From: Veeramany.Sthanumurthy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Veeramany Sthanumurthy)
Subject: Secularism: Questions (was: Contradi.. - Chandra's response) 
Followup-To: soc.culture.indian
Summary: Confusion regarding Secularism.
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:35:41 GMT

[Note followup to SCI; I don't believe in spurious logic of the form
 If A can post crap to SCI, so can B regardless of whether or not there
 is agreement on what constitutes crap. However, I believe this belongs
 here and followups in SCI.]

In article <1992Aug12.172943.21294@cis.ohio-state.edu> chandra@cannelloni.cis.ohio-state.edu (B Chandrasekaran) writes:
>In article <l8ia1hINNapu@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu> hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder) writes:
>
>>This brings us to the fundamental basic of secularism. Religion of
>>secularism decrees that henceforth life of man has been divided
>>between "personal" and "collective" spheres. It has further
>>been ordained that henceforth any thing to do with god or religion
>>will be constrained to fit into the "personal" sphere!!!!!!
>>
>>Would any one illuminate us as to which god or gods have made this
>>demarkation? Is this god the god of logic, rationalism or 
>>utilitarianism?
>
>   You are asking a rhetorical question whose import is that i. secularism
>is as much a religion as any other religion, and ii. that its separation
>of the personal from social is open to question.  Actually, I agree in
>some ways with part ii. but I will argue that it is necessary for us
>to live in peace with each other.

All that is fine. But, questions (rhetorical or otherwise) that dictate
other people's belief systems, especially when the said belief systems
are referred to by names which ostensibly mean something cease to be
meaningful and therefore, possibly even rhetorical.

>
>I agree that ultimately there is only one life we have and separating
>it into personal/religious and social is somewhat arbitrary.  It is

In fact, there may be people that might go one step ahead and say that
any spheres of influence into which we place our actions/our actions are
placed necessarily have more than a hint of arbitrariness about them.
As such arbitrariness is quite irrelevant in determining their 
suitability. Pragmatic considerations predominate as you seem to emphasize
in the rest of your article.

[ rest deleted .. except conclusion ]

>is eternal and god's word.  But both of us see that that keeps us from
>killing each other.  We can always say, "Well, let me behave the way
>that I think god asked me to. As for the others, let god sort it out."
>
>Welcome to secularism. 

I am glad you defined secularism. So far, on SCI there has been a lot
of reference to secularism with the pseudo attached to it as if only
then it becomes an insult. Anyway, the dictionary (hold on, there are
possible misunderstandings here) meaning (Webster's) of secularism 
seems to be two-fold: 1. a system of doctrines and practices that
disregards or rejects any form of religious faith and worship

and

2. the belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter
into the functions of the state.

Obviously, almost all religious people (except possibly Chandra) seem to
accept only the first meaning.

The referred article only considers the problem of conflicting beliefs
between two believers. What about the rest? As a pragmatic 
consideration the need is questionable? I wonder, if all those accusing
"pseudo-secularists" are referring to this? Perhaps, I am being too 
generous.

Sthan.
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky soc.culture.bangladesh:4461 soc.culture.indian:28039