From: rafatm@sage.cc.purdue.edu (unknown)
Subject: Re: Secular, Muslim Brotherhood and Changes
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:31:56 GMT

In article <C1HtJt.1vL@news.udel.edu>, khaleq@brahms.udel.edu (M Khalequzzaman) writes:
> In article <1k494fINNktm@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Ahmed) writes:
> How can a state allow its citizen to practice any religion they want if
> the state is not secular or not equally distanced from all religions?  If
> the state endorse one religion over other then what will it really mean
> to give religious freedom?  Bizzare!  The religious freedom permitted in
> the Koran is what we understand by the word secularism.  If a state has
> many religions then which one is supposed to be the state religion?  The
> one practiced by the majority?  What about minority?  In an Islamic state
> you can't expect that the govt. will allow the minority to practice
> their all religious rituals and to enjoy all of their religious 
> celebrations as much as the majority.  If the state doesn't allow
> all religious practices equally, you can't call it religious freedom.  On the other hand if the govt. allows all religious practices equally under the law
> of religious freedom then it is not a religious state, but a secular state.

    This is not true. Hindu`S in Bangladesh are permited to practice their
own religion. Durgapuja and Kalipuja are national holidays. In reverence
to the Christian minority, Bara Din (Christmas) is also a holiday.
In an Islamic state, such actions are still possible. (Although admittedly
B`desh is not a good example of a true Islamic state).

> 
> So, what is your point?  Better to have a secular state in India right?
> Which one is an Islamic state?  Saudi Arabia?  Which state has religious
> freedom the way you understand it?

>  Of course USA is a secular state.  Majority of the people are Christians,
> that is why you see more Sunday prayers.  They don't stop you going to
> the Mosque either.  The religious activities of the majority in a secular
> state will be more visible obviously.  The basis for ethics is principle-
> based moral -- not a religion.  Atheists do have their own ethichs too.
> What religion do they subcribe to?

> So you think Bangladesh is your model of so called religious freedom?
> If the freedom to practice all religions is not equal can you call
> it freedom?  If the freedom is equal then why not call it a secular
> country?  Of course, the fundamentalist muslims got their freedom
> to destroy temples and churches in Bangladesh under the sponsorship
> or endorsement of the State.  The state didn't take any preventive measure
> or didn't prosecute the criminals who broke the temples, because Islam
> is the state religion.  Do you think it would be possible in a truly
> secular country?

    It is religous to suggest that Bangladesh is a model of tolerance. At the
same time, your insinnuations are equally outrageous. If you had been reading
scb during the Ayodha crisis, you would have read that the police attempted to
maintain 
peace in Baitul Makaram. They even fired into a crowd killing several people and
injuring others. While the actions of religous fanatics in Bangladesh is 
despicable, it is resonable to conclude that the country on the whole is 
relatively tolerant to other faiths. Remember, untill this recent incident, we
had no major religous communal violence for quite some time.

regards
Rafat Sadiq

 

Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh