What is Secularism?

=== Interact Removed ===

Re: # 112
Dear Ballukhan,

If just is not timeless and cease to be just after some boundaries then justice only means to assess someone according local norm/laws. How local a law do you think should be? Should it change every mile? every state/country/continent or planet?

If just is temporal in nature and has boudaries of applicability then you can not apply western laws to eastern/middle eastern countries. They have their own rules acceptable to them.

``whether you consider yourself to be part of Changez Khan`s moral community or not!!! The same goes for honour killings! `` There is no reason to be angry. I am only saying that if norms are subjective then a person must only be assessed according to the norms applicable to him/her. You can not apply rules of today to an act committed centuries back. As the norm, as you say, has a temporal expiry date. This is a simple inefence that a child can draw from what. you have said.


``Now we come to the crux- the issue is that what is ``acceptable`` is always relative to the shared moral precepts of the ommunity of people who uphold them......the only issue is whether the community of people who share those precepts do so VOLUNTARILY or out of fear and coecion??`` Do you mean a physical threat or a psychological? If you mean physical then jihadis are voluntarily doing what they are doing, as there is no physical threat present for them to become Osama. There is psychological threat present though, may it be for punishment or reward to be a martyr. If you mean psychogical then psychological taming is done is the west too... though they do not use the ``religion`` for that but use ``humanity``. Even if the taming is not done, people will always have psychogical effects on their behaviour anyway, so in this case their perception can never be voluntary.

``person below 18 years mens-rea cannot be ascribed because minors are incapable of forming a culpable intention``. Then why is it that the vote of an 18 year old carries the same weight as that of an 50 years old. Is the 50 year old, normally, not able to take better decision than 18 years? Is this not unjust to the older that their vote today is equal to that of a person who was minor yesterday and has turned 18 today and has casted his vote?

I will repeat my earlier question for you too.. Why is it that a minor can drink coke but can not consume alcohol, have sex or smoke. What do you think is the difference between consuming alcohol and drinking coke? There must be something different between them that made the law maker make such a law.

regards,

``If just is not timeless and boundless then you must not call ``Changez khan`` a barberian. It was very acceptable bahaviour at that time and in that culture. Same is the case with ``honour killings``. ....``

You have opened the pandora`s box on the issue of timelessness of moral and legal precepts? The issue has been raised over the years from Plato to Kant and Hegel to Habermas. Whether calling Changez Khan a murderer or a deeply religious man out to follow his religious convictions is just whether you consider yourself to be part of Changez Khan`s moral community or not!!! The same goes for honour killings!
Obviously those christian followers who burnt the `heretics` for holding on to copernician theory were absolutely convinced that they were right, And of course those jehadis who decapicitated their captives were equally convinced about the timelessness of their convictions- they considered their acts to be bringing rewards in the heavans without any sin!!

``According to your theory that is very acceptable behaviour. ...``

Now we come to the crux- the issue is that what is ``acceptable`` is always relative to the shared moral precepts of the ommunity of people who uphold them......the only issue is whether the community of people who share those precepts do so VOLUNTARILY or out of fear and coecion?? So let us discuss the issue of consensus which is not coerced and influenced by the existing relations of power (what John Rawls calls as the ``Original Position``) and not the content of the legal precepts.

As regards the dilemman you put forth, I could not consider it to be a dilemma per se because in a society which accepts a psychological thesis that for any criminal act commited by a person below 18 years mens-rea cannot be ascribed because minors are incapable of forming a culpable intention, it is but logical that in such a society minors should be apriori considered not mature enough to take a decision regarding who should represent him in the government!!

regards,

Ballu Khan Warasi

#108 by echoboom on March 21, 2005 12:14pm PT


It simply means that for muslims who are forced to choose.. SECULARISM, ATHEISM, or any ISM for that matter, is just nonsense.


It`s the ISMs or the STANs....guess more muslims would chose the ISMs if that was made a requirement for immigrating to the west....and who knows, it might be someday....

amit,

Sorry for the delay.

``Instead of looking at the issue in abstract, let us look at it from a practical point of view. In your version of an ideal religious society, how would a non-believer fare?``

Look, I am not talking about utopias here. I am not looking for clerical rule, or whatever. I would appreciate it if my religious history was not being manipulated to support a rather vauge argument.

How would non-believers fare? Realistically, I would say that the state and community are responsible for their security and economic integration. That implies NO discrimination for the most part. Realistically, high posts like president or prime minister would probably be denied. However, beyond that...let them do what they are capable of doing! Uniform tax, and all that. I am all for a modern nation state, and am not interested in projecting tribal structures to urban environments.

Secularism is absence (or indifference) of religion for a government policies.

Its a simple defination and it seems that the author is trying to complicate it. There is no need to broaden the defination of being secular the way indian government did it in the past.

Very unique, very amusing--Oh how true colours and false gods are revealed.


Renouncing Islam Opens Australia’s Asylum Doors

SYDNEY, March 21, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – In a precedent that could cause serious consequences, a group of 30 Iranian and Iraqi detainees in Australia who had their asylum claims rejected have won a review of their cases after some converted to Christianity.
...continued.

read all

Now the interesting question here is why do they not claim asylum on the basis of renouncing Islam for no religion viz atheism, secularism, agnosticism?

It simply means that for muslims who are forced to choose.. SECULARISM, ATHEISM, or any ISM for that matter, is just nonsense.

Well the answer is clear. It enables them to hold on to the rope of Allah and keep their options open. This `taqiyaa` system like having anglicising muslim names is a legit way to
become part of the system and work from inside out.

I say: It`s good. Nobody but nobody leaves Islam; no matter how much convincing they may sound to the rejoicers.

Has never happened. Will never happen. Allah has Himself assured its protection, so how can it? & 1400 years and still going & going & going is enough evidence--isn`t it?
But one has to have a scientific & logical mind to see this Truth.

``If its draw & lure that powerful, there must be something to it``--the muslim-to-be muses

Paindupastry #103: Best of luck.

I have a lot of respect for people who not only talk the talk, but walk the walk also. It doesn`t matter whether you win or lose, as long as you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. You are very correct, in saying that Pakistan (specifically its secular side) lacks rabble-rousers. This is why I can never see them succeeding. They are too interested in moving into countries and places where secularism exists, already. But they do not have the passion to bring about secularism anywhere, where it does not exist; like Pakistan.

This is why they are losing out to the mullahs. The mullahs are extremely passionate about their cause. They are out in the streets. They stick with what they believe, over decades.

Until the secular side is able to take them on in this turf, it will never win. Changes don`t come through drawing room conversations. They come through a passionate sacrifice. I have yet to see any secular group get even a handful of people on the streets of Lahore. For starters, that is what they need to do. For every million man march of the MMA, they need to carry out their own million man march.

And they need to stop throwing their eggs into the PPP and PML basket. These parties are not secular. They are just non-theocratic. And they are too tainted by corruption and ill-governance. They need to start new fresher groups.

They should take a lesson from Imran Khan. And see the sacrifices he has made. He loses again and again, but he is sticking with it..............

oaindupastry:

It`s good that you took my post in the right spirit. Thanks for your explanation also. I am also sick of taking too many personal ``uncalled for`` barbs. Occasionally, I lose my cool and go overboard. I have `dirtied my hands` in my time frequently for doing the things that I was better equipped for. I don`t have to do the things which you can do better than myself. I spent better part of my life in learning and doing engineering and that is the best that I could do. I left politics for others who were better trained than myself.

You`re young as you said and if you think your country can get better by your actions, go ahead and do it. I wish you well.

Mohammad Gill

``I wish you guys best of luck. I know you mean well. Hope you understand well what you plan to do in Pakistan. ``

Sadly, the more i think about it the more i realize, i dont. wish i find the wisdom and experience of others to guide me. wish i had more than the moral support of those who wish me well.

``To your question: ``Will you remain hidden in your thoughts?`` etc., I have this much to say. I have no reason to hide from you or from anybody else. I spill my thoughts every so often at chowk and provide you opportunity for interacting. Had I been hiding, you wouldn`t be addressing your post to me. ``

as for that comment, it really didnt come out the way i wanted it to. im young and foolish. consider it an error in expressing myself. u`ve been one of my favorite writers at chowk. have read thru ur articles on every topic u wrote on and found them very educational. i appreciate and thank you for that.
but im tired now. im tired of listening to ppl expressing what they think is right and what they think has led to pakistans current quagmire and what can lead them out of it. sure thinking and expressing ones thought is a necessity for any reformatory process but im tired of listening. i want some action to follow it up. i agree we need ``scientists, engineers, thinkers and freethinkers`` but we seem to have a lack of HR for all of these at the moment. for the few that are capable they shud focus on what is more important and i feel ``rabble rousers`` are whats needed most. maybe im wrong, in which case i hope i learn soon.

paindupastry:

On the whole, when I look at my life I`m quite satisfied that I did my part. A country doesn`t only need rabble rousers; it also needs scientists, engineers, thinkers and freethinkers, not only within the country but outside also. And you know what I had never indulged in politics in my life. I had single-mindedly devoted my work to engineering. And I don`t have any ambitions to `dirty my hands` where they don`t belong.

I wish you guys best of luck. I know you mean well. Hope you understand well what you plan to do in Pakistan.

To your question: ``Will you remain hidden in your thoughts?`` etc., I have this much to say. I have no reason to hide from you or from anybody else. I spill my thoughts every so often at chowk and provide you opportunity for interacting. Had I been hiding, you wouldn`t be addressing your post to me.

I wish you well.

Mohammad Gill

Romair : ``My conclusion is that there are too many people defining it and preaching it, and not enough willing to fight for it. No one wants to get his/her hands dirty. They want others to do it.
This is where the Western societies and Pakistan differ. In the Western societies, there are activists, at large levels, who get their hands dirty. ``


Absolutely true. I hope i can be a part of the changing trend which will focus on action and protest (get our hands dirty) to all that we find wrong. I return to pakistan in a month. The reason is almost solely to do something for Pakistan rather than myself. Romair, ur words are a source of inspiration and i hope to pursue the goals they identify. Im just one person but i hope i find a few more along the way.
As for you Mr. freethinker...are you willing to do as you think, or will you remain hidden in your thoughts! I do know without a doubt that you desire to help pakistan. Is what romair defines as personal action and protest not the right way or is Pakistan just a hopeless cause.

freethinker #100: ``What about you? I think you`re a younger person than I am (I am about to retire from active work), and you seem to have a good political savvy. If you`re suggesting I shouldn`t write on such topics because I cannot put them into practice by my own hand, you`re sorely mistaken.``

I have never suggested that you should not write about these topics. I think people should write about anything they want to write about.

