A liberal dilemma

[Developereo]

the 10 commandments were removed by force in Georgia.

The SCOTUS has been split on the matter.

Split rulings on Commandments displays - U.S. news - msnbc.com

The justices voting on the prevailing side in the Kentucky case left themselves legal wiggle room, saying that some displays inside courthouses would be permissible if they’re portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation’s legal history.
[...]
“Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious — they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument therefore has religious significance,” Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority in the case involving the display outside the state capitol of Texas.

“Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause,” he sai

And Ten Commandments poster inside courtroom approved

"The U.S. Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear – in cases brought by the ACLU itself – that government officials are permitted to discuss, acknowledge and display the Ten Commandments in a context that underscores the role played by Decalogue in 'history, civilization or ethics.' Any reasonable person can see that this is precisely what Judge DeWeese's current display does."

Similarly, it is reasonable that Islamic references should be allowed in Pakistan. It doesn't mean anyone is forced to believe in Islam. It is merely an affirmation of the fact that Islam is a defining part of Pakistan's identity.

But IF for a second even I budge and agree that this happens it doesn't mean that the state has a religion. No religion is taught in public schools, if you plan to do that there are Sunday schools in mosques and churches and syngogues and you can send your kids there but not at the state expense.

I stated elsewhere on PDF, there are two approaches to secularism. The European model hides religion under the rug and wants no part of it in public life. The American model celebrates religious diversity and encourages people to practise their religion. All it says is that the state will not favor a religion. It doesn't say religion must be hidden away and people must be ashamed or apologetic about it.

The case of the French headscarf ban v/s the American Girl Scouts allowing headscarf in their uniform ilustrates the difference.

I want Pakistan to define a mix of American secularism and Islamic culture. I want a Pakistan where we can have Islam in public life, since the people want it, but also one where we openly celebrate Christmas mass and Hindu processions -- the way we used to back in the 70s.

Not correct!!!!

One hundred percent correct!

Where are you getting all this information. You can take oath on anything based on your religion(remember individuals can still have faith, its only that state has no religion).

Precisely my point. You can take an oath on any religious book, including the Bible. The state doesn't say religion doesn't exist. It acknowledges all religions and allows people to exercise their freedom of religion in public places.

Any overt religios symbols are banned may it be skull cap, or a sikh turban or a hijab. Small cross pendants are allowed cause they are not visible enough. You can also wear muslim pendants with Ayat ul Kursi or Allah engrave on them.

I have already been through this weasel law in another thread, but will summarize again for your education.

The French had no problem with Jewish yarmulkas for centuries until Muslim schoolgirls showed up with the headscarf. If the French wanted to keep religon out of public schools, they could have said, "no religious symbols in schools". But they didn't. Instead they said, "no conspicuous religious symbols in schools." Any reasonable person will ask why they put in the weasel word "conspicuous". It makes the law ambiguous and open to interpretation. The reason is that a tradiditonal Muslim symbol is the headscarf (conspicuous) whereas a traditional Christian symbol is a small pendant (inconspicuous).

The law was specifically worded to weasel in Christian symbols.

Even in USA in certain suburbs there are building codes where construction beyond a certain height is forbidden cause of privacy concerns of people in that neighbourbhood. Its not specifically about minarets but you can't even build a tower over there even if its besides anything. Cause of building codes.

If you think the Swiss ban is about tall towers, you have truly lost the plot.

Well and then there is a debate if to say merry christmas or happy holidays. Also the biggest holiday as far as USA is concerned in not Christmas but thanksgiving. Which has little religious significance. These holidays are more secular now. But again people are not stopped from practicing religion only state has ne preferences. You don't want to celebrate Christmas nobody would force you to and you would not be charged with blasphemy if you dont believe christ is the son of god or if you tear down a poster of christ.

Am enjoying watrching you try to wiggle your way out of this one. The Christian holy days are state sanctioned holidays. The others are not. Doesn't matter what kind of dance you do to try and explain it away.

Again misinformation. The only such country where its legally a crime is Germany and they have their historical reasons for that for they were the perpetrators and don't want the nazis to have any chance of coming back in power. So even the nazi symbols are banned in Germany but you can say all you want elsewhere.

The laws are in several countries.
Laws against Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ironically, the same Danes who defended the Mohammad (pbuh) cartoons, then went on to harass and prosecute two Danish Arabs for drawing cartoons about the Holocaust.

I am not sure where Pakistanis get their information from and do they even vet the info before reposting it over and over again. No wonder they are in so much of a mess.

This Pakistani gets his information by having lived in the US and Europe for decades and studying, among other things, constitutional matters.

 

[Developereo]

On the other hand the religious fanatics have successfully hijacked the political discourse to such an extent that the private lives of 'liberals' like Salman Taseer is often quoted to justify his MURDER!

I think the religious fanatics know that they can't win--at least not yet--in free and fair elections and that's why, feeling dis-enfranchised, they resort to violence.

