O'Deka:
>DD: I did not ask for the absolute
truth.
*** Is that why you sough an yes/no answer :-)?
>I simply asked whether you
believed, as a country USA was secular.
*** Huh? To ask if a "country is secular" is the
PROBLEM here, isn't it? If you ask if the USA is secular, the answer
would be NO, but it will be a very MISLEADING answer, as
I explained and as you seem to agree, however grudgingly.
The only reason therefore,one might surmise, to ask for that yes
or no answer, would be to assert, in a very simple-minded fashion,
that the USA is NOT a secular country, which would no
doubt please the anti-secularism forces of India and its apologists.
After getting the 'no' answer,without qualifications or explanations (
a yes answer would be drawn and quartered with glee of course),they
could proclaim with an air of triumph that the 'hypocritical
anti-Indians' criticize those who question secularism in India, while
their poster-boy of secularism, the USA, itself is NOT
secular.
Am I being rather harsh with my naked assesment?
>Anyway you answered it in your
typical "no but" style.
*** Would you still have preferred the YES/NO answer ? Do share,
in your concise, no-bullshit black and white manner,
would you ?
>I hope the Wikipedia web site has
removed the confusion that existed in some of >the sharpest minds.
:-) Don't you agree that it has a wealth of good
>information?
*** I think it is best to speak for oneself here. I am not the
confused one here. Yes, the Wikipedia info was good, but many of us
already knew about the
most salient points of the issue already, and had no confusion
about them, real or self imposed.
>DD: There was no fault in the
question. My question asked about the country.
*** Well, what can I say? As I mentioned earlier, if you
insist.
>D: I hope I have clearly expressed my view above.
*** You did indeed. That was an accomplishment no doubt, even
though it was like pulling teeth. You could have saved an awful lot of
bandwidth, had you expressed it to begin with, instead of futilely
attempting to trap yours truly with a yes/no answer.
Buise Deka, burhar hatot sengeli porise kintu dei
apuni.
O'm (shanti) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-).
At 8:47 PM -0800 3/1/05, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote:
Since you decided not to accept my offer for you to clarify your question, here is my answer:
*** Your question is seriously faulty. If I answer yes, I will be wrong and if I answer no, I will be wrong. You offered me a 'Heads I win , tails you lose' proposition. Even that I might accept, if an answer would would enlighten anyone. But it won't.
*** Now here is my response: The people of the USA, by a large percentage, are religious. Thus by definition, they are not secular. Can the USA, the country, be a country without its people? One might think not. Thus if I am forced to answer within your highly simplistic criteria of yes or no, then the answer has to be NO.
DD: I did not ask for the absolute truth. I simply asked whether you believed, as a country USA was secular. Anyway you answered it in your typical "no but" style. And you are right or at least I agrre with you. Even though the constitution and its interpretation make USA a secular country, there is a strong force within, that would like to change it. The anti-secularism exists not because the people are religious but because they would like to use christian beliefs to run public institutions as it was in old Europe. As far as "enlightenment" goes, I hope the Wikipedia website has provided ample information to the inquisitive.
*** It also underscores your own continued confusions about secularism. I suspected that, and thus offered the 'damned English language' out. But you were too proud to take it.
DD: I hope the Wikipedia web site has removed the confusion that existed in some of the sharpest minds. :-) Don't you agree that it has a wealth of good information?
*** On the other hand, the governmental system of the USA, thru its constitution, the amendments to it, and its many interpretations by its supreme court, spanning centuries, has clearly established a wall between the 'Church', religion that is, and the State. And it has been enormously beneficial for the USA, the pluralistic state. Even though there are certain exceptions of a symbolic nature, such as the words "In God We Trust" or the swearing in of public officials over the Bible that have found a place in US governance, the USA is about the closest to a secular, non-totalitarian STATE that could be found amongst the major countries of the world. There might be more secular ones amongst West European nations, but I am not conversant with their systems.
DD: Hopefully the website has helped you with the information about other countries that you were looking for. I agree with you that US public institutions try to implement secularism in their operation, including the public schools.
*** The fault in your question lies in not being able to separate the SECULAR STATE from the non-secular populace. And it is a very critical and essential differentiation to note when we discuss secularism in public life.
DD: There was no fault in the question. My question asked about the country. As you analyzed, the state is secular but the people are not uniformly secular
NOW that I have paid my dues, can I ask what you think?
DD: I hope I have clearly expressed my view above.
_______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [email protected] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