And my remarks aren`t specifically directed at you. I am making a general statement, and trying to find out, and/or highlight, any strategy for implementing secularism in Pakistan. And why this idea has failed.

My conclusion is that there are too many people defining it and preaching it, and not enough willing to fight for it. No one wants to get his/her hands dirty. They want others to do it.

This is where the Western societies and Pakistan differ. In the Western societies, there are activists, at large levels, who get their hands dirty. They are in the trenches. Take the issue of gay marriages, for example. In any secular system, gay marraiges should obviously be legal. Yet in the USA, the majority population of not a single state approves it. They give all kinds of reasons against it, while simultaneously claiming to be secular.

However, there are people still fighting for gay marriage, in large numbers. And sooner or later, they will win out, in a secular system (like they are winning in Canada). Or the USA will have to limit its secularism.

One doesn`t see that kind of a fight in Pakistan, for secularism. A lot of talk, but no action. And as I said, this is where the religious forces excel. They are fighting it out in the streets. They are very passionate about thier cause, and do get their hands dirty. And they are very focused.

Another reason could be that the secularists, themselves, in Pakistan are quite religious. There own belief in secularism, as a philosophy, is not pure. It is limited within certain religious boundaries. Their interests seem to be just to keep the theocrats out of power. Not to implement a purely secular philosophy, which will expand beyond issues like mullahs and discuss issues as far ranging as gay marriage etc.............

Until the above happens and the secular forces get their hands dirty, I really cannot see how they can be successful.

Rgds,

Gill Sahab,

You chose a very pertinent topic to discuss and laid it out quite well. But as I`d said earlier, anything on this board regarding secularism raises a dust cloud within the pakistani community. There would be none of this, if at least some kind of foundation was laid early on in the life of pakistan.

``As an example of secularism with a local spin, Indian secularism is a good instance. According to wikipedia (2), “In India........... ``

Here again we see the development of a system that went hand and glove with the way the founding fathers fought the british. Before independence the literacy level of india was pathetically low and the concept of secularism alien to their thinking and culture. There was no way in hell, gandhi could have rallied the masses in the name of a concept unkown to them. Hence he appropriately used the concept of equal recognition to all religions, which later on becomne our version of secularism.
I think the clamour for uniform civil code is more from BJP and allies. That has been one of their election manifestos always. Congress has always shied away from it. But hopefully, with increasing literacy and awareness of rights, people will seek for a uniform civil code.

Adios

Romair:

I had devoted my working life to civil engineering and I am quite satisfied that I did well in it. But man`s life is not limited to only one sphere of creative activities. I am satisfied that I am trying to disseminate creative ideas by writing about them. Others who are better suited for doing political work can use some of them if they think they are practical, modify them or do whatever they want; even ignore them. One person cannot do everything.

I remember in early 1980s, Professor Salam was severely criticised in Pakistan. He is only a theoretical physicist, what good can he do to Pakistan? Pakistan needs experimental scientists. Such criticism was mostly lame and malicious. Salam could not excel both in theoretical and experimental physics. What he did for physics is the envy of the whole world. I am using him only as an example; I do not have any pretensions of my own, please don`t misunderstand me.

What about you? I think you`re a younger person than I am (I am about to retire from active work), and you seem to have a good political savvy. If you`re suggesting I shouldn`t write on such topics because I cannot put them into practice by my own hand, you`re sorely mistaken. By bringing up these topics for discussion, all of us (you and I included) are learning a great deal. Before anybody thinks of using a secular system, he/she should understand what it is.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

freethinker #88: ``I do not know the answers to the questions that you`ve raised regarding Pakistan and its politics. I`m not uptodate with it.``

I think this is where the disconnect is. It is one thing to define secularism. It is quite another to promote and implement it. There seem to be a lot of people defining it. But no one has any plan for how to implement it in Pakistan.

By that I mean a practical long term plan. Where are the secular political forces in Pakistan? Where are the secular social forces? Where are the streetfighters? Barring a few English newspapers whose editors keep writing on this, I have not seen much. And their audience consists of the already convinced. Much like the audience on this site.

This is where the religious forces outperform the secular forces in Pakistan They tend to be in the trenches. Their leadership lives in Pakistan and sticks to its agenda. Their kids go to study abroad and then return.

As an example: Would you be willing to return to Pakistand and try to fight for implementing secularism? Are you passionate enough to do that?

What is, thus, more important than defining secularism, is to define a practical strategy for making it popular in Pakistan.........And then have the passion to participate in its implementation..........If that is lacking and/or not done, then the blame goes to the people who want to implement it, but do not have the passion to pursue their cause..........