As I stated in the bolded part, anyone who advocates unlawful activity should be handled by the police. Those people are out of the picture (at least for the purposes of this discussion). Also understood is the prerequisite that minority rights will be protected and the word minority here means anyone, including Muslims, who do not want to be a part of it.

What I am trying to find is a middle ground with the non-violent moderate Islamists. They have a legitimate right to build a society they feel comfortable raising their kids. If they don't want their kids exposed to alcohol, pornography and whatever else, that is their right. (We are not talking about the inevitable due to internet and bootlegging, simply whether the state should facilitate these things.) If they want a law respecting their sensibilities about the Prophet (pbuh) we can accomodate them (and other religious figure) by having laws similar to the ones already existing in secular countries.

I think there are two things that immediately shut off dialog in Pakistan, One is the threat of violence by the mullahs (already addressed) and the other is the mere mention of the word 'Islam'. I find it insulting to Islam that people immediately believe any Islamic law cannot be a just law and must be discriminatory. The Qur'an teaches timeless values of justice, tolerance and equality. If we want to put them into law, why should anyone possible object?

I will grant that some aspects of shariah law are controversial, and I do not like them either, but let's at least start finding common ground and tackle the controversial aspects last.

 

[architect_cobb]

The SCOTUS has been split on the matter.

Split rulings on Commandments displays - U.S. news - msnbc.com



And Ten Commandments poster inside courtroom approved

inside or outside. These are two different things.

The Supreme court has ruled that the Ten Commandments may be displayed outside on government property but not inside the courthouse.
Supreme Court on Public Display, the Ten Commandments, and Moses

U.S. Supreme Court rules on government display of Ten Commandments - Wikinews, the free news source

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that "non-neutral" displays of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of religious neutrality, but that "historical" displays are permitted.

Similarly, it is reasonable that Islamic references should be allowed in Pakistan. It doesn't mean anyone is forced to believe in Islam. It is merely an affirmation of the fact that Islam is a defining part of Pakistan's identity.

separation of religion and state doesn't mean you cant display references from your history and identity. Your flag has a CRESCENT. And how is this even relevant to the discussion?

I stated elsewhere on PDF, there are two approaches to secularism. The European model hides religion under the rug and wants no part of it in public life. The American model celebrates religious diversity and encourages people to practise their religion. All it says is that the state will not favor a religion. It doesn't say religion must be hidden away and people must be ashamed or apologetic about it.

so.....?

The case of the French headscarf ban v/s the American Girl Scouts allowing headscarf in their uniform ilustrates the difference.

I want Pakistan to define a mix of American secularism and Islamic culture. I want a Pakistan where we can have Islam in public life, since the people want it, but also one where we openly celebrate Christmas mass and Hindu processions -- the way we used to back in the 70s.

You can want whatever you like. But the discussion was about democracy and religion. If you want to have a public display of majority religion in a democracy, you are not alone. Pakistanis have been trying this amalgamation with various degrees for decades now!!!

One hundred percent correct!



Precisely my point. You can take an oath on any religious book, including the Bible. The state doesn't say religion doesn't exist. It acknowledges all religions and allows people to exercise their freedom of religion in public places.

where did I say that state having no religion equates to state denying their existence?

I have already been through this weasel law in another thread, but will summarize again for your education.

The French had no problem with Jewish yarmulkas for centuries until Muslim schoolgirls showed up with the headscarf. If the French wanted to keep religon out of public schools, they could have said, "no religious symbols in schools". But they didn't. Instead they said, "no conspicuous religious symbols in schools." Any reasonable person will ask why they put in the weasel word "conspicuous". It makes the law ambiguous and open to interpretation. The reason is that a tradiditonal Muslim symbol is the headscarf (conspicuous) whereas a traditional Christian symbol is a small pendant (inconspicuous).

again you are not alone. We muslims thrive playing victims. We have this syndrome of feeling bad about ourselves as how the whole world is out there to get us.

The law was specifically worded to weasel in Christian symbols.



If you think the Swiss ban is about tall towers, you have truly lost the plot.



Am enjoying watrching you try to wiggle your way out of this one. The Christian holy days are state sanctioned holidays. The others are not. Doesn't matter what kind of dance you do to try and explain it away.

Is easter a religious holiday? now is columbus day a religious holiday? In NY most of the companies observe a day off on columbus day but not on easter so here you go.

But yes christians are 90% of the population and they want a holiday so why not. A secular democracy doesn't deny or defy religion like communism. It just doesn't observe one.

The laws are in several countries.
Laws against Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ironically, the same Danes who defended the Mohammad (pbuh) cartoons, then went on to harass and prosecute two Danish Arabs for drawing cartoons about the Holocaust.



This Pakistani gets his information by having lived in the US and Europe for decades and studying, among other things, constitutional matters.

Is denying holocaust and making fun of jews the same thing? If certain european countries have this law there is a historical context to it. So again the victim syndrome. And yes these Pakistanis who live in USA thrive here cause of the secular policies of the state.