Canada’s First Muslim Woman Member of Parliament: Why did the Media Miss the Story?

echoboom #71/73/83/dost mittar #82: Interesting comments.

I agree with much of what echoboom has stated in 71 and 73. Though not necessarily with much of what he has stated in 83. I agree with pretty much everything D-M has stated in reply #82. However, w.r.t #82, I am not commenting on how secularism is currently implemented today, I am commenting on how it will evolve and where it will end up, since it is still a very young concept, and how it will handle its inherent contradictions.......

The biggest motivation for secularism, as you both of you have implied, is the diverse and conflicting religious opinions that exisit in all socieities. If everyone in a State belonged to just one school of religious thought, then these issues would not come up. However, people belong to different schools of thought, hence there are issues.......

Based on this, one viable solution has been to remove religion from public life. This is not a small step. It is a major change. It is basically a rejection of the public aspect of religion. In essence, people have decided that religion is incomplete, or coflicting or vague or just plain wrong in its public teachings. God, as each society`s majority defines Him, has provided inefficent or conflicting rulings for running a society, is the core basis of secularism.

Thus, secularism is, in fact, ``athiesm in the public sphere, while remaining religious at the personal level.`` Separting of Church and State is just a politically correct way of putting it. In actuality, it does not really separate Church and State. It gives State superiority over Church. In fact, it gets rid of Church all together from the public arena. Hence my definition of it as public atheism. Atheism has an additional factor, that it all together denies that God exists. Under secularism, the existence of God is not denied (since He is needed at the personal level). However, it is decided that God`s rules at the public level are wrong, and need to be substituted by man-made rules.

This may (or may not) be the utopian solution. We will find out in a few hundred years.

One thing I am quite sure of is that secularism is currently in an inconsistent state. And as it moves towards 100% completion, it will result in some massive changes in the society. If one is going to reject the public sphere of one`s religion, then how can one continue to accept the personal aspects. If God or Allah or Bhagwan got it wrong on the public side, then how can people be sure He did not get it wrong on the personal side, also? If I cannot trust Dost-mittar to give me correct directions to Ottowa when I am driving a public bus, then why am I sure he is giving me correct directions when I am driving my own car?

This is why I cannot understand people who say they will reject the public part of God`s commands, as defined by Christianity or Islam or Hinduism etc., but they will keep clinging to the personal parts. This is just a way of satisfying their own selves. It doesn`t pass the test of logic.

In Western societies, other than USA (which is the least secular amongst the West), people are taking religion out of their personal lives also. This is a natural correction of the imbalances that exist in the concept of secularism. It is common to now have peopel say they are not practicing Christians, but are Christians. This means they are born Christians, but do not follow it. They just believe in God, and that is about it.

As secularism increases towards 100% separation of Church and State, the above phenomemon in personal lives will increase. And as it increases, secularism will move quicker towards 100% completion. They will both accelerate each other. Eventually, I think we will reach the natural conclusion, where people`s personal lives will also be based on man-made rules and regulations, about marriage, sexual, moral etc. behavior. The existence of God will be recognized, but not the laws He has set down, even for personal lives.

This is what I was trying to imply, i.e. eventually people will move towards atheism. Not that secularism is atheism at the personal level. It isn`t. But that it will move socieities towards that direction, to get out of this state of inconsistency of recognizing God`s commands in one sphere and not it the other. And, in essence, as D-M said, you won`t need secularism, because the Church will be completely morphed, or will be replaced even at the personal level with man-made laws. Church will be separate from not only State, but also from the individual. Everything will be based on man-made ethics. The kind of society that hamidm and Sameerjb advocate (I think).......

Those who don`t agree with this, just need to take a look at the trends in Western Europe, with respect to religion in personal life......

Is this direction right or wrong. Who knows? But it does offer intersting insights into how and why secularism is or isn`t being adapted in Muslim countries. And the challenges Muslim socieites should expect as they move towards secularism.......Those who are promoting secularism should have strategies to handle these issues, if they want secularism to succeed in Pakistan. If they continue to just repeat the simplistic , ``Church/State, Church/State`` line 24 hours a day, without disecting into its details, they will never be able to provide cohesive answers for tackling these issues..........

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

So if all it means is to reflect the consensus then why the need for even a word like ``secularism``. I never see this word being bandied around in US Canada or Britain [among others]the way it is touted and shouted in India or Turkey. The reason is that this religion called ``secularism`` is enforced top down and not by consensus or refrendum..otherwise there would have been provision for amendment in the constituition of either country. No sir! it is a belief, a creed, a cornerstone, a foundation --A RELIGION. No reform needed , thank you.

Remember! if there is a name , then there is an idea. Secularism like communism. atheism, socialism, liberalism ARE religions and they must be tackled as and when the situation dictates. One must always remember that communism and socialism looked very ``normal`` and `` right thing to do`` in not so distant past. The life of such these religions was not more than the period of Post-Partition India and Pakistan.

What is in store for next fifty years can easily be assessed from that. Revival of ALL religions is there and Islam leads the way. It always strenghthens in adversity. One may not even have to wait fifty years. It might happen within our lifetime.

Romair#70
``I am just inquring, debating and trying to get into the depths of the concepts of secularism (and religion), and any consequences it will eventually have on society. I think Western societies are starting to have to face these aspects.``

What`s happening is that people are becoming less rigid in their personal beliefs. Don`t blame the separation of church and state for it, unless you want the state to dictate personal morality of its citizens, instead of just reflecting it.

``In my opinion, both religious politics and secular politics are incomplete in handling the complexities of mankind`s society.The West is currently in a transitional state, moving from religion to secularism. Eventually one of things will happen: a) there will be a backlash and people will bring in more religion (kind of what is happening in USA) b) the society will stop where it is today, and not implement secularism fully c) secularism will come in fully and slowly religion, in personal life also, as we know it will disappear or will be modified beyond recognition (starting to happen in Western Europe) d) some new concept, independent of religion and secularism, will be invented ``
I am not sure what is meant here. Political parties can be based on religion, like some christian parties are in europe or the ruling party is in Turkey. In a secular society, politics is about power and compromise, religion is or should be about ethics and meeting spiritual needs; when the two run into conflict, as in the case of Gay unions, the state reigns supreme. In a secular society, the interaction is through values, people`s religious beliefs would affect their values and those values are reflected in the state laws. To me, this is straightforward and applies even in a religion based govt. such as Iran`s. The increased influence of religion has not made a dent in the US commitment to secularism; indeed, a school has been asked to remove the ten commandments and some people are suggesting that God be removed from state insignia.

``Through secularism, societies have asically agreed that the public rulings of their religion(s) are invalid.``
This maybe so but it is not necessary. They simply have decided that when there are competing religious views about those ``public rulings``, the state should act on the basis of societal consensus and not on what God or various versions of God said. Pesonal beliefs are okay but even there the state has the right to arbitrate if one religion`s beliefs clash with another`s.

digit#74:
``If any conflict arises between state and church, the state wins since it has all the legislative and executive power.``

Yes, sovereignty belongs to the people and not to God or Pope in truly democratic societies.

echoboom#73,77:

It has been said that european renaissance was delayed by Constantine`s conquest and the rise of christendom, as it reversed the freethinking greek philosophy. And the pagan influence is felt until this day in many of the christian and secular festivals, like Halloween (thank gods for that!).

``these were the stubborn religious traditions of the pagan population and the agenda of the imperial court. These two factors are the seedbeds of modern secularism and new age spirituality.``

I am not sure that I would agree with this proposition, as the separation of church and state is more recent phenomenon. In any case, why couldn`t the court impose the ``christian`` laws on everyone? In fact, this is what I think that they did as at the root of the western legal system is the laws brought down by Moses.

``The reason why the myth of secularism is so precious to modernity is not its potential to separate religion and politics but its potential to advance a framework for dealing with religious diversity under conditions of unequal power.``

If equality of treatment vis-a-vis religious beliefs and practices can be served under this framework, why cannot it be used in dealing with conditions of equal power? With that qualification, this is the point I have been trying to communicate in my discussion with Romair. If everyone was atheist (which Romair mistakenly calls ``secular``) there wouldn`t be a need for separating religion and state.

soundmeister...

Now I don`t fault you at all... it is your English comprehension skill that is the problem. How in the world did you assume that I was claiming Pakistan to be secular?? Yes I do want it to be secular, and modern and democratic... but that is for now merely a wish, or as some would say... wishful thinking... in Pakistan sadly even the word secular is said with a gulp, and in whisper...

Read the post again... I am saying something quite the contrary... but then again those who are stuck in their `India-Pakistan pissing contest` mode can hardly think beyond their own one-upmanship... and you are a classic case.

Please keep me out of your complexes and imagined complexities...

Sincerely

YLH

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dost-mittar

The reason why the myth of secularism is so precious to modernity is not its potential to separate religion and politics but its potential to advance a framework for dealing with religious diversity under conditions of unequal power. In perfectly homogenous societies, it does not matter if the state is influenced by religion or not. It is only when there are other faith communities, or other interpretations of the same faith that the state can become an instrument of religious oppression in the hands of the majority. But religion disguised as national interest or secular reason can play havoc with minority rights.

#75 Yasser

---

``In Pakistan it is the exact opposite in fact... rarely does a newspaper mention Youhanna`s or Kaneria`s religion... some rightly feel cricket doesn`t have anything to do with religion, and others think it is embarrassing. Rarely do you read of Rana Bhagwandas who is a leading Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan... or do you hear about the prosperous Hindu community of Karachi... heck I had to read about it in an Indian paper a few months ago during the Pakistan-India series. Maybe we are too bigoted for our own good.``

Yes, Pakistan is secular. I hear if you sniff enough glue it becomes democratic as well.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

arjunm,

They have every right to be... I am just surprised at Soundmeister who wants to deny it.


Soundmeister,

I am surprised at how far you will go to simply cover up your earlier attempt at one-upmanship... one can quote hundreds, nay thousands of articles in the Indian press on Azim Premji`s religion... there is nothing wrong with that... what is wrong is your claim, as well as condescending post you put in reply earlier.

In Pakistan it is the exact opposite in fact... rarely does a newspaper mention Youhanna`s or Kaneria`s religion... some rightly feel cricket doesn`t have anything to do with religion, and others think it is embarrassing. Rarely do you read of Rana Bhagwandas who is a leading Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan... or do you hear about the prosperous Hindu community of Karachi... heck I had to read about it in an Indian paper a few months ago during the Pakistan-India series. Maybe we are too bigoted for our own good.


Anyway... Please grow up, and stop making everything into a Pakistan-India pissing contest.



Harimau,

The gentleman in question is a great success for India and I respect him greatly.

-YLH

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Romair & Dost-mittar:
I , as a silent observer, am thoroughly enjoying this conversation. I think what I write below would help in understanding the psyche and cultural roots of `christianity` or for lack of a better word `westernism`.
Western mentality has a basis of heathen polytheism. All of the European religious systems before the conquest by Christianity were founded on the concept of a pantheon of various gods and goddesses with different functions. These were seen to control the fate of humankind, but demanded worship and various types of sacrifice for propitiation and in order to induce them to act favourably towards human beings. The Nordic gods are still reflected in the names of the days of the week in all of the Nordic languages. The Romance languages preserve the names of the planets, also perceived as gods and goddesses, in the names of the days of the week in the Romance languages. In Western languages people refer daily to the ancient European gods. This is more than a mere linguistic remnant. It is a single piece of evidence for a whole configuration of pagan thought that forms the underlying layer of European mentality.

Christianity was a small sect among many cults competing with each other in the Roman empire in the first centuries of the Christian era. But for a particular historical event, Christianity would have disappeared with hardly a trace. Christianity became the vehicle for the emperor Constantine’s attempts to consolidate his power. He made Christianity the State religion, the purpose of which was to enhance imperial power. In so doing he changed the face and character of Christianity beyond recognition, so that today it has practically nothing to do with the actual teaching of Jesus (AS) and his original followers. There were two matters that needed to be reconciled: these were the stubborn religious traditions of the pagan population and the agenda of the imperial court. These two factors are the seedbeds of modern secularism and new age spirituality.

Dost,

re: secularism.

Secularism has correctly been identified as the separation of church and state, however it should be noted that this separation is not meant to be equitable. If any conflict arises between state and church, the state wins since it has all the legislative and executive power. This in the West, at least. I guess Iran could be considered the mirror opposite. The `Church` has penultimate authority, while in theory the laity runs all government institutions. The Church-state separation exists here too, but with a different balance of power.

I suppose the assertion that secular states do not interfere with religious practices is not entirely correct. Religions are as much social as personal, and it is the social aspect of religion that secularism is trying to repress, delegitimize, or even eliminate. In this sense, no secular state is entirely agnostic towards religion. Some are more lenient than others, though. Some secular states are bold enough to forbid religious practices for the explicit purpose of trying to ``reform``, or rather engineer a social change.

Romair: Have you heard of Muqtedar Khan? He is a very respected voice in US.


The Myth of Secularism:
Religion and Politics are Mutually Constitutive

M. A. Muqtedar Khan

Identity and Politics are Inseparable

As a Muslim intellectual living in the West, researching and teaching political theory and political philosophy, I have always marveled at the durability of the idea of secularism. For a civilization that boasts considerable sophistication in most areas, to assume that politics and religion constitute two separate realms or that the two can be separated is uncharacteristically naïve. This belief, not in separation of church and state, but in the separability of church and State, in my opinion is one of the enduring myths of modernity. This myth rests on the false assumptions of pure politics and pure religion. Secularism is a device that seeks to protect religion from the corruption of politics and politics from becoming usurped by religion.

All core issues are not only normative in nature but also impinge on individual and collective identities. Neither the conception of the individual self nor the construction of the collective self is free from political or religious considerations. Even in societies that were anti-religious such as the former Soviet Union and present day China, or more secular than the US, such as France and Turkey, religion remained an important political issue and politics shaped the way religion was practiced. Christianity played a significant role in the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and Islamists found a way to come to power in secular fundamentalist Turkey. The place of religious symbols in public sphere, whether it is Hijaab (Muslim headscarf) in French public schools or the Ten Commandments in American courts, remains contested primarily because there is no consensus on the exclusion of religion from public sphere anywhere.



The rest of it.