, where each group is unhappy with the "pie" they get but then happy because the other parties didnt get their say. Get it? That, imho, is the best way forward, even if that means everyone walks away displeased and yet a little happy. You cannot please all, neither can you please a few at the expense of others.

So Why ask me a question????

 

[T-Rex]

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

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.

Saying that religion should not be in politics for its is full of profanity is like saying that religion should not be in life for life is full of profanity; it's ridiculous, is that clear to you now ? Perhaps you need to enhance your ability to understand English.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Saying that religion should not be in politics for its is full of profanity is like saying that religion should not be in life for life is full of profanity; it's ridiculous, is that clear to you now ? Perhaps you need to enhance your ability to understand English.

Religion should not interfere in daily politics or countries judiciary or govt. Religion has space in a persons life or not, if yes which religion, to what extend, all these are a choice of each and every one not a collective one or for a majority to decide. On social issue contradicts a particular group.. how far they can go intervening and protesting is to debated. I am not clear about it and thats why i started this thread. Till now i did not get answers and what i get is some complicated answers which were difficult to understand.

 

[muse]

Religion has space in a persons life or not, if yes which religion, to what extend, all these are a choice of each and every one not a collective one or for a majority to decide. On social issue contradicts a particular group..

Bhagath


Look at the example of the US with the idea of freedom of religion as a constitutional right ---in Europe Freedom from Religion has been mode -- One of the things most impoortant about the US example is the position and role of the judiciary -- by and large, there is overwhelming respect for the law -- and the law absolutley insists that it applies to all -- I think this big difference is somethiung those from Pakistan and India, need to consider when they think about what democratic and fair goverenance is about -- Go anywhere in Pakistan and you will hear "Insaaf Na gi Mila and Insaaf Nahi huwa" -- I 'm not suggesting that there is no such thing in the states, but no where like it is in the sub-continent.

 

[Xeeshan]

dunya ko hy phir ma'arka e rooh o badan paish
tehzeeb ny hy phir apny darindo'n ko ubhara
​

Religion has nothing to do with the laws of state. People are themselves sovereign, whatever they wish constitute. What is ‘The Creator’, His orders, His laws -- we can’t care less... Religion is one’s personal matter... Mosque, Temple, Synagogue, Church -- confine the religion to these places.
Parliament is there, our wishes are what law should be according to. Homosexuality licensed and allowed -- we are sovereign, we have the right!
States today are based upon the doctrine of ‘popular sovereignty’ and the religion has been shown a red card. Hinduism, Judaism, Islam and all the religions may stay at the periphery AND the state, its laws, judiciary and constitution are none of religion’s business. Secularism is the rule. Novus ordo secloram.
::The ugly side of Secularism::

Facepalm

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Bhagath


Look at the example of the US with the idea of freedom of religion as a constitutional right ---in Europe Freedom from Religion has been mode -- One of the things most impoortant about the US example is the position and role of the judiciary -- by and large, there is overwhelming respect for the law -- and the law absolutley insists that it applies to all -- I think this big difference is somethiung those from Pakistan and India, need to consider when they think about what democratic and fair goverenance is about -- Go anywhere in Pakistan and you will hear "Insaaf Na gi Mila and Insaaf Nahi huwa" -- I 'm not suggesting that there is no such thing in the states, but no where like it is in the sub-continent.

Here in india judiciary is not biased only problem is delay.
where as political parties are a problem. Congress is pro minority,Bjp is pro hindu, and other regional parties only care about their region.
various religious groups are out there to influence political parties with their vote bank. Some want to build temple,stop cow slaughter, others want to go hajj with public money,want religious reservations..the list goes on. These parties and groups work like ''you scratch my back i will scratch your's ''.