From: khaleq@brahms.udel.edu (M Khalequzzaman)
Subject: Re: Secular, Muslim Brotherhood and Changes
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:26:17 GMT

In article <1k494fINNktm@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Ahmed) writes:
>
>> >free to follow whatever religion they please.  This is *not* the same
>>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >as secularism.  And while Islam advocates democracy, it does not
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> Please explain this line.  According to what I know about secularism
>> everyone is free to follow whatever religion they please.
>
>Just because religious freedom is guaranteed by secularism does not
>imply the converse.  Secularism is defined as separation of religion and
>state.  Religious freedom simply means that anyone is free to practice
>whatever religion they please.  This has nothing to do with separation
>of religion and state.  

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.
>
>I would question whether Pakistan is an Islamic state.  As for whether
>India would be better off as a Hindu state, I think activities by the
>BJP and other supporters of "Hindu India" indicate that that is
>unlikely to be the case.  One cannot speak of religious freedom when
>places of worship of a particular religion are torn down...

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?
>> I think the US is a better example of a secular state.
>
>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?"  

 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?
>
>If you're waiting for it, why do you ask?  Which countries do you
>consider "Islamic states?"  Bangladesh is not an "Islamic state" but
>Islam is the state religion and religious freedom is guaranteed by law
>and by Islam.
>
>-- Shakil

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?
>

Khaleq
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh