Must we separate religion from politics?
This post was inspired by Hrishi and Dnyanesh’s comments�which I am reproducing below. The point raised by Hrishi was (essentially) that democracy and politics (of the modern kind) is incompatible with religion…
***
Comment by Hrishi on 5th May
…There�re are few points I thought worth making, as saw them:
…iii) Viewing religion as a politically relevant practice is more of an imported concept, definitely applcable today to �Hinduism� but I am inclined to believe its more of a �me too� reaction to the activities of the more organised and politically (as against spiritually) ambitious semitic religions operating in India today
Separating religion from politics is essential in any debate that proceeds on the basis of reason and logic which is a democratic process and if you agree with this – would be interested in some more of your views and insights
***
Response by Dnyanesh�on 5th May
HRISHI
�seperating religion from politics��..this comments surprises me many times over. religion is a way of life, our thoughts, ethics, dos donts, our behaviour patterns, our beliefs, culture, way we treat others, logic/thoughts are part of this. therefore in essence it is the foundauion of what we are and stand for. how can we leave that behind. what kind of governance we are likely to give then�
well may be this is not the thread to be followed here�just a few thoughts on an oft repeated comment�.
***
Response�by Hrishi on 5th May
Dnyanesh – since you bring it up (and the moderator allows it, God Willing) – religion is based on two premises as I understand it
– where one acts out of beliefs based on pre-written / revealed scriptures, many of which cannot be disputed or debated (e.g.Islam in toto, Catholicism, etc)
OR
– where one acts out of insights coming out of direct insights based on oneness with the Absolute.
The latter while possible is extremely rare and the overwhelming majority would rely on the former process i.e. acting based on beliefs (many of which are �blind� or not allowed to be exposed to objective reason and logic)
Given this, politics particularly of the modern kind (democracy/ constitutional guarantees of personal, legal, moral and political freedoms) would be impossible.
So as far as religion giving us do�s & don�ts, moral standards, ways of life, �. this must necessarily be subordinated/superceded by the guarantee of constitutional freedoms (mentioned above) and the democratic process based on reason and logic in free debate. I dont know of any �religion� encouraging the primacy of reason and logic based on facts; mostly beliefs are summarily handed down.
Democracy and universal suffrage developed in the �Christian� world only after the separation of the Church and the State, ushering in the Enlightenment (of the rational kind)..
***
Please share your comments and thoughts.
To further provoke your thinking,�I would recommend having a look at:
Hinduism as a secular�concept�
Of Turkey, Secular States and�Religion�
Flat World Hindutva – A moral compass to guide contemporary issues��and
From Offstumped’s post:
It is an insult to our collective intellect that we have allowed the Left and the media to succesfully label what has come to symbolize governance in India since Independence as “Secular”, for what we have today in India fails even the “minimalist secular state” test.
Why is that so, is there not separation of church and state ?
Not exactly. Today Relgious Institutions across the country are governed and managed by the State.
It fails the second test as well as we have personal laws by religion as well as laws specifically targeting Minority Institutions.
The more serious issue however is that it is the writ of the State that determines how religious shrines are managed and who gets to enjoy the spoils and privileges from the revenues generated by these shrines. In fact State control of religious institutions is such a high stakes game that the Office of Profit Bill ensured that Congress MP’s unquestioned right to be the Chairperson of Tirumal Tirupathi Devasthanam, TTD, had Constitutional Sanction. We see a similar row brewing in Kerala over Sabarimala where the supposedly atheist LDF Government has been going out of its way to influence how the Devaswom board is run.
Offstumped had in two earlier posts first on the Sabarimala Tantri issue and then on the Babri Masjid issue had called for freeing religious institutions from state control. There is a very good rationale for doing this which is both secular and right of center. The secular argument is it separates church from state control and intervention. The right of center argument is it gives religious institutions freedom to be run as their stakeholders i.e. the devotees and the local communities deem fit.
As Hindutva looks to define itself for the 21st century it would be appropriate for it to begin with this issue for it offers a path forward to resolve the intractable issues of last century as well as provides a clear contrast and distinction on what it stands for in this century. Freeing religion from state control would also serve National Interest for the State would no longer be seen to be acting in parochial interest by speaking for individual communities but for the people of the nation as whole.
So in closing Hindutva must unambiguously stand for freeing religion from state control irrespective of whether it is the majority faith or a minority faith. Such a Hindutva would be minimalist secularism as well as serving National Interest.
***
See also: http://offstumped.nationalinterest.in/2007/12/21/a-generation-fed-on-an-overdose-of-political-correctness/
Dear Shantanu,
Religion has never been a part of politics and administaration any time in ancient Bharat. The teachers were guides, but the rulers took the final decision.
Even in the case of the Mahabharat, the teachers advised against the fight but the final call was taken by Duruyodhana under the guidance of Shakuni.
The teachers had a duty to perform and they had to abide by the decision of the rulers to whom they were bound.
The teachers did not recklessely teach the art of war to all and sundry. War was evil for them, but a ruler had to understand the total significance of war before he embarked upon it.
It was this reason all and sundry were not taught the art and techniques of the weapons. It was a closely guarded secret so that the art did not fall into the wrong hands.
That is the reason for which Ekalavya was not taught the art by Drona though he was a Naga prince. The teacher had the right to decide his students, as he was ot concerned about “Selling his art” rather than “Teaching The Art’.
The Propagandists highlighted this point, and created the mumbo jumbo of stating the as Ekalavya was born of lower status that he was denied the art by Drona.
Again Parsurama refused to teach certain techniques to Karna, as he felt that since a person has lied to him to learn the art, he was not reliable sufficient to learn the high quality techniques, however noble he may be otherwise, he cursed him for the same.
This was also misinterpreted by the Probagandists.
This was the beauty of ancient Bharat. It was a very structured way of life and Politics and Religion were totally kept apart.
It was only after the advent of certain religions which wanted to dominate the world that Politics and religion came together. Religious leaders did not bother about the quality of the person who donned the role of a warrior as long he was willing to fight for the “Religion”.
It is therefore very apparent that “Hindutva” will stand the test that in its case religion and politics are totally strangers to each other as there is nver the problem of religion in it as it is only a way of life!
They will definetely come together when a particular force or group tries to destroy the fabric that keeps individuals together, to live their way of life.
Regards,
vck
the question is what is religion…I contend that one part of religion is also the way a state should be ruled……and that the concepts of fairness, equality, and all the acts which mean keeping religion and politics separate are also part of that.
So what do we mean by keepign politics and religion seperate? what are such acts which show that the religion and politics to be separate?
Should the concept of correct/incorrect change?
And then do these acts contravene the sanatana teachings or way of life? And therefore what is the exact meaning of seperation?
So are we then saying that a part – clearly defined part of what is normally assumed when we say the word “religion” is to be kept out of politics and what are those actions exactly can one define?
