From: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Ahmed)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: Secular, Muslim Brotherhood and Changes
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:38:45 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: curie.systemsy.cs.yale.edu


In article <C1JF6q.7JF@uceng.uc.edu>, mghayalo@uceng.uc.edu (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
> In article <1k494fINNktm@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Ahmed) writes:

> >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.  
> 
> Please explain this in plain English.  What do you mean here?

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 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...
> 
> I agree with you.  I would prefer state and religion be seperate.

That is not what I said.  Separation of state and religion would mean
secularism, a concept which I maintain does not exist in a reasonable
implementation.  I question whether the BJP would guarantee religious
freedom.  If Hinduism were a state religion, I would have no problems
with it as long as it meant that religious freedom were guaranteed to
all others.

> >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.

> >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.
> 
> The countries which say they are Islamic states.  

Which are these?

> Please don't give us empty words, tell me how many new temples and
> churches have been built in Bangladesh?  

Do you have statistics on this?  I know for a fact that new churches
built by "missionary" organizations have been popping up all over the
place.  Nevertheless, is there a need for new temples and churches when
the population numbers of the relevant groups are not growing?  Is
there any law in Bangladesh which states that new temples and churches
cannot be constructed?

> You are of the many Southasians who have benifited from
> living in a secular society but yet preach fundamentalism.  How long
> have you lived in Bangladesh?

I have never lived in *any* secular country.  How long I lived in
Bangladesh is irrelevant.  Look at the western countries I have lived
in.  In Austria, the state religion is Roman Catholicism.  The whole
country revolves around that.  In the U.S. there are all the things I
mention above and more.  Open up your wallet and look at the coins and
dollar bills.  Can you see the "In God We Trust?"  Secularism?  Look
around you and you will see how almost every law and practice is
somehow tied to religion.

-- Shakil
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh