The failings of democracy, secularism, free market capitalism

[Zyxius]

You can add 200 more tee shirts but it still will be a hypothetical question and hence it has no relavence as it does not lead to any conclusion whether France's secularism is right or wrong.

I think its you who is deviating from the topic by asking hypothetical questions. Why not first answer my hypothetical question about Saudi Arabia ?

Regards

Why dont you phrase your question in the context of the subject of this thread and we can include it in the discussion. However, Saudi Arabia is not secular....so I don't understand what you're trying to prove. We are discussing the failings of Secularism...not the tolerance of Saudi Arabia or Islam or Christianity or Hinduism towards minorities.

and it is a simple question...why is it that you don't answer it?

 

[Always Neutral]

Why dont you phrase your question in the context of the subject of this thread and we can include it in the discussion. However, Saudi Arabia is not secular....so I don't understand what you're trying to prove. We are discussing the failings of Secularism...not the tolerance of Saudi Arabia or Islam or Christianity or Hinduism towards minorities.

and it is a simple question...why is it that you don't answer it?

Dear XY,

Please see below AA's statement which you have not challenged till now in the Saudi context.

"Islam, I believe is not in defiance of secularism. It grants equality to minority religions in phenomenal ways:

"I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worshop what I worship, I won't worship what you worship. To you, your religion and to me mine"
-- Surat-al-Kafiroon, The holy Quran.

To defy secularism hence is equivalent to defy Islam."

So do you agree that Saudi Arabia is in defiance of Islam ?

This is reality whereas what you have asked answers for are hypothetical.

Regards

 

[Zyxius]

Dear XY,

Please see below AA's statement which you have not challenged till now in the Saudi context.

"Islam, I believe is not in defiance of secularism. It grants equality to minority religions in phenomenal ways:

"I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worshop what I worship, I won't worship what you worship. To you, your religion and to me mine"
-- Surat-al-Kafiroon, The holy Quran.

To defy secularism hence is equivalent to defy Islam."

So do you agree that Saudi Arabia is in defiance of Islam ?

This is reality whereas what you have asked answers for are hypothetical.

Regards

I didnt realize you and AA were so qualified in Islam that you could make the pronouncement that Islam is secular based on the Ayat you have quoted out of context. According to everyone on this site and everywhere else, Secularism is the separation of religion from state. So how can a religion be secular? Also, I didn't challenge it because it is totally absurd. Besides the obvious contradiction in terms, Islam doesn't advocate Secularism in any way whatsoever.

Just because AA said it...does not make it a source you can use as proof in your arguments. My dear Mr Always Neutral....you are not having a genuine exchange here. Do you want to answer/discuss anything or just throw comments and suggestions past me? Please let me know straightforwardly because if not, then you and I both may as well spend this time doing something more constructive. Don't you think?

 

[Zyxius]

This one is for SMustafaMoiz,

Ok...I'm working on putting together a point by point definition of what secularism is. Take a look and tell me what you think needs to be added/changed/amended

1. The State, its legal code, and public institutions do not have any religion, nor do they take the position that any religion is correct, nor do they take the position that there is a God, or is no God, or a holy book, or any divine commandments, or any divine rulings or rights fundamental or otherwise endowed by the divine, whatsoever.
2. No religion, cult, or ideological belief shall be favored or disfavored over any another.
3. There is nothing that is holy, unquestionable, not open to dispute or disagreement or amendment or change, sacrosanct, and/or delivered from God.
4. There is no such thing as immorality except that which is illegal according to the law of the state.
5. Society shall decide what is legal and illegal without regard to faith or the divine.
6. Every individual and organization is equally entitled to freedom of expression, religion and faith.
7. No individual or organization has the right to impose their beliefs or ideology or thinking on any other individual or organization.


Some add-ons to the definition

1. Individuals may practice religion in the privacy of their homes, but only interpretations which do not conflict values outlined by the majority such as 'equality of the sexes'. This could also take the meaning that hijab and niqab could be the basis of denial of citizenship, public schooling, or possibly even entry into the country. Society may continue to define which interpretations are acceptable and which are not.
2. Religious institutions and people who represent them may not discuss issues related to the governance of the state, public entities, politics, or policy.
3. No individual may take into account his own personal belief in religion when voting, dealing with any state institution, or while under the employment of any public institution or government.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It also reveals the bigotted mentality you possess.

Everyone, there is no need to resort to the above. Calling another member of the forum a bigot is not OK, no matter how much you disagree with their views.

Rubbish their argument all you like, but lets not pronounce judgments on anyone please.

 

[Malang]

Excellent questions

What exactly is secularism? Is it a complete ban on religious activity, a separation of religion and politics, or the freedom to practice any religion.

Secularism simply means either being equally insensitive to all religions or being equally sensitive to all religions. In certain nations certain religions are granted greater powers by the state for example Christianity in UK.
Then again debate comes what constitutes religions? and who has the power to interpret the religious texts ? what weightage, if it all should be given ? etc. etc.

For example banning Satanic Verses and banning cow slaughter is an example of secularism where the Govt is sensitive to (all) religions.

For example ban in France on all religious paraphernalia on person in schools is also secularism but an insensitive form of it. (Turkey to is an example of this)

India IMO is one of the few nations that practices sensitive form of secularism(where due to the population mix or ideology your pick) but then it is not secularism because many a times it is too soft on minorities and too harsh on Majority.

What if a religion preaches that secularism is evil? Do we continue to grant freedom to such a religion?
What if a religion preaches something that is illegal? Do we allow it?

Freedom to preach?? Yes.
Freedom to carry out the preaching? No

but then again,
a Hindu priest glorifying Sati will be tolerated but will not be allowed to carry it out.

a Hindu priest(not well connected and certainly not loaded ) calling for destruction of Muslim Mosques would be jailed for inciting hatred. an example of this was Don Mukhtar Ansari, MP from Mau.

What if a religion uses its influence to ask its believers to vote for some party, or support some political movement?

This is quite common in India... Dera Sacha Sauda fiasco is an example of this...

Religion by default though cannot influence the believers per se, but the preachers can. Ideally, while voting religion should not have an influence but invariably it does.

Even the current raking up of muslim card during nuclear deal is an example of this type of dirty politics. A Muslim MP made a comment that CPI is now acting like the beacon of muslims interests but itself is guilt of slaughter in Nandigram (where many muslims died).

And finally, what if a religion preaches social values that are considered barbaric in a particular society? Does the religion have to conform with prevailing social norms, or should it be protected?

Muslims of India as per constitution can have 4 wives and divorce their wives by saying talaq thrice but Muslims cannot for example stone adulterers etc.

Some followers of occult sects, roam around naked, smoke dope etc they are tolerated but they cannot indulge in Sati, Child marriage etc.

This is really a question of compromise. Certain religious hallmarks (have to be) are to be allowed/tolerated even if it offends changing sensibilities and some absolutely have to be bookable offenses.

There are naked fakirs in mausoleums in Pakistan and some very happy Malang Babas but they are tolerated but a person walking down Clifton or Defence naked would be jailed.

 

[Majnun]

Overboard on what ?

Care to back your posts on neutrality with some meat or is it going to be that message does not matter only the flag of the poster does ?

Regards

Flag of the poster?

 

[Majnun]

Btw, french law to ban scarfs is NOT secularism so is the same for Turkey.

Secularism can be the ABSENCE of religion, but not the opposition of religion.

And a practice that does not enforce religion upon others but is a personal practice is okay by any means of secularism. Of course they are not fooling anyone, they are just a bunch of hypocrites, attacking Muslims by fine tweaking their laws under the guise of secularism.

I would agree with Z on one thing. The majority hardly ever means justice. Quite often, the majority is just tyrranical over the minority.

The ban is not an opposition of any religion. Turkey bans some religious symbols but, because the majority is Muslim, the headscarf ban gets noticed more. On France, I agree, but I'd like to know why the scarf is banned.

 

[Majnun]

2. Religious institutions and people who represent them may not discuss issues related to the governance of the state, public entities, politics, or policy.
3. No individual may take into account his own personal belief in religion when voting, dealing with any state institution, or while under the employment of any public institution or government.

In Number 2, they should not do so in public.
This cannot be helped, but the aim is that they all see themselves as "Some nationality" instead of thinking (say, in Turkey), he's a Christian, I like his ideas, but, because of his religion, I won't vote for him.