Pluralism and Secularism

Before I started using internet I thought that pluralism and heterogeneity is an ideal which we should cherish and seek. But after using internet for so many years and conversing with people from diverse religious, cultural and social backgrounds I am now of the opinion that pluralism is actually a compromise. The ideal is assimilation and homogeneity. I am not advocating the kind of artificial homogeneity which exists in some communist, totalitarian and ideological societies but a natural homogeneity which is the outcome of centuries of conscious and unconscious social and cultural evolution. Such homogeneity when fast means of communication and transport were not available was restricted to small geographical areas then it encompassed the entire nation states and now it is gradually becoming a global phenomena.

In the contemporary world differences exist between the people, they can be cultural, linguistic, ethnic or religious. Ethnic differences are different from others in the sense that you can change your culture, religion and language but you can't change your race. But the world today is acutely aware of the fact that any discrimination or prejudice on the basis of race or ethnicity is unjust. When you are aware of the problem you can guard yourself and take measures to remedy it but the real trouble comes when you are unaware of the problem or when the problem is not that well defined. Though racism still exists on an individual and personal level but on a public level governments have taken so many corrective actions that now it is criticized for taking Affirmative Actions.

As to linguistic and cultural differences there is a general agreement that we should have an international language, a national language and sometimes also a local vernacular language. Thus people can be bilingual or multilingual to communicate within a group and also between the groups. Cultural differences, on the other hand, are the most extensive and also the most ill defined. These differences are not all about the dress, cuisine, literature, arts and architecture. They are the behavior patterns and traits associated with a group or an age and they are comprehensive and all inclusive in nature. They include history, customs, rituals, traditions, conventions, manners, etiquettes, relationships and perspectives on life and of life. The cultural differences can vary in degrees. Some cultures are only slightly different from each other and that's where we commit a fallacy. We think that cultural differences are only slight differences of dress and cuisine. But sometimes these differences are deep rooted and drastic, and in this context they become a matter of identities. The cultural differences between European nations and the nations who trace their history from those European nations fall in the former category. But the differences between East and the West or between civilizations like Christianity, Islam or Hinduism fall in the latter category.

Now people generally acknowledge the cultural differences between different groups of people. But they fail to grasp and acknowledge the fact that religion is a part of a culture and a very significant part. Religion is not all about god, afterlife and theology. It also has a cultural and social connotations. When we talk about Christian civilization or Islamic civilization or a clash of civilizations, what are we implying here by the word civilization? Do we mean the difference of civilization on the basis of theology that whether there is one god or a holy trinity or whether Jesus is the son of god or Muhammad the last prophet? The answer is an emphatic NO. By difference of civilization we mean a difference of culture or a society on the basis of religion.

People generally acknowledge the differences on the basis of ethnicity, language and culture (by culture I mean minor differences of culture here) but when it comes to differences on the basis of religion they take the easy refuge of secularism that church and the state are separate and people should not be discriminated on the basis of religion. But man is a product of his society. By society I mean the sum of all factors and influences that shape his personality and ideas. They may be the people with whom he comes in contact in his daily life, or the books he reads, or the movies he watches, or the people from diverse cultural backgrounds with whom he communicates on the internet. So if the society shapes the ideas and personality of a man what shapes the society itself? There are many factors that shape a society and one such factor is religion in its cultural or social sense.

Can we say that a society is completely secular? That there is no influence on it from religion whatsoever? I am afraid its not true. Now why is there so much emphasis on secularism and separation of the church and the state? If we can trace it from its historical roots, a certain group of individuals inhabits a certain geographical region. People are homogeneous in language, ethnicity, culture and religion. This group then comes in contact with a different group of individuals and an exchange of ideas takes place. Ethnicity we can't change, languages we can speak many at the same time, culture if its minor differences who cares, but religion with its social and cultural connotations is totally a different matter. For me and for you and for a modern man with so much emphasis on tolerance, moderation and secularism it may not be such a big thing. But history and even today's world is full of examples when people killed and got killed to save their souls from eternal torment or to attain eternal bliss.

Getting back to the topic in hand, people in a group sometimes convert to a different faith while they still inhabit the same geographical region. Sometimes they are in a majority and at other times they are in a minority. Depending on their faiths the majorities usually suppress and persecute the minorities to a greater or lesser degree. Secularism seeks an ideal where this persecution or discrimination can be brought down to zero level. Thus the basic purpose of secularism is to inculcate the spirit of tolerance in people for opposing viewpoints and beliefs and to establish an egalitarian society where people are not discriminated for their faiths and beliefs. It becomes more so imperative for a nation state for its own unity and also for the sake of equality and justice to minimize the differences between its citizens. It desires a homogeneity and an assimilation process to bring down friction generated by diverse viewpoints, ideas and beliefs and at the same time it advocates heterogeneity and pluralism until the final goal of homogeneity and assimilation is attained.

Now why is it that differences on the basis of language, ethnicity and culture (minor differences) are accepted and acknowledged but when we talk about the differences on the basis of cultural and social implications of religion we incur the wrath of secularists? Fact of the matter is that a nation state and a society wants a complete homogeneity in all aspects, be it language, ethnicity, culture or religion. The reasons I already explained i.e. its unity, territorial integrity and to avoid friction between its citizens. And the people inhabiting a nation state also want likeminded people and a set of generally agreed upon principles where you are allowed to differ on details but not on principles. But there are certain factors which are within control others which are beyond control, some which can be controlled in the short run and others which will take a long time. For example when an immigrant settles in a new country the first generation is usually not that proficient in their language, customs and culture. But the second generation mostly forget their own language, customs and culture and assimilates into the host country. But even the second generation somehow retains its religion and the socio-cultural implications associated with the religion of their parents. Thus religion is a big threat to the homogeneity of a nation state and hence its undue emphasis on secularism and complete negation of the role of religion in the affairs of the state or society. Even though the state and society itself is a product of some religion.

So my conclusion is that language, ethnicity and minor differences of culture are a lesser threat to the nation state, society and its homogeneity that's why they can be tolerated. But the big differences of culture and religion are a big threat and hence complete and total secularism and no mention to the religion whatsoever. Wouldn't it be wise and consistent to advocate tolerance, moderation and balance instead of these confusing notions of secularism and pluralism? And admit and acknowledge the de facto realities on ground that a society is composed of individuals, individuals have religions and thus religion shapes ideas of individuals and nature of the society?