Dear Sir,
Continuing with my comment earlier, let me come tro a current situation.
Recently there was news in the papers that a family has been ostracised for going against the norms and way of life of a particular community in a village near Chennai.
The bone of contention was a loading and unloading contract for a job. All theae years, the members of the community including that of the family who were ostracised had worked together witrhout any ill feeling and for the betterment of the community.
They had worked together, like one family through every calamity or happy act and each one has worked together for the survival of the other.
Suddenly the group noticed that the family who were ostracised, had won a contract to do a particular job and they were wanting to do it independently without sharing in the profits and also not willing to let the members of their community in participating the project. Thay wanted all of the profits for themselves!
Viewing it from the western way of thinking we had the HRC coming down like a pack of bricks on the village head and that of the village leaders.
The viilagers were not cowed down by the threats and the villagers as one stuck to their guns.
From a way of life point of view, it is shameful that a single group which has lived of the community all these years, without batting an eyelid was willing to break a way of life and destroy a pattern of living just for the sake of making a few extra money.
Is it not shameful that a family which has been supported all these years by the group has not thought for a single moment about for all the support the whole community had given itself over the years.
The village headman and its leaders who have led them all these years, in keeping them together and providing both moral and financial support when the need was there for this family!
That is what it means in true spirit. No politics or HRC. it is a way of life. No Religion whatsover involved; it was a way of life.
No room for selfishness and greed. One being played against the other.
Let us work together as a team and religion and politics will definetely not mix,as they need not mix. They can work together, but can be always be mutually exclusive.
Regards,
vck
@ vck: Thanks for some thought-provoking comments…and also for clarifying and highlighting some of the supposed “injustices” that the pseudo-secularists never seem to tire of pointing out.
***
@ Dnyanesh: You raise a valid point. To me, “the concepts of fairness, equality” and the broader question of how a state must be ruled should rightfully be part of “Raj Dharma”.
On the other hand, there are clearly areas where the state must not attempt to intervene such as in management of religious institutions (- unless there is evidence to believe that they are acting against the national interest or against the security and sovereignty of the state).
What do you think?
Hi Dnyanesh, Shantanu,
Is the Raj Dharma quite the same as nationalism? or a mechanism to arouse a nationalistic passion that would motivate the less politically aware Indian (which could mean the huge majority) to do his democratic duties as a law-abiding citizen? If that is so, I am fully in agreement
I see the matter as whether the state runs its people (as in authoratarianism) or whether the people run the state which administers to the people (democracy).
Most definitely in matters of religion and spirituality which would be an individual or a small group affair the state has no place in principle. However, if the State, taking its role from a more activist/reformist constitution (like the Indian one) given the historical malaises we have inherited, its vital that it approaches every step out of a reasoning/logical based-on-facts approach consistent with other essential parts of the Constitution viz. Fundamental Rights, et al
If religion fits in with the above, in regards ideas of right/wrong, fairness/equality (which by the way can be reached independent of any religion) its well and good or else gets subordinated and gives way.
If one gives primacy to a secular (understood as a problem-solivng approach based on reasoning/logic based-on-facts) constitution-led democracy guaranteeing Fundamental Rights arrived at by the same secular values, religious fundamentalism of any kind – imported or home-grown will be subordinated and kept under check. That, I would see, as the State’s primary duty i.e. acting to protect its constitutional democratic values and practices.
This may sound idealistic but would be interested to know (if you generally agree in principle) why this cannot happen, and is not happening
Regards
Dharma is the life-force of the Constitution of India, that is Bharat.
The Preamble may call it with appellations such as socialist, secular but the Union of India, the very national identity and purushartha (goals of life) is driven by the life-force of Dharma. Without dharma, the nation, the rashtram ceases.
Dharma has two facets according to Kapila Muni of Vais’eshika, the earliest scientist known to humanity: 1. abhyudayam and 2. nihs’reyas (translated as: 1. social welfare; 2. quest of aatman to unite with paramaatman). It is the holding, sustaining force, the global, eternal ethic of every organization in the cosmos including the samajam.
Secular has been translated in the official Hindi version of the Constitution as ‘pantha nirapekshataa’, that is neutrality as to path orientations for uniting with the Supreme divine.
Smt. Indira Gandhi accepted this Hindi translation in the official Hindi version of the Constitution. I entirely agree with Rajnath Singh ji in what he said to the BJP National Executive on 1 June 2008.
If the word dharma nirapekshataa is used mischievously by some p-secs, they should be opposed relentlessly for what they are: hoaxes.
The Bharata des’am, Hindusthanam can NEVER be dharma neutral. How can a nation be dharma neutral when the very life-force of the national identity is dharma?
Sure, let the opponents come and use the word nirapekshataa to their hearts’ content. But, they should not be allowed to get away with a fraudulent translation of the word, ‘secular’ as anything but ‘pantha nirapekshataa’. Simply because, this phrase, pantha nirapekshataa is used in the official constitutional document. The Courts of law in the country should also so understand the word, ‘secular’ in the Constitution as pantha nirapekshataa.
The nation lives only because the nation’s life force is dharma; yes, Rajnath ji, dharma praan is what identifies the nation, the rashtram. There should be no compromise on this basic, ethical, sanatana foundation, the eternal, universal ethic, called dharma.
Kalyanaraman
Extracts from Shri Rajnath’s statement:
The BJP national president explaining the issue in detail said that there is a big difference in being dharmanirpeksh and panthnirpeksh.
Panth or sect symbolises devotion towards any specific belief, specific way of prayer and specific form of God but dharma symbolises absolute and eternal values, which can never change like laws of nature.
For example, one can say dharma is like the earth or land while panth is like different paths built over it. Our mind can chose any path, change from one path to another, we can hold different views about the various paths but how can we ever get separated from the earth?
“India’s national emblem has three lions and carries the eternal message of Satyamev Jayate (Truth Always Triumphs) of the Mundakopanishad. Truth signifies dharma and not a sect.
India’s National Flag has the Ashoka Chakra in it. This Chakra found in Sarnath is dharmachakra and basically symbolises the cycle of dharma. In India’s Parliament behind the seat of the Speaker of
the Lok Sabha Dharmachakra Pravartanay (For the propagation of the eternal cycle of dharma) is inscribed. Therefore, if dharma is present in the National Emblem, National Flag, and in the supreme seat of Parliament then how can the entire establishment of India be neutral to dharma or be dharmanirpeksh?
The confusion created by dharmanirpeksh and panthnirpeksh cannot be removed only through an explanation. The only solution is to stop the use of the word dharmanirpeksh. That is why I am announcing that in future we will never use the word dharmanirpeksh and the Government of India should also issue a directive prohibiting the constitutional use of the word dharmanirpeksh so that from the Prime Minister to the common public no one constitutionally uses this term and this will prevent confusion and damage from taking place through its usage,”
Source:
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=241&page=41
““India’s national emblem has three lions and carries the eternal message of Satyamev Jayate (Truth Always Triumphs) of the Mundakopanishad. Truth signifies dharma and not a sect.”
How stupid …….. he does not know that the national emblem actually has FOUR lions (only three are visible) and he is pontificating on the constitution?
So much for Rajnath Singh ………
1. Dharma is the fundamental law of the Universe, and the guiding principle of mankind. Dharma means (literally ) ‘that which upholds or supports’ (from the root, Dhr, – to hold), and is generally translated into English as ‘law’.
Dharma govern all ideas about the proper conduct of living. It means righteousness, honesty, truthfulness, morality, ethics, and all good virtues. The symbol of the dharma, the wheel, is the central motif in the national flag of Bharat, that is India.
2. You may wish to read this beautiful book on Dharma by Shri Rama Jois (free online book). Its simply beautiful, I have read it and benefited enormously.
Dharma-The Global Ethic, by Justice M. Rama Jois
http://www.vhp-america.org/ebooks/
3. About National Emblem, Excerpt from:
http://india.gov.in/knowindia/state_emblem.php
http://www.meaindia.nic.in/onmouse/symbol.htm
The National Emblem of India is a replica of the Lion of Sarnath, near Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh. The Lion Capital was erected in the third century BC by Emperor Ashoka to mark the spot where Buddha first proclaimed his gospel of peace and emancipation to the four quarters of the universe.The National emblem is thus symbolic of contemporary India’s reaffirmation of its ancient commitment to world peace and goodwill.
The four lions (one hidden from view) – symbolising power, courage and confidence – rest on a circular abacus. The abacus is girded by four smaller animals – guardians of the four directions: the lion of the north, the elephant of the east, the horse of the south and the bull of the west.The abacus rests on a lotus in full bloom, exemplifying the fountainhead of life and creative inspiration. The motto ‘SATYAMEVA JAYATE’ inscribed below the emblem in Devanagari script means ‘Truth alone Triumphs’.
4. Most political leaders are either ignorants or educated illiterate, Shri Rajnath Singh is no exception. Sometime back (at time Govt filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court denouncing Sri Ram’s existence and declaring Ramayan as a fiction) he said, our nation was named after Bharat, brother of Sri Ram. Is it correct? A leader of a national party needs to apply common sense, before putting words in public.
5. Practicing Dharmanirpekshata is akin to practicing Adharma.
Bharat
=====
Dear Shantanu,
Linking temples to politics is like trying to mix oil with water. Both of them will like to mix as they are both liquids, but their inherent qualities will not permit them to do so.
May be as research continues, one day scientists of the current age may come across a method of doing that also!
In the same manner if you look at temples and politics, they come from the same format, structures that hold society together, but they are totally different.
I am sure you would have followed the write up in a leading newspaper that an Indian King of yester years, a scion of the old Nayakkar had gone to Srilanka and renovated the Buddhist temples there.
He had even recovered certain items from a group of Hindu priests items which were important for the Buddhists and returned it to them.
He even structured the Rath festival for Buddhists.
He also renovated other temples which were not Buddhist and brought them back to their former glory.
In spite of all this he did not exert his right over these the temples nor the items which were important for the Buddhists.
This only brings out to the fore that the ruler , the political class, were involved in temple structures, but did not try to benefit it, by bringing religion into it.
It was a way of life for them. Wars also had to be fought by the Kings, that does not mean that they did not take care of the interests of the people.
The King had a Kshatriyan way of life.
The temples were built by the Politcal class for maintaining the way of life of the people, while maintaining the role of a political class, which was also a way of life, not on the same lines of temple building.
They went hand in hand.
They were like oil and water. Both liquids, but did not mix! Temple building and wars and administartion went together, both political activities but did not mix.
Regards,
vck
@ Hrishi:Good points. I will respond in a day or two.
***
@ Kalyanaraman-ji: Thanks for a great comment…
***
@ Patriot: To err is human!
***
@ Bharat: Thanks for the links and the book recommendation. I will certainly have a look.
Re. point 4, it is a common misconception, sadly.
For those of you who are curious, please read “Hindu”, India and “Bharat” – The Story behind Word Origins and also Bharat’s comment dated 7th Dec here.
***
@ vck: I loved your example!
FYI.
The dharmayudh over the “secular” word
Arvind Lavakare
…Dharma, the fundamental duty, the foundation ethic of the nation and every walk of life, is, he argued, the very foundation for the Fundamental Duties section being introduced. Smt.G agreed, handed the pen from her PM’s office desk and requested Singhvi to make the correction on the Hindi draft version. He wrote down panthnirpeksh.
And that’s exactly how it appears in the official Hindi version of our Constitution.
http://sify.com/news/columns/fullstory.php?id=14696519
Excerpts from Secularists aren’t saints by Madhu Kishwar:
…Congress leaders are understandably the most vociferous in displaying righteous outrage at the unfortunate speech delivered by Varun Gandhi, just as they spare no occasion to castigate Narendra Modi for the Gujarat riots of 2002. However, their words would have more credibility if they expressed comparable shame at the fact that their party led the way in showing that riots and massacres can be used as means to manipulate vote banks. Apart from the infamous massacre of Sikhs in 1984, the 1970s and 1980s witnessed a series of communal riots presided over by the Congress party in places like Meerut, Malliana, Jamshedpur, Kanpur, Bhiwandi, Bhagalpur, Ahmedabad and Hyderabad.
…Without doubt, serious problems do arise when politicians decide to use select religious symbols and manipulate religious sentiments of people in order to acquire power. However, history is witness to the fact that religion and politics do not make as lethal a mix as do politics and violence.
We would do well to remember that many of the highly venerated political figures of the 20th century have been those who brought the best values of their faith traditions to uplift politics to new moral heights. By contrast, many of those who claimed to be secular and, therefore, treated matters of faith with disdain, caused massive genocides and human suffering.
…Jinnah was not religious minded. He too merely used certain religious symbols and Islamic slogans to mobilise Muslims against the Hindus as a political force. Jinnah’s aim was secular in so far as he acquired political power for himself. Though claiming to defend the political and economic interests of Muslims of the subcontinent, he left behind many more millions of Muslims in India as a mistrusted minority than could be accommodated within the absurd geographical borders of the new ‘Islamic’ state he created for them.
By contrast, Mahatma Gandhi’s politics and world view were rooted in Hindu Sanatan Dharma. Gandhi chose truth and non-violence as his guiding principles, not any ideology or “ism”. He drew some of his inspiration from the bhakti-Sufi traditions rather than the ideology of modern-day secularism, as defined by the West. That did not prevent him from being a historic global role model of ethical politics. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan derived strength from his unshakeable faith in Islam. That did not prevent him from becoming Gandhi’s most valued colleague in promoting the cause of communal harmony and freedom from colonial rule. Aung San Suu Kyi and the Dalai Lama make no secret of the fact that they draw inspiration from their Buddhist world view. Martin Luther King drew his strength from Christianity…
Mehammedanism, Christianity etc are religions based on “Exclusivity” of faith which they refuse to rectify even if proved false… We are “Sanatan Dharma”… Open mind with freedom to seek truth in own way. Study the history of these two religion which increased misery in world since foundation day.
To Shantanu:
Gandhi interpreted Sanatana Dharma wrongly. Throughout his life time, he licked British Boots. Roaming around half naked, showing off stooped weakened physical frame and speaking in feeble voice are not hallmarks of leaders. He was more THEATRICAL than leader… Spineless, PROPAGANDA material who will suit any REAL ruler (Britishers in this case). Britishers tolerated him because of his habit to lick British boots. He was awarded British Army Medal for his doggy behavior.
Please read Richard Greiner’s Gandhi Nobody Knows. It is a well documented and brings out idiosyncrasies of MK Gandhi.
I have already commented on this extensively, before – but, just for the record again – this question is framed wrongly, religion has to be separate from state.
State has no business to interfere in religion (as long as it is a matter of private faith) and religion has certainly no business in state.
Organised religion is politics by another name! They just have no locus standi in state matters.
And, no exceptions, as far as I am concerned.
Cheers
@ Rohit –
“He was awarded British Army Medal for his doggy behavior.”
Do you know what he was given the medal for? And, when?
And, yes, Gandhi bashing is back in fashion with some people.
Patriot/ Rohit: Two important points.
1] I believe that the State has no business to interfere in religion (and vice-versa).
2] “Dharma” is *not* religion.
We can now debate this question posed by Rohit: “Is a Leader With Firm Belief in Rajdharma Better than Sickulars (or Atheist)?â€
@ Shantanu –
First, you need to put forward a treatise of what is Rajdharma? Who is the Raj here and what is her dharma?
Second, the people of India are and of the “swaraj” – so what does that do to rajdharma?
And, if the leaders fail, is it really their failure or the failure of the swa-raj, i.e, the people?
@ Shantanu –
Also, “sickular” is a pejorative term – why would some one who truly believes in secular ideals – the separation of religion from the state – ever wish to respond to such a loaded, one-sided question?
@ Patriot (#18): Great questions to trigger the debate . Will respond later…
Also point taken re. “Sickular” (#19). In fact, I realise that I am contradicting myself here.
If “Dharma” is not religion, then a Leader can be “secular” and still have a belief in “Raj-Dharma” – because “Raj-Dharma” has nothing to do with religion (unless I have got it wrong)
The question should then be re-phrased as:
“Is a Leader with firm belief in “Raj-Dharma” better than one who does not believe in “Dharma”?
What do others think?
No my comment is right. It should go as “Leader with belief in Rajdharma is better than Sickular or Atheist?”
Secularism as concept is unnatural.
It is unnatural because of difference between Santan Dharma and religion like Mohammedanism and Christianity. While Sanatan Dharma is inclusive, the latter are exclusive by nature. The latter two have a remarkable history of expansion based on violence. For example, US, Australia of today was formed on state based racism. Christianity has a belief that it is right to preach everyone about Jesus and make them believe about Jesus. Their websites contain offensive statements. Same goes with Mohammedanism which is cruder version of Christianity. Hindus everywhere in world, where state religion is Christianity or Mohammedanism do not enjoy full freedom as Mohammedains and Christians enjoy here. Because of the basics of the two religion secularism cannot exist and I term it as sickularism. It is a sick concept away from truth.
To Patriot,
I hope you would have read Richard Greiner’s article on MK Gandhi. There is no rebuttal by anyone till date of any of his comments on MK Gandhi to prove that what he wrote is FALSE. So you can take the Medal Story as true.
Truth is a strange thing. For all people, their belief remains truth.
*** COMMENT EDITED ***
To Patriot
Major Seargent Gandhi was awarded Natal Rebellion Medal 1906 for his efforts to support…Britishers in Boer War. Major Seargent Gandhi wanted to take part in active war but despite his extraordinary zeal, due to his physique, was not listed as a regular. He raised Indians to fight for Britishers and served in the medical support team for Britishers.
http://www.remuseum.org.uk/articles/medal_Apr07.pdf
Rohit: Duplicate Link. Pl. continue the debate on Mahatma Gandhi on the other thread.
I am intrigued by what is meant by Rajdharma or Dharma – could someone define/describe it in its essence or in a simple sentence? I’ve tried reading a few pdf’s or long-ish essays on it but no joy..is it something like the ‘social action-system’ or a collectivity that meets its objectives of survival, health and evolution with every ‘individual’ having his/her role in the whole? E.g. Arjuna’s role is that of Kshatriya prince which was to fight and preserve/protect his kingdom from those inimical to it; as the myth goes he was to the manner born given his proficiency at archery, horse-riding and his courage and hence had the right guna-profile to meet the role-description?
Would be happy to know if ‘Dharma’ really has place in matters of the state since its not religion
@ Rohit:
“Secularism as concept is unnatural.”
So is god, as a supreme being or whatever.
“It is unnatural because of difference between Santan Dharma and religion like Mohammedanism and Christianity. While Sanatan Dharma is inclusive, the latter are exclusive by nature.”
Don’t care whether Sanatana Dharma is inclusive or not – I can see practitioners like Ramdev trying to persecute the homosexual community.
So, no religion in the matters of my state, irrespective of how inclusive you claim to be.
“There is no rebuttal by anyone till date of any of his (Greiner) comments on MK Gandhi to prove that what he wrote is FALSE”
I have already made MY rebuttal of what he wrote …. he has an opinion, I have an opinion. And, as I have written in my post on Gandhi, people change … isn’t that what the whole story of Valmiki is all about? Then, why would you hold the past against Gandhi, *after* he threw himself wholeheartedly in the struggle for India’s independence?
@ Nikhil:
Yes, by all means, let us hear a codified version of “rajdharma”
To Patriot
“So, no religion in the matters of my state, irrespective of how inclusive you claim to be”
I think it is impractical because religion is fed to a person daily by someone or other till a person becomes aware. Sanatan Dharma is not religion as you understand.
=>
I have already made MY rebuttal of what he wrote …. he has an opinion, I have an opinion. And, as I have written in my post on Gandhi, people change … isn’t that what the whole story of Valmiki is all about? Then, why would you hold the past against Gandhi, *after* he threw himself wholeheartedly in the struggle for India’s independence?
=>
Patriot, would you know of any later writings of Gandhi where he admitted his errors, or showed an evolution of thinking? Or admitted that his advice to Jews on how to face Nazism was not only bullsh!t but impractical, to put it mildly? I’d be happy to see him repudiating some of his earlier thoughts, for example, the Moplah rebellion.
And I agree with you to some extent regarding Grenier’s own biases and prejudices in writing that article, but it’s possible to sift those from the facts he presents.
@ Nikhil (#24): Good question…I will attempt a response in a day or two…please give me some time.
Thanks
@ Kaffir –
I had read some rethinking by Gandhi, in the newsletters that he used to publish – Navjivan (if I remember correctly) – but, I will have to dig up the exact quotes. Will take time.
But, Gandhi once wrote (and was quoted widely on this) that “My life and my actions are my philosophies, more than anything I have written” (paraphrased). So, his change of thinking was exemplified by his change in behaviour? Just a thought 🙂
“Or admitted that his advice to Jews on how to face Nazism was not only bullsh!t but impractical, to put it mildly?”
This does not bother me as much as other things that he said/did because this was in consonance with his views on ahimsa and ways and means being equally important while fighting an enemy. He clearly did not agree with Krishna of Gita here, although he extensively quoted the Gita elsewhere.
Also, to be fair to Gandhi, the full evil of what Hitler did to the Jews was not known until WWII ended, and the winning armies found the concentration camps. Whether Gandhi would have changed his mind, if he knew about this evil, is a moot point.
Cheers
@ Rohit:
“I think it is impractical because religion is fed to a person daily by someone or other till a person becomes aware.”
For a practical version, please look up the Republic of France, who guard and implement their secular construct very strongly.
@ Nikhil (#24): On reflection, I think your question (What is meant by “Raj-Dharma”?) calls for a blog post.
It reminded me of why I started this blog – which was to find answers to questions such as these.
And given the focus on “religion”, politics and history here, I think I should at least attempt a post on this…It will take a few weeks though (I am taking it easy through the summer and am also on vacation for a few days) but watch this space.
Thanks.
P.S. I am certain you have read this (or something like this) before but just in case:
As Dr Morales explains, although “Sanatana” can be roughly translated as “eternal”, translating the term “Dharma” in English is less straightforward.
Unlike the word “sanatana”, the term â€dharma†is a term that can be properly rendered into the English language only with the greatest of difficulty. This is the case because there is no one corresponding English term that fully renders both the denotative and the connotative meanings of the term with maximal sufficiency.
In essence, “dharma” is communicating a metaphysical concept” A thing’s dharma is what constitutes the thing’s very essence, without which, the very concept of the thing would be rendered meaningless. To illustrate the full meaning of this term, we can use the following examples: It is the “dharma” of water to be wet. Without the essential attribute (dharma) of wetness, the concept and existential fact of water loses all meaning. Likewise, it is the “dharma “of fire to be hot, the “dharma” of space to be expansive, etc.
The word itself is derived from “dhri”, which means (in Sanskrit) to uphold or (to) maintain.
“Dharma” is often (loosely) translated as “Righteousness”.
Shantanu,
A suggestion from my side – why not attept this post in Hindi? You are right, some words lose their real meaning/beauty when translated.
Am sure it will be an intellectual treat to your readers.
Thanks,
PS: That is a very good thought…although I do not think my Hindi is up to it…but perhaps with a little bit of help, it can be done..
Something for me to think about…
Thanks.
To Patriot #30,
It cannot be. It is beyond practical reasoning. Utopia never exists. You may yourself dig deeper into French Laws and Social Structure to learn whether secularism is practiced or not or you can twist the term (secularism has no definition) to come with a new definition which can even make laws of country like Iran, Pakistan or Malaysia secular. For example, they are debating implimentation of ban on Burquas. They have had history of banning turbans for Sikhs. If you compare the freedom enjoyed by Christians and Muslims, here in India, I do not think you would be able to say the same for Hindus in France.
Shantanu,
There is no need to be so polite :-). Your readers know that.
कà¥à¤› सनà¥à¤¦à¤°à¥à¤ दीरà¥à¤˜à¤•à¤¾à¤²à¤¿à¤• सà¥à¤®à¥ƒà¤¤à¤¿ से B-):
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/04/23/bharatiya-passion-firangi-thoughts/
@ Rohit:
“It cannot be. It is beyond practical reasoning. Utopia never exists. You may yourself dig deeper into French Laws and Social Structure to learn whether secularism is practiced or not or you can twist the term (secularism has no definition) to come with a new definition which can even make laws of country like Iran, Pakistan or Malaysia secular”
You have no clue as to what you are talking about. I am familiar with French laws on secularism, in theory and in in practice.
Their history of banning sikh turbans and plans to ban burqa *IS* secularism in action.
You clearly have no idea what is a secular state.
’nuff said.
To Rohit, I should have added that India is not a secular state.
Ok
1) Please define what is secularism.
2) Who in this world fits in your definition of secularism? If it is France, how does it’s law and governance do not derive practicals of implimentation from a point of view of religion other than Christianity.
Then we shall proceed.
@ Rohit:
Since you can not do your own research, here are your answers:
1. Secularism = separation of religion and state. Religious matters/leaders shall not interfere or be present in state matters. The state/state leaders shall not interfere in religious matters.
2. Secular states = France, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland and then UK and Germany to some extent.
“If it is France, how does it’s law and governance do not derive practicals of implimentation from a point of view of religion other than Christianity.”
What does this above sentence mean? A well constructed question would be useful, if you are seeking cogent replies.
Secularism in action in state schools in France:
“Backed by French President Jacques Chirac, ministers approved a law that will come into effect in September (2004), banning all obvious religious symbols from schools – including headscarves, Christian crosses and Jewish skullcaps. ”
Source: BBC.co.uk
1) Secularism = Utopia… Nothing like this exists… For example, Denmark did with some cartoons on Islam… How does a ban on turban has to do with state affairs and not religion affairs?
2) Rephrasing the question… Can you say that the laws of secular countries you stated above are not derived from practicality and applicability which are based on Christian beliefs and practices?
@ Rohit:
1. What about the Danish cartoon issue? What are you on about? More importantly, what are you smoking?
And, if turbans are a religious symbol (which they were in this case), the state basically said that you can not bring a religious symbol (also, crucifixes and skull caps) into places administered by the state – that is *separation* – do not bring your religious garbage into state premises. What is wrong with that?
2. If you give me specific examples, I might be able to answer you. Also, you may be interested to know that the Vatican and the Holy Roman Empire fought bitter battles with the secular Republic of France, on the separation of the church from the state. So, on that *evidence*, I would have to say that France’s laws were based on equality and freedom, as they claim them to be.
I have got an idea for the National Secular Society of UK: follow the smoking model. Slowly, bit by bit, smokers have been ostracised from all public places, in the name of public health.
Similarly, in the name of public sanity and humanity, let us, bit by bit, get all religious symbols off our streets, schools, bus stops, train stations, airports, etc into only designated spots and homes.
Heh! 🙂
@ Rohit –
You may do well to read up on the history of the French Revolution and the dire enmity between the Republicans and the Church, following the revolution.
You may, then, come to the conclusion that the constitution and the various laws of France could hardly owe much to Christianity. Of course, you may also still continue to ignore facts and come up with your own weird interpretations.
Patriot,
1) I just stepped out to smoke ITC manufactured Wills Classic Ultra Milds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
2) Skulls, Caps and Trubans are not the only religious symbols: A name in itself reflects religious background… Why doesn’t France give numbers to it’s students in School and then to each and every citizen? Practicing religion in school should be banned like saying Christian Prayers or Prayers Related to Islam or to Gurubani. What has a cross or turban or skullcap to do with learning language, maths, science, geography in school? Is school meant to teach religion or other essentials of life than religion? The dictat is only meant to abuse relgious faith especially that of Sikhs because their faith doesn’t allow Sikh to cut hair… The faith should have been banned if it hurts others… As far as I know, I have never been hurt by a Sikh sitting in my class and reading the same CBSE curriculum. The French ban has got nothing to do with state affairs.
@ Rohit –
1. Then you know you are a doubly, hunted man!
Again, what is the point that you are seeking to make about the Danish cartoon issue?
2. Public/state schools in France have an uniform – turbans, scarves, crucifixes and skull caps are not a part of this uniform, and hence when students continued wearing them, they were explicitly banned. Muslims were equally up in arms against the headscarves issue, so I do not think that Sikhs were especially targeted.
And, if your religion does not allow you to do something, then please stay only in those places (like Saudi Arabia or India) where you can you can impose your religious dictat on the state, in the guise of tolerance. Why go to France, where they believe that every citizen is equal, and every citizen must *obey* the law?
And, like I said before, I do not consider India to be a secular state.
@ Rohit –
In some other post, one commentator had written – our slogan should be Diversity in Unity, not Unity in Diversity. In the first, the focus is on Unity, in the latter on Diversity.
The former is France, the latter is India.
To Patriot:
Precedence of law does not mean that it should be practiced for ever. The school law was formed keeping in view Christianity a religion to which Sarkozy or Chirac belong and majority of law makers belong. If any of the law maker had complete knowledge of all religions of world or complete lack of knowledge of all religions of world, let me know and I would start believing that these law forming folks are seculars as you define it.
The rigidity to not change a defunct law means dictatorship and not secularism or democracy.
Danish cartoon issue is a deliberate attempt to hurt religious sentiments by those who do not belong to that religion and has patronage of sickular state Denmark. For eg it is not secularism when Christians start to demean Hinduism by taking pot shots at the practices under state patronage, citing ignorance and coming up with word sorry. Similarly it is not secularism if Hindus start taking pot shots at Christianity under state patronage. Practicing faith based practices which do not harm society should be tolerated. Turban in no way interferes with affairs of state.
Lastly, almost all Christian nations have had a fight with Church over laws of governance not conforming to Bible. France is not the only one. Clashes with Church emerged as Bible has some teachings which cannot be implimented but on cost of progress. Do some study on Christianity and progress of Science + Christian Nations or go to http://www.atheists.org or wwww.godisimaginary.com
@ Rohit –
“The school law was formed keeping in view Christianity a religion to which Sarkozy or Chirac belong and majority of law makers belong”
Prove your above statement/hypothesis.
“If any of the law maker had complete knowledge of all religions of world or complete lack of knowledge of all religions of world, let me know and I would start believing that these law forming folks are seculars as you define it.”
Irrelevant …. the law makers stated that *all* religious matters shall be kept out of state matters. And, that is being enforced.
“Danish cartoon issue is a deliberate attempt to hurt religious sentiments by those who do not belong to that religion and has patronage of sickular state Denmark.”
Prove the above statement. Under Danish laws, creatives are protected, even in matters considered “holy” by othters. Too bad if that does not agree with *your* concept of what can be written about or not. This is true Freedom of Speech. As, long as the speech is not hate speech, it is protected. The onus of proving that it *is* hate speech is on you/aggrieved parties. The way aggrieved parties went about demonstrating against the cartoons actually served to *prove the editorial point* behind the cartoons.
“Clashes with Church emerged as Bible has some teachings which cannot be implimented but on cost of progress”
True of all organised religion, including organised hinduism. Religion is your private matter. Keep it private.
@ Rohit –
“Do some study on Christianity and progress of Science + Christian Nations or go to http://www.atheists.org or wwww.godisimaginary.com”
What is your point? I am fully aware of the battle between religions (not just christianity, but all religions) and Science.
I am fully on the side of science and rationality, and I will exert every sinew to ensure the triumph of science, rationality and humanism over *organised religion*. I will exert every muscle in my leg to *kick* organised religion wherever and whenever I can. I am pretty clear about my objectives.
Religion is your *private matter*. Keep it private.
=>
What is your point? I am fully aware of the battle between religions (not just christianity, but all religions) and Science.
=>
I’m curious, are you referring to the famous Galileo episode, which is presented as Exhibit A and has become the mythical story and the bedrock of modern science, which every newbie scientist (or scientifically-minded person) swallows without bothering to explore further?
And “battle”? Really? 🙂
I’ll write more after your response.
@Patriot, some more questions.
1. What do you mean by organized religion? The local mandir samiti/committee? VHP? Would you like to give examples? If it’s celebration of Hindu festivals like Ganpati Puja etc., it’s not possible to accomplish it without some organization. In fact, organization is the key to success for every aspect of our life – be it scientific endeavor, contesting an election, running a government, wedding, birthday celebration, you name it.
2. Is organized religion always wrong in every act, that it needs to be opposed? What if organized religion sets up water pumps or schools in areas where the government has failed? Or organized its members to donate money and clothes in times of need, e.g. an earthquake?
I see this term “organized religion” thrown around a lot and always disparagingly – it’d be good if we can pin it down and give it some form and shape, don’t you think?
To Patriot:
Secularism = Utopia = Sickularism
Your Model Country France From Wikipaedia
“Religious expressions and Biblical references are coming back in public rhetoric and during the 2007 presidential campaign, Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal, both raised as Roman Catholics, made a number of references to their faiths. Nicolas Sarkozy sees France’s main religions as positive contributions to French society. He was elected on a platform proposing a modernisation of the Republic’s century-old principle of secularism. He visited the pope in December 2007 and publicly acknowledged France’s Christian roots, while highlighting the importance of freedom of thought, hinting that faith should come back into the public sphere.”
You can continue to justify state sponsored demeaning of religion as a good concept but that also means involvement of state with religion. You can cite some stupid laws like freedom of expression which guarantees a person to make fun of all religions except his but that means bigotry.
Lastly the comment of yourself on science. Science in itself is not science but a bunch of theories either proved = science or unproved = faith. Truth remains a matter of faith for many. People believe and consider their faith as truth. Secularism is no more than a faith.
@ Kaffir –
“I’m curious, are you referring to the famous Galileo episode, which is presented as Exhibit A and has become the mythical story and the bedrock of modern science, which every newbie scientist (or scientifically-minded person) swallows without bothering to explore further?”
Well, you had Copernicus before Galileo … and the various “fights” over the theory of evolution (mainly in the US schools) being taught …. to the most recent incident of Pope Benedict saying “there is no evidence that condoms can stop the spread of AIDS” (paraphrased)
So, the battle is allegorical, it is the fight for mindspace, for market share, for dominance (?).
Definitions of organised religions?
1. The Roman Catholic Church
2. The Anglican Church
3. All of Islam – shia and sunni cults both
4. Ramdev’s organisation (whatever that stands for)
5. Ramakrishna Math (the monks)
6. Maa Amritamayaee (sp.?)math
and many more on those lines ….
“Is organized religion always wrong in every act, that it needs to be opposed? What if organized religion sets up water pumps or schools in areas where the government has failed? Or organized its members to donate money and clothes in times of need, e.g. an earthquake?”
Generally speaking, and I have made this point earlier, too, and we can get into specifics if you want, organised religion does more evil than good. Whether this be the Jesuits or Ramdev or the Catholic church or Deobandis …. the only exception I have found to date, personally, has been Ramakrishna Mission/Math. But, as they say, the exception proves the rule.
And, if religion/faith is your personal dialogue with a mythical creature called god, why do you need an organisation for it? This is a *personal* effort, right?
And, if it is not, then clearly the religious folks have been selling us a bill of goods? And, anything that is built on fraud can hardly be good, right?
Cheers
@ Rohit:
“Secularism = Utopia = Sickularism”
Rohit’s statements = unfounded accusations/statements = garbage
Clearly, you have not been able to distinguish between the actions of an individual and a state.
Please read up on the law enacted by the Republic of France in 1905 regarding separation of state and religion
To Patriot:
Writing a law/ policy and practicing it are different matters. Utopia is a written work of Sir Thomas Moore. Does it exist? To separate religion and state, everyone that comes to form a part of state machinery has to be atheist. Is it possible? Whatever law France enacts or has enacted, does it’s Government not own Churches? If the act says that Christianity is not the religion of France does it matter when most of the persons framing the law are Christians and enforcing the law are Christians? The president goes around meets pope and proclaims his Christian background… Is president not a part of state?
Written French law does not make it true or perfect. People with faith lack one thing… Courage to accept truth.
To Patriot:
I forgot to mention for # 49, Sarkozy background, refer # 53. In # 49, rest is a one way arguement… You trying to protect Christianity aka sickularism in name of freedom of expression while I am saying that freedom of expression does not mean deliberately hurting other people’s belief to incite passion, emotions and bring disharmony.
=>
And, if religion/faith is your personal dialogue with a mythical creature called god, why do you need an organisation for it?
=>
Hold on a second. Your two assertions – a. religion/faith is a personal dialog and b. needing an organization – are not connected by any logic and are two separate issues. Is the organization needed for the personal dialog? Or is the organization because like-minded people wanting to get together and make their efforts to do good more efficient? Besides, doesn’t every philosophy/idea – right from objectivists to vegans to vegetarians to Hegelians to String-Theory proponents to Meat Industry – have an organization? I could easily argue that Meat Industry has done more harm to the planet, humans and the animals than, say, Maa Amritanandamayi organization.
If it weren’t for someone organizing thoughts and ideas and printing books about them, we wouldn’t have access to so many ideas from the past either – including the ones you believe in. I doubt that you formed your opinions in a vacuum – or all by yourself – without some help from organized ‘something’ passing down those ideas of rationalism and humanism to you.
=>
Well, you had Copernicus before Galileo … and the various “fights†over the theory of evolution (mainly in the US schools) being taught …. to the most recent incident of Pope Benedict saying “there is no evidence that condoms can stop the spread of AIDS†(paraphrased)
=>
@Patriot,
But, was Copernicus persecuted for his views? How about Kepler?
From what I’ve read, Galileo was friends with the Pope, and the Church even had its own astronomers who had corroborated Galileo’s findings. What happened next was that Galileo insulted his friend in a book, and that ticked the Pope off (to some extent, I don’t blame him – you don’t treat friends like that) who used his power to get back at his ex-BFF (Best Friends Forever), and thus was born the mythical “battle” between science and religion – more correct characterization would be clash of two egos.
And why is Roman Catholic Church and its views characterized as “religion” when there are many other denominations within Christianity as well as other religions that have no such conflict with science? Is it a made-up battle, because, well, everyone loves to be in a battle and fight the good fight? 🙂
If Roman Catholic Church butts heads on a few specific scientific issues today (as well as only a handful in the past) and not on so many other scientific issues, is the characterization “science vs. religion” really accurate, and um, scientific?
Oh, and Mendel was a monk and a priest – I’m quite sure that his theories and findings on Genetics wouldn’t have pleased the Christian God either, yet there’s no record of any persecution of him by the Church.
IMO, a more accurate characterization of this mythical “battle” – constructed only on a handful of exhibits – would be a struggle against the belief of a Christian God. But as a Hindu, why I should buy a stock into that struggle, escapes me.
@ Rohit –
“You trying to protect Christianity aka sickularism in name of freedom of expression ”
Are you nuts? Creating your own fictional hypothesis? Without any evidence to back you up?
@ Kaffir:
“Is the organization needed for the personal dialog? Or is the organization because like-minded people wanting to get together and make their efforts to do good more efficient? Besides, doesn’t every philosophy/idea – right from objectivists to vegans to vegetarians to Hegelians to String-Theory proponents to Meat Industry – have an organization?”
You are absolutely right about the above statements. My thesis is that “organised religion”, in general, has done significant more evil than good. Hence, I would not want organised religion in any matters of the public/state.
As far as the meat industry organisation goes, I leave you to fight that battle! 🙂
“But, was Copernicus persecuted for his views?”
Was Copernicus not forced to recant his views? And, did the Church not heap slander and calumny on him for his views? And, cause social ostracism to happen?
“From what I’ve read, Galileo was friends with the Pope, and the Church even had its own astronomers who had corroborated Galileo’s findings. What happened next was that Galileo insulted his friend in a book, and that ticked the Pope off (to some extent, I don’t blame him – you don’t treat friends like that) who used his power to get back at his ex-BFF (Best Friends Forever), and thus was born the mythical “battle†between science and religion – more correct characterization would be clash of two egos.”
