From: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Ahmed)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: Secular, Muslim Brotherhood and Changes
Date: 28 Jan 1993 13:00:41 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: curie.systemsy.cs.yale.edu


In article <C1KMpo.B6p@news.udel.edu>, khaleq@brahms.udel.edu (M Khalequzzaman) writes:
> In article <1k7df5INNldi@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Ahmed) writes:
> >
> >(1) SECULARISM = separation of religion and state
> >(2) RELIGIOUS FREEDOM = freedom to practice whatever religion one
> >                        desires
> 
> Freedom to practice any religion is a part of secularism.  

Then please explain how the former USSR dealt with this.  It was
"secular" and yet people were not free to practice their religions.

> In a religious state
> freedom to practice all other religion but the state sponsored religion is
> confined within families.  The laws, holidays, moral, etc. of a religious
> state are based on state sponsored religion.  

The same is true here and in all the European countries, all
supposedly "secular" countries.  I have given countless examples of
this phenomenon in previous postings.

> As a result, people of other
> religions are treated as second class citizen.  

Do you feel that is true here?

> Any state, I mean a civilized state, is supposed to guarantee equal
> right to its all citizen.  Say for example, 
> Islam is the state religion of a country and all laws and moral are
> based on Koran and sunnah.  Muslims can relate to those moral and
> laws, but what about other minority?  Say their religion doesn't put
> any ban on certain acts such as drinking, wearing bikinis in a
> summer months or shorts on the streets and so on. 

This is true in *any* system!  How many times do you want me to point
out all the laws in western countries that are based on the Christian
faith?  Why should Muslims and Hindus have to follow those?  Why can't
Muslims slaughter cows in most of "secular" India?  In *any*
democratic country, the law is based on majority opinion and this is
always linked to the underlying majority religion.  That is where the
sense of morals comes from.  The ethical values have to come from
*somewhere*.  I have given so many examples in my followups to Manoj
and you.  Please address them.

> For example, a christian couple can't show their love and affection
> on streets in afundamentalist Islamic country.  

There are such laws *everywhere*.  Try walking naked down the street.
You'll be arrested.  Why?  Where do you think this law comes from?
What happens if someone follows a faith where there are no such
restrictions on dress?  Does this make the ruling government
"fundamentalist?"  Why do these questions come up against Islam only?
If you're willing to talk honestly and openly and apply equal
standards everywhere, then we have a basis for discussion.

Any couple engaging in very intimate acts in public in this country
will also be arrested.  Why?  What is this based on?  Could it be,
*GASP*, religious moral values?  Or is it simply because the soap operas
would go out of business otherwise?

> We can pull out
> hundreds of examples how some  
> Europpeans were brutally punished in Saudi Arabia or Iran for showing such 
> affection in public places.  

I really couldn't care less what is happening in Saudi Arabia or Iran.
All I am stating is that laws *everywhere* are based on collective
values and beliefs of the majority, which in turn stems from religion.
In that sense, there is no such thing as true "secularism."  What
needs to be ensured is religious freedom, and Islam, by
definition,  guarantees that.

> Now please don'tbe a hippocrit and just start to side-step these
> practical aspects of a religious state, face them and answer in the
> light of real life examples of the Islamic   
> countries that we know of as examples.

If we're going to discuss hypocrisy, then please address all the
examples I have raised which show that "secularism" simply does not
exist, and how this does not translate to a restriction on religious
freedom.

> As far as holidays are concern, they are selected based on public
> sentiment and desire - not based on religion.  

Gee, I wonder what that public sentiment could be based on.  Yeah, it
was just coincidental that public opinion in this country calls for
Christmas to be a holiday -- nothing to do with religion, nope,
Americans just all kind of *like* December 25th...  And the "In God We
Trust" written on all the coins and dollar bills doesn't refer to God
at all, but some dude on earth who happens to go by that name...  Oh,
yeah, and the Bible that they use for any pledge is there because it
is the number one book on the bestseller list and Mickey Mouse didn't
quite cut it...

The fact that "The Last Temptation of Christ" was banned in so many
States had nothing to do with public sentiment that it was 
blasphemous, nope, it was purely because the movie critics in those
states gave it bad reviews on the acting...



You know, your self-contradictions are getting tiresome.  If you have
something logical to say or any answers to give on the questions I have
raised, then please do so.  Otherwise, I recommend that you really do
try and understand the difference between the meaning of "secularism"
and "religious freedom."

> Holidays are superficial things.

Yup, and in the first paragraph you say:

> The laws, holidays, moral, etc. of a religious
> state are based on state sponsored religion.  

What were you saying about hypocrisy?

For the last time: what needs to be guaranteed is religious freedom.
Islam does this by default.  There is no such thing as pure
"secularism."  I challenge you to give one example of a complete
implementation of "secularism."

-- Shakil
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh