On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:18 PM, ss <cybers...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the information about Turkey. I was looking for an education when I > said "As far as i know" and you have used that as a generalization about all > Indians making assumptions :D . I will let it pass.
"The question of secularism does not arise at all in an Islamic nation, so those countries can be ruled out in one go." *I* am the one making generalizations? But I will see if I can get in the last word by saying that I will let it pass. > If democracy is the will of the majority, then > pluralism should be the rule in india, not secularism. And in fact that is > exactly what I see around me. Pluralism in the guise of secularism. Perhaps it > It is people who object to pluralism who have a problem? Democracy is not in and of itself sufficient to guarantee freedom. It is precisely to prevent "the tyranny of the majority" that we constitute a government of laws. This is really basic stuff, known since the enlightenment. Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill wrote on it, though the concept was well known in ancient Greece. > The question to me is "Can a democracy be anything other than secular?" If the > people must rule, God cannot rule. If rule by God is acknowledged but ignored > in order to practice democracy - then the state is secular and its allegiance > to religion is fraudulent. (I think the UK is one such state) Unless God has permitted/required that the people rule themselves. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” seems like a pretty concise summation of the separation of Church and State. (That phrase is attributed to an avatar of the Christian God for what it's worth.) The point being that a democracy deriving power from God is not impossible. "Dieu et mon droit" is not inherently limited to individuals. > But it does appear that only democratic secular states allow debate on the > choice between religion and secularism and how far each should be allowed to > extend. Again, just because you are unaware of such debates in non-democratic states, or in religious states doesn't mean they don't occur and aren't occurring. As a specific example that I would expect you to have been aware of the Dalai Lama has "abdicated" all political power in favor of a transparent democratic rule. (http://www.tricycle.com/blog/dalai-lama-stepping-down-political-leader-progress-fear-skillful-means-and-sadness) there has been plenty of debate in the Tibetan community about it, and the debate continues today. Any time a state becomes secular, establishes a religion or disestablishes it, there is debate about the choice between religion and secularism and how far each extends. It is not solely the province of secular democracies. For example for a fascinating article on the history of secularism in Islam I recommend "The debate on Islam and secularism in Egypt" from the Arab Studies Quarterly (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_n2_v18/ai_18627295/) > Secularism is an exclusionary clause. Secularism is fundamentally > anti-religion. Certainly there are people (generally religious) who make that claim. Usually by claiming that secularism prevents them from practising their religion (in the way that they would like.) However, classically, secularism has instead simply required that religion not influence governmental institutions and vice versa. A government that does not allow children a voice in government is not anti-children. > Technically one would have to ignore and suppress religious tenets to be > secular. Hardly. There are quite a number of very religious people who believe that government and religion should be separate. His Holiness the Dalai Lama could hardly be considered to be ignoring or suppressing religious tenets. -- Charles
