The failings of democracy, secularism, free market capitalism

[Majnun]

The earth isn't round either.

What is secular about America?

Ok, listen, first, as Zyxius said, lets define secularism, and see which societies were close to that.

 

[Majnun]

Something I dislike about religion in public life is that people try to enforce it on other people, look at what happened in the Lal Masjid incident, they kidnapped some Chinese people. The Chinese were of a different religion, they don't have to do what you do, why kidnap them?
Islamism goes overboard.

 

[Vinod2070]

No complete definition of secularism but one attribute is that all citizens are equal before the state. The state does not have a religion. Any citizen irrespective of his/her birth can achieve any position of the state.

And there is no divinely appointed body of mediators who are supposedly responsible only to the God and are superior to all other fellow countrymen. Everyone is equal before the law and the law can be amended by human beings depending on the evolving situation.

Of course a secular state has a set of guiding principles and some central tenets. But it does trust the human beings to have the judgment to know what is good and bad.

A bit simplistic perhaps. And far from complete..

 

[Majnun]

Let's try to arrive at some sort of definition of Secularism shall we?

Let's say one of the principles, among others, of Secularism is that nothing is sacred or inviolable....meaning that everything is open to question and revision. Can everyone agree on this?

Also...please suggest other principles of Secularism. Anyone who is a support of Secularism please.

Definition of Secularism

Secularism is the complete separation of church from state. No religion shall be favoured over another. It is completely neutral in matters of religion. Secularism does not assert a certain religion on anyone, allowing them to practice any religion of their choice. Secularism seeks to put the need of humans first, and the government is a humanistic (atheistic) institution, with no religion. Thus, it shall not be obliged to enforce a religion or religious laws on anyone and shall be independent of all religions.

The aim of Secularism is to improve the lives of the people of that state, irregardless of religion. In this way, no citizen shall be discriminated against on a basis of religion.

Secularism is a materialistic philosophy, interested in only worldly matters, and the government shall not impose any religious duty on any citizen. As GJ Holyoake said, "Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."
This shows that Holyoake, who coined the term secularism, believed it to help human beings first and that secularism considers that nothing is more important than human beings.
Holyoake, in his 1896 English Secularism defined secularism as: "Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good."


Principle of Secularism

The guiding principle of a secular state is to improve the lives of the citizens of that state. The government is then free to take the best qualities from every religion, as it does not have the problem that occurs in religious governments, that one tenet that, though considered important, is forbidden in that country's state religion.
Secularism protects freedom of religion for all individuals.


Secular States as compared to (Publically) Religious Countries

Most secular countries are doing better than those which have religion intertwined with secularism.
Canada is an example of a country without a state religion.
England is, nowdays, much weaker than France or Germany, countries that are very secular.
Also, countries such as Iran, which was secular under the Shah, was much more powerful and a greater threat than it is now. Today, their is no serious threat from Iran and it is a weak nation.

Problems Faced with Secularism

With secularism, as with any idealogy, there are problems.

One problem faced is with countries like Turkey. They have such huge groups of one religion that, unless certain (mildly) restrictive measures are taken secularism will not survive in that state.

Also, family and personal morals may take a downturn. This should not be put down to secularism, as, in personal life, secularism is not present, but, as many people (falsely) call it a flaw of secularism, I feel that this must be delat with. And Ayub Khan, second President of Pakistan, provided the solution, with his Family Life system, in which a basic set of morals were called for.

There is one last problem. A religion makes people work hard to help that religion. If there is no religion, people have no fixed standard to go to. Again, this is solved, with nationalism. This becomes the people's standard, what they work for.

 

[Majnun]

Whew! That was tiring! I started writing that since before vinod's comment and I finished it about 50 minutes later

 

[Always Neutral]

If a man with a beard forces women to wear the headscarf to school, it is called Talibanism and is subject to air strikes from the US military. However, when you call yourself a secularist and force women NOT to wear a head scarf to school…..it is called being modern and this denial of personal freedoms to women is considered very much acceptable. They do not allow the individual to choose whether or not to wear a headscarf…the secular state has decided that no one should be permitted.

AP

Dear ZY,

There is a difference on enforcing and letting people having a choice. The french ban on scarves in school is because a child at 12 have to follow the choice of her parents and grand parents and has no say in that matter. However once she is 16 she can wear what she wants and there are no restrictions.

Democracy and Capitalism do not have one single author like religions and hence it evolves with time whereas religion stagnates with the passage of time.

Regards

 

[Zyxius]

Dear ZY,

There is a difference on enforcing and letting people having a choice. The french ban on scarves in school is because a child at 12 have to follow the choice of her parents and grand parents and has no say in that matter. However once she is 16 she can wear what she wants and there are no restrictions.

Democracy and Capitalism do not have one single author like religions and hence it evolves with time whereas religion stagnates with the passage of time.

Regards

For the record...France has imposed a BAN on headscarves. That is not about choice...it is about restricting it...even for those who want to wear it out of their own will. You are misrepresenting the situation.....where is your neutrality Mr Always Neutral?

Lets try to get a point by point definition of Secularism. And for someone to say that Secularism should be the way of governance without a definition of secularism is nuts in my book.....even though the definition may be constantly evolving....you need the definition as it stands today or else you cannot make laws.

 

[Zyxius]

Definition of Secularism

Secularism is the complete separation of church from state. No religion shall be favoured over another. It is completely neutral in matters of religion. Secularism does not assert a certain religion on anyone, allowing them to practice any religion of their choice. Secularism seeks to put the need of humans first, and the government is a humanistic (atheistic) institution, with no religion. Thus, it shall not be obliged to enforce a religion or religious laws on anyone and shall be independent of all religions.

The aim of Secularism is to improve the lives of the people of that state, irregardless of religion. In this way, no citizen shall be discriminated against on a basis of religion.

Secularism is a materialistic philosophy, interested in only worldly matters, and the government shall not impose any religious duty on any citizen. As GJ Holyoake said, "Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."
This shows that Holyoake, who coined the term secularism, believed it to help human beings first and that secularism considers that nothing is more important than human beings.
Holyoake, in his 1896 English Secularism defined secularism as: "Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good."


Principle of Secularism

The guiding principle of a secular state is to improve the lives of the citizens of that state. The government is then free to take the best qualities from every religion, as it does not have the problem that occurs in religious governments, that one tenet that, though considered important, is forbidden in that country's state religion.
Secularism protects freedom of religion for all individuals.


Secular States as compared to (Publically) Religious Countries

Most secular countries are doing better than those which have religion intertwined with secularism.
Canada is an example of a country without a state religion.
England is, nowdays, much weaker than France or Germany, countries that are very secular.
Also, countries such as Iran, which was secular under the Shah, was much more powerful and a greater threat than it is now. Today, their is no serious threat from Iran and it is a weak nation.

Problems Faced with Secularism

With secularism, as with any idealogy, there are problems.

One problem faced is with countries like Turkey. They have such huge groups of one religion that, unless certain (mildly) restrictive measures are taken secularism will not survive in that state.

Also, family and personal morals may take a downturn. This should not be put down to secularism, as, in personal life, secularism is not present, but, as many people (falsely) call it a flaw of secularism, I feel that this must be delat with. And Ayub Khan, second President of Pakistan, provided the solution, with his Family Life system, in which a basic set of morals were called for.

There is one last problem. A religion makes people work hard to help that religion. If there is no religion, people have no fixed standard to go to. Again, this is solved, with nationalism. This becomes the people's standard, what they work for.

Ok. Thanks. Lets try and synthesize this into a point by point definition that states the main fundamentals of secularism as if it were a constitution. I'll work with you on this.

 

[Always Neutral]

For the record...France has imposed a BAN on headscarves. That is not about choice...it is about restricting it...even for those who want to wear it out of their own will. You are misrepresenting the situation.....where is your neutrality Mr Always Neutral?

Lets try to get a point by point definition of Secularism. And for someone to say that Secularism should be the way of governance without a definition of secularism is nuts in my book.....even though the definition may be constantly evolving....you need the definition as it stands today or else you cannot make laws.

Dear ZY,

Your lack of knowledge on the French Scarf Ban and life in general is finally exposed. It also reveals the bigotted mentality you possess.

Before you spew your ill-informed stew please read the article below.

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | French scarf ban comes into force

French scarf ban comes into force

I am posting the salient points below since you seem to have selective and blinkered vision.


"A law banning Islamic headscarves and other religious symbols from French state schools came into effect on Thursday, the first day of term."

THIS MEANS ALL RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS INCLUDING TURBANS, CROSSES SCARVES ETC ARE BANNED NOT SCARVES ONLY.

THIS MEANS ITS BANNED IN STATE RUN SCHOOLS ONLY AND YOU ARE FREE TO WEAR RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS OR WHEREVER YOU WISH TO WEAR IT.

LASTLY ITS THEIR COUNTRY AND THEIR LAWS IF THEY WISH THAT NO RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS SHOULD BE WORN IN THEIR SCHOOLS WHATS YOUR CRIB. HAVE YOU CRITICISED THE SAUDI GOVT. WHICH PREVENTS ALL RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS OF OTHER RELIGIONS FROM BEING CARRIED TO MECCA ?

NEXT YOU WILL TELL ME THAT TURKEY'S BAN ON SCARVES IS PLOT BETWEEN THE USA, JEWS AND OFFCOURSE INDIANS AND OH I FORGOT WHILE AT IT BLAME THE MARTIANS TOO.

Regards

 

[Zyxius]

Dear ZY,

Your lack of knowledge on the French Scarf Ban and life in general is finally exposed. It also reveals the bigotted mentality you possess.

Before you spew your ill-informed stew please read the article below.

I am posting the salient points below since you seem to have selective and blinkered vision.

"A law banning Islamic headscarves and other religious symbols from French state schools came into effect on Thursday, the first day of term."

THIS MEANS ALL RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS INCLUDING TURBANS, CROSSES SCARVES ETC ARE BANNED NOT SCARVES ONLY.

THIS MEANS ITS BANNED IN STATE RUN SCHOOLS ONLY AND YOU ARE FREE TO WEAR RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS OR WHEREVER YOU WISH TO WEAR IT.

I never said that the ban was exclusive to the head scarf, but that is the example that I used since I am a practicing Muslim. I lived in Canada for a long time where I went to public school for a few years. You are allowed to wear a turban, head scarf, a crucifix or anything else you want but the school will not teach or promoted any particular religion. In Canada, this type of law (the french ban) would be considered discriminatory and beyond the scope of a secular state to restrain the freedom of expression of the individual....even if that person is attending a public school. Most people of the world will agree that it is unfair for people to be denied this freedom of expression. It is not merely a matter of it being France...and its their country and they can do what they like....we are here saying that this is an example of fanatic secularism.

I dont know why you are getting so angry and using words like bigotry to describe my opposition to this ban...which is a restriction on freedom of expression.

LASTLY ITS THEIR COUNTRY AND THEIR LAWS IF THEY WISH THAT NO RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS SHOULD BE WORN IN THEIR SCHOOLS WHATS YOUR CRIB. HAVE YOU CRITICISED THE SAUDI GOVT. WHICH PREVENTS ALL RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS OF OTHER RELIGIONS FROM BEING CARRIED TO MECCA ?

Since this thread is about secularism and its failings....I dont see how this fits into to the discussion since Saudi makes no such claims. You can start a thread and put this into perspective if you like....I just don't think it belongs in the Failings of Secularism.

Also...all the CAPITAL letters just looks likes you're screaming rather than having an exchange.

NEXT YOU WILL TELL ME THAT TURKEY'S BAN ON SCARVES IS PLOT BETWEEN THE USA, JEWS AND OFFCOURSE INDIANS AND OH I FORGOT WHILE AT IT BLAME THE MARTIANS TOO.

Considering that I said no such thing....it is you who is proving to be the bigot. I dont know how you dragged this into the discussion, but you're really going way off topic just to paint a picture of bigotry here and its making you look anything but Neutral.

 

[Zyxius]

Lets just try to get the point by point definition of Secularism shall we? Mr Neutral...care to check your emotions to the side for a while?

 

[Majnun]

AN
I have to agree with Zyxius that you're going overboard with this and you definitely are not neutral. You seem the least neutral of all of us, even more than Zyxius and he definitely isn't neutral.
Just breathe and calm down.

 

[Vinod2070]

AN has raised a valid point.

Why impose a higher standard on secularism than let's say Saudi Arabia or other theocracies? You can't judge others by their liberal values while refusing to follow the same values yourselves. That does sound a bit hypocritical.

If Saudis are not allowing the practice of other religions and some secular countries want to ban the display of overt religious symbols (not the practice of the religion, mind you), the secular government still seems better though it may not be ideal and perfect in your book.

But if you have no problem with the obvious and blatant discrimination in Saudi Arabia, trying to point the "failings" of secularism because they don't allow some symbols of religions to be openly displayed in public schools does seem a very minor issue in comparison.

It is the theocracies which are supposed to be following divine laws and are expected to be perfect. Man made laws can always be imperfect.

 

[Always Neutral]

I never said that the ban was exclusive to the head scarf, but that is the example that I used since I am a practicing Muslim. I lived in Canada for a long time where I went to public school for a few years.
Also...all the CAPITAL letters just looks likes you're screaming rather than having an exchange.



Considering that I said no such thing....it is you who is proving to be the bigot. I dont know how you dragged this into the discussion, but you're really going way off topic just to paint a picture of bigotry here and its making you look anything but Neutral.

Dear Sir,

Please read all your posts till date its a rave and rant against how westerners, jews and USA and their newspapers are making muslims fight, destabilize them or killing their citizens again to blame muslims.

If you really wanted an honest debate why did you not point out that not only scarves but that all religious symbols are banned that too in Govt schools in France. I also gave you a rational and sane answer for that but you wished to pontificate with your sentence below in bold.

"For the record...France has imposed a BAN on headscarves"

Why is this law discriminatory ?

The French state does not recognise any religion and thats that. Why are you making it a muslim vs the west issue. If Canada allows it good for them its their country and they can make any rule they wish and if we go there we must follow their rules just as I must respect the rules of not kissing on the beaches of Dubai or rules of worship in Saudi eventhough personally I find them offensive.

I also see your critcism is very selective. Why not take up cudgels against China which chooses who can be a Imam in a mosque ? Never seen any criticism of them from you and your ilk.

Lastly I am not angry or not neutral with people who have the same narrow vision of what they say is right and the west is wrong and they will get the same comments and religion has nothing to do with it.

Regards

 

[Always Neutral]

AN
I have to agree with Zyxius that you're going overboard with this and you definitely are not neutral. You seem the least neutral of all of us, even more than Zyxius and he definitely isn't neutral.
Just breathe and calm down.

Overboard on what ?

Care to back your posts on neutrality with some meat or is it going to be that message does not matter only the flag of the poster does ?

Regards