Part 5 [March 25, 2012]: Being “Religious” about Secularism: A Slippery Slope
When I started this topic under the banner “Religion,
Secularism, Democracy, Humanity and Bangladesh”,
I didn’t realize how deeply the elements (religion, secularism, democracy and
humanity) are connected or conflicted. For one thing, except during my
childhood (my parents loved buying novels etc. for us) and during my DU life
(courtesy of dear friend LH,S), I didn’t read much beyond academics.
Ironically, my naiveté actually helped my audacity to delve into matters of
comprehension by the well-versed and the wise. I would be obliged if the astute
readers permit ample allowance for potholes in this layman’s journey.
The
Word “Secularism”: What Does it Mean?
This is what http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secularism
says about secularism: (numbering is
mine, format edited by me)
a. A
system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious
faith and worship.
b. The view
that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted
without the introduction of a religious element.
c. A doctrine
that rejects religion, especially in ethics.
d. The attitude
that religion should have no place in civil affairs.
Although many different wordings of secularism
are available, I doubt that they would differ much in meaning or spirit from
the above. Certain things are clear about the dictionary definition of
secularism:
A.
Secularism is NOT about relative merits of
different religions as belief systems. It is NOT atheism either.
B.
Secularism as a state principle (enshrined in
constitution or not) would avoid legislating, implementing or adjudicating state
policies that seek rationalization from or promote a specific religion or
belief system including atheism.
Secularism
in Practice
Historically as well as in today’s world,
secularism is more often than not is used as a political divide between those
who are “religious” about religion and those who are “religious” about
non-religion. Let us refer to the former group as the religion group (RG) and
the latter group as the non-religion group (NG).
RG generally comprises of members of the
majority religion in a political state who believes that the laws, policies and
practices of their state should be guided first and foremost and principally,
if not exclusively, to benefit the majority religion members. NG, on the other
hand, wishes to minimize/eliminate any religious bias in state matters even
when the principles of majority religion, if applied in state matters, would
impose no obvious cost on the members of minority religions or perhaps even
improve the lot for all citizens. It is no surprise that the members of
minority religion, often only loosely practicing their own faith rituals, tend
to politically align with NG. While NG is dominated by members of the majority
religion like RG, most of these NG members are loose practitioners of their
faith rituals as well. In some extreme cases such as China, NG members are not members
of any religion, and do not believe in any Creator or are indifferent in this
regard.
It is, however, interesting to note that while
RG has a much more significant proportion of strict believers/practitioners of
majority religion rituals, there are many instances [US, Canada, many countries
in West Europe, .., Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh] where a
majority of RG members are far from being devout in terms of practicing faith
rituals. In almost all cases though, RG members are “religious” about religion,
that is blinded by the supremacy of their own faith, are intolerant of other
persuasions and do not hesitate to trample upon the rights of minority
religions [despite the fact that most known divine codes preach against such
transgression].
In contrast, the NG members appear to be “religious”
about non-religion, and are by and large intolerant of the RG members and views
and policies that are advocated using the Divine Code of the majority religion
they themselves subscribe to. In fact, NG members do not seem to mind cracking
down even on the most humane, benign, inclusive and symbolic practices of the
majority religion in state arenas. For example, there has been a spate of contentious
litigations of Christmas illuminations in North American public venues. Various
minority religion communities [Muslims, Sikhs, ..] also often face stiff
resistance from public offices in obtaining permits to build places of worship.
It is of course well-known that increasingly the NG-supported governments in
the West, Turkey included, are enacting regulations barring the wearing of
attires [like Head Scarf, Hijab, Niqab, Turban,.. ] that are claimed to be
inconsistent with the secularist character of the state. In other cases, the anti-minority
stance of NG is openly communal. For example, India is supposedly an advanced
democracy and a secular state, but the consumption of beef is illegal since it
is deemed grossly inconsistent with the faith of the majority religion there.
At the other extreme, you could be punished
with lashes for attires perceived to be indecent by the RG, in many Mid-East
countries. Consumption of alcohol or pork is also illegal. And of course,
capital punishments are in order there for “inappropriate” sexual encounters even
if it is forced upon such as a case of rape. Different versions of these
punitive laws also prevail in Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia.
At the risk of generalization, it seems that,
in practice, Secularism versus Non-Secularism, has transpired in the form of
being “religious” about religion or non-religion. Perhaps no less practically
important question is the extent to which political parties have exploited, or
even may have manufactured, the “religious” sentiments of the RG and the NG. In
this layman’s view, the extent is rather ominous to which the RG and the NG
masses have fallen unsuspecting victims of the ruthless governance interests of
the dictators in the non-democratic states and of the political parties in “democracies”.
As they were meant to be, the known divine
codes were intended to free humanity from the shackles of our limited and
miniscule “matter” [physique] and launch us into our true and nonperishable existence
of boundless compassion. [I am eternally grateful to dear friend LH[S] who very
kindly articulated to me the concept of the oneness of a Creator and Compassion,
although I must admit that I am still light years away from LH’s
conceptualization]. Though not comparable in a spiritual or divine sense, the political
concept of secularism is also meant to promote equality, harmony, tolerance and
benevolence among the members of a state. In the divine case, the jurisdiction
is the universe, in the latter it is the state.
Alas,
the ruthless pursuit of governance power by the dictators and political parties,
continue to divide and conquer by selective and convenient interpretation and application
of the divine codes and the concept of secularism. A true believer is supposed
to be a secularist in practice and a secularist by practice is supposed to be a
believer in principle!
More to come .. MC March 25, 2012