This is a new theory to me …. could you please provide me with the links. Thanks.
“And why is Roman Catholic Church and its views characterized as “religion†when there are many other denominations within Christianity as well as other religions that have no such conflict with science?”
Cue, the reformation …. I guess the RC church is singled out, because of its numbers and because of its *current* regressive views. Would that be a reason?
“Oh, and Mendel was a monk and a priest – I’m quite sure that his theories and findings on Genetics wouldn’t have pleased the Christian God either, yet there’s no record of any persecution of him by the Church.”
Mendel, if I recollect correctly, was a monk. Not a priest. Big difference. Many monks, of various sects, were noted for their intellect and various skill sets, including wine-making. So was St Thomas of Aquinas, who was a priest, who probably engendered the entire theology/teachings based on enquiry.
So, what is your point? Mine is that, in *general*, the RC church has repressive of science. Honourable exceptions exist.
“a more accurate characterization of this mythical “battle†– constructed only on a handful of exhibits – would be a struggle against the belief of a Christian God. But as a Hindu, why I should buy a stock into that struggle, escapes me.”
Fair enough. As a hindu, you have other “mythical” battles to fight. heh. 🙂
@Patriot
=>
This is a new theory to me …. could you please provide me with the links. Thanks.
=>
It has been a while and I don’t have a specific link, but check out James Burke’s TV series “Connections” – might be available on youtube. The point is that the whole Galileo-Church affair is presented very simplistically, whereas when one looks at the details (as is the case with anything), there are complexities and shades of gray.
=>
You are absolutely right about the above statements. My thesis is that “organised religionâ€, in general, has done significant more evil than good.
=>
Does that apply to all “organized religions”, re: more evil than good? So Maa Amritanandamayi’s organization has, according to you, done significantly more evil than good? Based on what parameters, and what scientific data?
=>
Was Copernicus not forced to recant his views? And, did the Church not heap slander and calumny on him for his views? And, cause social ostracism to happen?
=>
I’d read the wiki page on Copernicus a while ago, and with the caveat that goes with wikipedia, I didn’t find any such recanting forced on Copernicus by the Church. Would love to read it.
=>
Cue, the reformation …. I guess the RC church is singled out, because of its numbers and because of its *current* regressive views. Would that be a reason?
=>
Right, and I agree. My point was that “Roman Catholic Church” =/= “religion”, so when a generalized statement is made (religion vs. science) without mentioning that it’s not all/any religions, but specifically RCC, it is misleading. Not all religions have the same concept about God – which led to the conflict – as RCC does. Then we get people – like Fattu Newton 🙂 – who start looking for incidents (like proposing teaching yoga in Indian schools) to validate their belief of/faith in the dogma of “religion vs. science” battle.
=>
Mendel, if I recollect correctly, was a monk. Not a priest.
=>
The wiki page mentions he was an Augustine priest. [link]
=>
So, what is your point? Mine is that, in *general*, the RC church has repressive of science. Honourable exceptions exist.
=>
My point is that the number of exhibits supporting “religion vs. science” are only a handful and the exceptions – (past) Galileo, (present) ID, stem-cell research, condoms-AIDS. The field of science is much larger than what these few incidents impact on, and for the overwhelming part of this scientific field, there’s no repression by RCC. For example, I don’t see any evidence of RCC stopping NASA (and other similar agencies across the globe) from doing its research or launching satellites and rockets, nor do I have any evidence of RCC repressing research in the vast fields of medical science, or marine sciences, or biology, or climatology.
[BTW, my comments shouldn’t be construed as my agreement with the ideas and policies of RCC – from what little I know of RCC, I would be very critical of their policies and thoughts.]
=>
As a hindu, you have other “mythical†battles to fight. heh.
=>
Hitting below the belt, eh? 🙂 Koi baat nahin.
Like what? Could you name a few that you think I’m fighting?
To Patriot:
Why is it wrong if I interpret your support (as I did) to people (who essentially are Christians) on basis of some fancy laws (made by Christians) which gives them right to interfere to “create” chaos in society in name of religion? The essence is “create” and not subdue.
Excerpts from The supporters of democracy must welcome political Islam by WADAH KHANFAR
From Tunisia to Egypt, Islamists are gaining the popular vote. Far from threatening stability, this makes it a real possibility.
Ennahda, the Islamic party in Tunisia, won 41 per cent of the seats of the Tunisian constitutional assembly last month, causing consternation in the West. But Ennahda will not be an exception on the Arab scene. Last Friday the Islamic Justice and Development Party took the biggest share of the vote in Morocco and will lead the new coalition government for the first time in history. And yesterday Egypt’s elections began, with the Muslim Brotherhood predicted to become the largest party. There may be more to come. Should free and fair elections be held in Yemen, once the regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh falls, the Yemeni Congregation for Reform, also Islamic, will win by a significant majority. This pattern will repeat itself whenever the democratic process takes its course.
…a calm and well-informed debate about the rise of political Islam is long overdue.
…Reform-based Islamic movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, work within the political process. They learned a bitter lesson from their armed conflict in Syria against the regime of Hafez al-Assad in 1982, which cost the lives of more than 20,000 people and led to the incarceration or banishment of many thousands more. The Syrian experience convinced mainstream Islamic movements to avoid armed struggle and to observe “strategic patience†instead.
…
A number of other events have had an impact on the collective Muslim mind, and have led to the maturation of political Islam: the much-debated Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979; the military coup in Sudan in 1989; the success of the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front in the 1991 elections and the army’s subsequent denial of its right to govern; the conquest of much of Afghan territory by the Taliban in 1996 leading to the establishment of its Islamic emirate; and the success in 2006 of Hamas in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections. The Hamas win was not recognised, nor was the national unity government formed. Instead, a siege was imposed on Gaza to suffocate the movement.
…
Perhaps one of the most influential experiences has been that of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey, which won the elections in 2002. It has been a source of inspiration for many Islamic movements. Although the AKP does not describe itself as Islamic, its 10 years of political experience have led to a model that many Islamists regard as successful. The model has three important characteristics: a general Islamic frame of reference; a multi-party democracy; and significant economic growth.
…
Now there is a unique opportunity for the West: to demonstrate that it will no longer support despotic regimes by supporting instead the democratic process in the Arab world, by refusing to intervene in favour of one party against another and by accepting the results of the democratic process, even when it is not the result they would have chosen. Democracy is the only option for bringing stability, security and tolerance to the region, and it is the dearest thing to the hearts of Arabs, who will not forgive any attempts to derail it.
If one recalls correctly, Australia, France, Switzerland…….and now, the UK –
“We are a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so. The Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today. Values and morals we should actively stand up and defend” – Prime Minister David Cameron (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/article2725196.ece)