From: f43703a@nucc.cc.nagoya-u.ac.jp (SUPRATIC GUPTA)
Subject: Re: Secular, Muslim Brotherhood and Changes
Organization: Nagoya University Computation Center, Nagoya, Japan.
	<1k494fINNktm@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> <C1JF6q.7JF@uceng.uc.edu>
	<1k7df5INNldi@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 01:20:42 GMT

In article <1k7df5INNldi@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Ahmed) writes:


 |Funny, but I thought the above *was* written in rather plain English.
 |Let's try this one last time:
 |
 |(1) SECULARISM = separation of religion and state
 |(2) RELIGIOUS FREEDOM = freedom to practice whatever religion one
 |			  desires
 |
 |I stated earlier that (1) implies (2) if it is properly implemented.
 |Even this is not strictly true.  In the case of the USSR, for example,
 |state and religion were separate, but there was no religious freedom
 |at all -- religion was pretty much banned.  The converse is also not
 |true.  (2) certainly does not imply (1).  We can guarantee the freedom to
 |practice whatever religion one desires and yet have a state religion
 |and have holidays based on that.  This is how it works in Europe.
 |Surely, in such a scenario, we cannot speak of separation of religion
 |and state.  That is why (2) is true without (1) being true.  In the
 |case of Islam, it is the religion itself which guarantees religious
 |freedom, i.e. (2), but not (1).  Is this really that difficult to
 |comprehend?  Perhaps a glance at a dictionary may help to understand
 |what the two terms mean in "plain English?"
 |

I agree with this whole hertedly. Good logic. How ever what is written 
in Quran is real Islam. But what we really face is the practised Islam.
When one calls a non-islam a KAFIR, and on the other hand qoute verses
about non-believers saying that he is respected is contradivtory. The
word KAFIR is insulting enough.




 |> >You do?  Why is Sunday a holiday here?  Christmas?  New Year's?  What
 |> >are the laws generally based on?  What is the basis for evaluating
 |> >something as "ethical" or "unethical?"  
 |> 
 |> Saturday too is a holiday.  There is an Indian restuarant near my house
 |> it is closed on Tuesdays, you can start a company and give a holiday on
 |> any day you want.  If the holidays are bothering you, work during Christmas
 |> many shops are open on Christmas.  I think all of us could live with an
 |> Islamic state, if it only means that Islamic holidays will be celebrated,
 |> if the country has a majority muslim population. We in India celebrate
 |> holidays of all religions, maybe that is why we get no work done.
 |
 |The same is true in Bangladesh -- most Hindu holidays are national
 |holidays too.  But that was not my point.  The very reason why Sunday
 |is a holiday in the U.S. is based on religion.  Same is true for
 |Christmas.  These are federal holidays because of religion.  Why do
 |most States ban the sale of alcohol on Sundays?  The Pledge of
 |Allegiance?  Why do you place your hand on the Bible in court?  What
 |did Bill Clinton swear upon at inauguration?  What happens on taking
 |any kind of oath?  There are hundreds of such laws if only you would
 |open up your eyes far enough to see them.

	 completely agree to this. Even I had the question in mind.
This sunday as a national holiday has no relivence to HINDUS, that
compromises 80% of the population. It has to do with christians,
who are 1%. On the other hand muslim population is 12%. They want
friday has holiday. What is wrong with Friday and saturday as 
holiday.

WILL IT MEAN BENDING DOWN TO MUSLIM PRESSURE? NO IT WILL BE SHOWING
RELIGIOUS CONCERN FOR THEM. IN THAT CASE THEY MIGHT NOT MIND SOME
HINDU CUSTOMS IN THE DAY TO DAY LIFE, EXCEPTING THEM AS TRADITION. 
Isn't it a valid question?


--
With regards
 
SUPRATIC GUPTA