Jump to content

Secular India


someone

Recommended Posts

i agree that no religion' date=' heck no belief system should be given preference when making policy decisions. i just dont agree with this notion that being [b']an atheist suddenly makes you a more rational and inteligent person that will contribute more to society than religious people.
No it does not. I do not see anyone saying that here either. :dontknow:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you quote the post where I said I am a better person than a theist by virtue of being an atheist? :confused:
i can quote the past where you said religion discrimanates against people because of its beliefs. i forget which post it was, but i can learn to extrapolate what people say. its called thinking outside of the box.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

aaah dawkins' date=' 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?[/quote'] What are you talking about?? Atheism is the rejection of the so-called gods that have been put forward by religions. There's no rules, rituals, etc. A bad atheist would be one who worships a god. Anyway, maybe its time to cut this discussion, before feelings get hurt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
I repeat, what you're saying is how secularism is interpreted in the western world. If you think of the overall idea being freedom to practice one's religion to a greater extent (again, marriage laws for instance) then one could argue about India being a more secular country. What I despise is the restrictions created to accomodate religious stances, for instance speech. I like the American standard as well among the few I know, its just that I understand the French/Indian way of going about it.
i agree that no religion' date=' heck no belief system should be given preference when making policy decisions. i just dont agree with this notion that being an [b']atheist suddenly makes you a more rational and inteligent person that will contribute more to society than religious people.
Hell yeah it does, if your agnosticism/atheism is based on scientific principles. I don't think there's a direct relation to contributions made to society though, and one could probably argue that certain religious institutions have done a good amount of social service to humanity while there's umpteen atheistic individuals who have changed the course of humanity particularly in the sciences. How many scientists at CERN do you think are religious individuals by choice ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can quote the past where you said religion discrimanates against people because of its beliefs. i forget which post it was' date=' but i can learn to extrapolate what people say. its called thinking outside of the box.[/quote'] Of course religion discriminates against people - non believers, homosexuals, women, lower castes. How is that even up for debate? And no, that doesn't translate into atheist being better people than theists by virtue of their lack of belief in a supernatural entity. That's why your argument is a strawman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the posts, clearly, it seems no one is certain of what exactly is Indian secularism. We talk about separation of state and religion? But what exactly is the scope of religion? And what about equality or freedom? All are totally different things. We do not know what secular India is but I think all of us know what pseudo-secularists are and very well know how it is practiced in India.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Saar' date=' Secularism is clearly defined in the constitution. In case you want to make your persona view point about how India is not secularism (which is not really how you started this thread) please carry on the vitriol.[/quote'] You trying to be clever? The question is not about just searching the word from the dictionary (The constitution). It's about the meaning and very definition of secularism in India. So far, it's not been a clear cut answer as seen from the thread and . Don't try to derail the thread so If you do not have anything to add, then it's alright but you cannot stop the discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You trying to be clever? The question is not about just searching the word from the dictionary (The constitution). It's about the meaning and very definition of secularism in India. So far, it's not been a clear cut answer as seen from the thread and . Don't try to derail the thread so If you do not have anything to add, then it's alright but you cannot stop the discussion.
The meaning and very definition of secularism in India is clear from the constitution. You are using the different interpretations as a basis to say the definition is not clear. The problem is not in the definition but in the execution of the definition. The definition of secularism in India is as simple as it gets - "Equal treatment for all". Now, if that is not happening it is the problem with the people implementing the notion of secularism (with vested interests of course) and not with secularism per se as you are trying to passively imply (and have tried to in the past as well; unfortunately I can't discount history).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I repeat' date= what you're saying is how secularism is interpreted in the western world. If you think of the overall idea being freedom to practice one's religion to a greater extent (again, marriage laws for instance) then one could argue about India being a more secular country. What I despise is the restrictions created to accomodate religious stances, for instance speech. I like the American standard as well among the few I know, its just that I understand the French/Indian way of going about it.
Well it is not even a question of interpretation. It is just principally right.Since you mention the marriage law, I cannot imagine a more anti secular idea than the fact that every religion will be governed by its own laws. To me its insane. If I am an atheist, then what law should govern me ? Yes, I may have been to family of hindus, but merely by coincidence of birth, the law applicable to me is being determined. Now what are my alternatives. To change my religions where the desired action is considered legal. I am not sure on this but even there SC has conveyed that conversion to another religion for a particular purpose like this will be debarred. So, what kind of sham system is this ? How does mitakshara or Hindu marriage act, which in any case is not word of God, which is being applied on Hindus who have completely different cultural traditions and practices, is to me insane. Should polygamy also be legalized to sects in Indian esp. in South who practice it ? Why are they getting clubbed with other Hindus. To me this is microcosm of what is happening with secularism in India on larger level. It is for lack of better word an "appeasement" exercise which probably stems from the days of partition. We have taken it to one extreme and Pakistan has taken it to another. Ofcourse our model is still superior. But as it happens, you cannot keep everyone happy and I don't desire that to be the case. I think State should determine its parameters and everyone irrespective of religion should fall in line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DM- Every view is welcomed but you cannot assert and try to stop other people's opinions because of your superior/ inferior complex. Quit if you have some issues.

Secularism: A social order where all subjects' date=' irrespective of their faiths (or lack off) are equal. Except that some are more equal.[/quote'] Yes, perhaps Indian secularism was about equal support for all religions. But as you put, some have more support.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indian "secularism" as explained by the Prime Minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh: “We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably the fruits of development. These must have the first claim on resources.†- speech at NDC, Dec 2006. It is not that surprising, given that Indian "secularism" has the following unique characteristics: No separation of religion and state - the government organizes and subsidizes religious events and pilgrimages. No equality before law - different personal laws for different religions. No equality of rights - special educational rights for minorities, discriminatory reservations etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indian "secularism" as explained by the Prime Minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh: “We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably the fruits of development. These must have the first claim on resources.†- speech at NDC, Dec 2006. It is not that surprising, given that Indian "secularism" has the following unique characteristics: No separation of religion and state - the government organizes and subsidizes religious events and pilgrimages. No equality before law - different personal laws for different religions. No equality of rights - special educational rights for minorities, discriminatory reservations etc.
Yes, how could this be forgotten. Our PM making such irresponsibility statements. If anyone else had said the similar thing about Hindus, the reaction would have been very bad and termed as fascist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indian "secularism" as explained by the Prime Minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh: “We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably the fruits of development. These must have the first claim on resources.†- speech at NDC, Dec 2006. It is not that surprising, given that Indian "secularism" has the following unique characteristics: No separation of religion and state - the government organizes and subsidizes religious events and pilgrimages. No equality before law - different personal laws for different religions. No equality of rights - special educational rights for minorities, discriminatory reservations etc.
I ll give him points for honestly saying what Congress thinks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...