Agnostic_Indian
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2010
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
It helps to debate with facts instead of hyperbole. A fast lasts from sunrise to sunset; it does NOT extend "for days".
Lots of people around the world do their normal jobs while fasting. Including construction workers.
Your off-topic lecture notwithstanding, this is not a debate about the virtues of secularism. I have already explained why no one complains about Vatican City or KSA, but I know you guys will ignore it since it will take the steam off your off-topic debate.
Already addressed.
everything becomes off topic when you don't have convincing answers to defend you hypocrisy .
if you people are honest you will criticise Chinese , Saudi , Pakistani actions also which is against the spirit of equal treatment of citizen and religions .
as an Indian if I don't support the genuine rights and needs of minorities , of India then morally I am not eligible to talk about minorities in Pakistan.
you are saying France is secular country so they must not discriminate Muslims. so secular system is opposite to a discriminating system .
if you your self support / believe a discriminating system in your country , and say it is majority opinion , it is ok that state favour a religions .. then that means you believe, that. discriminating system is a good system. when France discriminate a religion that action becomes equal to the act of a theocratic state .
so both actions are same in effect .
only difference is French action becomes hypocratic.
. In France as well as other theocratic , autocratic states a religions , citizens right to be treated as equal/ religious freedom is denied .
The problem here is all Pakistanis criticise France for not delivering what it promised ( the promised thing should be a good thing other wise people won't criticise them for not keeping promise )
eg:
if France was originally declared as a military dictatorship but still provide all the civilian, democratic rights then will France becoming hypocritical becomes a concern or you will appreciate the good result of it ?
will pak Muslims criticise France if it was Christian theocratic state and it still treats Islam equally .. ? the action is a hypocrisy according to a statues of the nation ( Christian theocratic state ) but the result is morally better than what it should have been. )
so which is of a greater concern a action being hypocritic or a action being morally wrong? which is off greater concern hypocrisy or equal treatment of citizen and religion ?
I think even if the action is hypocritic(as in example) if the end result is good then it is better than not being hypocritc while the policy / action is still wrong. or in other words if the end result is discrimination then what difference does it make whether the policy it ise hypocratic or not. ? only difference is, in countries where the action is hypocratic there you have a chance to appeal against it because the policy is against the fundamentals of the nation.. where as in countries where the policy is not hypocritical but has the same bad effect(discrimination) , citizen their has no hopes of getting equal treatment..because it being denied officially.. so even though action of secular democratic govts: are some times hypocratic/ discriminating ,people there are still at advantage because they can challenge the policy / action of the govt .
a moderate secular country is always better than a fully theocratic , autocratic state. there is no perfect secular state, there will always be imperfections , but the system itself gives it a chance of improving it , correcting it , to make it near perfection.
( I tried my best to explain , not sure whether I put it well or not )