Secular India

[Clarke]

I am ok with countries having their own versions of secularism. The American definition means separation of church & state. The French would rather avoid public display of religiosity. India allows a certain level of legal distinctions (eg marriage laws) based on religion. I don't see something wrong with the latter. When we're ready to have a common civil code, we'll probably demand it.

[ravishingravi]

Ayn Rand padhi hai lagta hai recently

No paaji, that's why I concede thoda reservation, but I think income should be the criteria in a truly secular country. Not caste or religion.

[superstar]

No paaji' date=' that's why I concede thoda reservation, but I think income should be the criteria in a truly secular country. Not caste or religion.[/quote'] Why should income be a criteria? Give them cheap loans or free education. Parents education and income should both be considered. A poor adivasi cannot compete with a guy coming from a intellectual iyer family. At the same time a rich adivasi can afford to get a management seat.

[ravishingravi]

Why should income be a criteria? Give them cheap loans or free education. Parents education and income should both be considered. A poor adivasi cannot compete with a guy coming from a intellectual iyer family. At the same time a rich adivasi can afford to get a management seat.

I think you just made my point.

[nikred]

Why should income be a criteria? Give them cheap loans or free education. Parents education and income should both be considered. A poor adivasi cannot compete with a guy coming from a intellectual iyer family. At the same time a rich adivasi can afford to get a management seat.

You answered your own question. :blink:

[ravishingravi]

I am ok with countries having their own versions of secularism. The American definition means separation of church & state. The French would rather avoid public display of religiosity. India allows a certain level of legal distinctions (eg marriage laws) based on religion. I don't see something wrong with the latter. When we're ready to have a common civil code' date=' we'll probably demand it.[/quote'] How can one nation have different laws for different religions ? Doesn't differentiation goes against the idea of secularism. All are one in eyes of law. But, here we have different laws in some cases for all, based on the religion they were born into. Can't secularism also mean that your religious preference are irrelevant in societal terms. You will not be judged on that basis. I agree that everything about US model may not work here. But some ideas just seem stronger. We certainly can do with first amendment.

[someone]

How can one nation have different laws for different religions ? Doesn't differentiation goes against the idea of secularism. All are one in eyes of law. But, here we have different laws in some cases for all, based on the religion they were born into. Can't secularism also mean that your religious preference are irrelevant in societal terms. You will not be judged on that basis. I agree that everything about US model may not work here. But some ideas just seem stronger. We certainly can do with first amendment.

Absolutely. I guess first reasoning for secularism could be that it means equality. But what exactly is this equality? ---- Equal opportunities?, equal laws?, equal benefits? Seems like none of these are practiced in India in the name of secularism rather there is a complete differentiation offered in India based on the people's caste, religion, connections (power). Is there even a clear definition of secularism in India which is acceptable to all?

[carnish]

Secularism should mean not having temples or mosques in state buildings ... Not giving reservations based on religion, tolerance of each religion and their faiths but following the same law(code) for all.

[Zelig]

God, Religion and other BS prevented the human beings from turning into a barbaric race during the Medieval Times. But the same religion bull is turning some into animals now. :om:

[FischerTal]

^ ignoring the crimes of atheists in the 20th century :facepalm:

[ravishingravi]

^ ignoring the crimes of atheists in the 20th century :facepalm:

But they did not commit the crimes in the name of atheism. There is huge difference.

[FischerTal]

Nut they did not commit the crimes in the name of atheism. There is huge difference.

but atheists hold themselves to a higher moral ground than religious people. Pol pot, stalin, mao all commited genocide so dont keep harping on this BS that religion is responsible for every societal evil

[FischerTal]

Nut they did not commit the crimes in the name of atheism. There is huge difference.

you should see how atheist china persecutes its religious minority, then talk.

[cндябеяs]

but atheists hold themselves to a higher moral ground than religious people. Pol pot' date=' stalin, mao all commited genocide so dont keep harping on this BS that religion is responsible for every societal evil[/quote'] tRf5K-3v4BU

[FischerTal]

tRf5K-3v4BU

aaah dawkins, the scoundrel of atheism.he wants to argue that atheism was not responsible for shaping stalin's policies towards his own people, but he is factually wrong. communism, the ideology that stalin followed, has athiesm as a central tenet in the sense that religion is an opiate of the masses and therefore must be removed. he abided by this ideology just like lenin, pol pot, and mao zedong. if you are making the argument that stalin was a bad atheist that didnt follow the rules of atheism, then i can also make the case that the 9/11 bombers were just bad muslims who didnt follow the principles of Islam. so then, why attack religion?

[cндябеяs]

[FischerTal]

[ravishingravi]

you should see how atheist china persecutes its religious minority' date=' then talk.[/quote'] I am aware of that. But what the Chinese govt. practices or Stalin is also religion in some ways. Notion of communism or govt. being the supreme authority is also a religion in some ways and it's followers mirrors theological religion's followers. But belief system cannot be equated with lack of belief system.

[FischerTal]

I am aware of that. But what the Chinese govt. practices or Stalin is also religion in some ways. Notion of communism or govt. being the supreme authority is also a religion in some ways and it's followers mirrors theological religion's followers. But belief system cannot be equated with lack of belief system.

i agree that no religion, heck no belief system should be given preference when making policy decisions. i just dont agree with this notion that being an atheist suddenly makes you a more rational and inteligent person that will contribute more to society than religious people.

[PriyankaSR]

See, The Indian Constitution in chapter 3 Article 25 states that the Constitution of India guarantees to every citizen the right to profess, practice and propagate the religion of his/her choice BUT the State(i.e. the Country) may impose certain restrictions in the interest of morality, health, public order so that no one can be allowed to hurt the religious feelings of any class of citizens in India. Then we have Article 26 which says that The Constitution of India, you know, guarantees the right to establish and maintain Institutions for religious and charitable purposes. Article 27 of the Constitution aims to establish a secular state. A secular state is one that does not have any official religion and I think no taxes can be levied for the maintenance of any particular religion. Then finally we have Article 28 which prohibits religious teachings. I mean, as per the Indian Constitution, no religious instructions shall be provided in any educational institutions wholly maintained by the State (country) funds. So basically Article 25 to Article 28 in chapter 3 ( fundamental rights) of the Indian Constitution aim to achieve a Secular State and not following these is very much questionable in the Court.