What is Secularism?
Mohammad Gill March 18, 2005
#122 Posted by echoboom on March 23, 2005 7:36:06 pm
Kyaa baat hai, kyaa baat hai, kyaa baat hai Vallah!
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#121 Posted by arjun_m on March 23, 2005 7:01:48 pm
#120 by sohail_rao on March 23, 2005 5:35pm PT
A 25-year-old waitress and former IT professional was offered by her local unemployment office a job to It seems that your belief is whatever is written in the any law is just. Do you think the above law is just?
well she was in IT so she`s used to working nights..in her old profession, she was used to being around virgins hoping to lose their virginity...in her suggested profession, she doesn`t have to work days.....no TPS reports, no sarbanes oxley compliance, she gets to pick her clients....
A 25-year-old waitress and former IT professional was offered by her local unemployment office a job to It seems that your belief is whatever is written in the any law is just. Do you think the above law is just?
well she was in IT so she`s used to working nights..in her old profession, she was used to being around virgins hoping to lose their virginity...in her suggested profession, she doesn`t have to work days.....no TPS reports, no sarbanes oxley compliance, she gets to pick her clients....
#120 Posted by Sohail_rao on March 23, 2005 5:35:44 pm
Re: # 119
You missed my point here. All the laws you state in the long paragraph are irrelevent. We are discussing what just is. We are looking for the definition, not for examples. Also the examples you provide mean nothing. How do you prove these laws to be just? A statement being part of a constitution does not make it just in itself.
I will give you an example of that.
A story in 30/1/05 Telegraph is a good – but a hair-raising – example. A 25-year-old waitress and former IT professional was offered by her local unemployment office a job to provide “`sexual services` at a brothel.`` She turned it down, and now her unemployment benefits may be revoked.
Thanks to a new German employment law adopted two years ago, “any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job - including in the sex industry - or lose her unemployment benefit.” Under the new regulations, “working in the sex industry is not immoral any more” – so take it or leave.
It seems that your belief is whatever is written in the any law is just. Do you think the above law is just?
Do you think the fatwa issued by Khomaini about salman Rushdi was just? If we take your definition to be true then that was just as that was the law. Hudud ordenance is just, same is true for quota system in pakistan, as both are laws.
regards,
You missed my point here. All the laws you state in the long paragraph are irrelevent. We are discussing what just is. We are looking for the definition, not for examples. Also the examples you provide mean nothing. How do you prove these laws to be just? A statement being part of a constitution does not make it just in itself.
I will give you an example of that.
A story in 30/1/05 Telegraph is a good – but a hair-raising – example. A 25-year-old waitress and former IT professional was offered by her local unemployment office a job to provide “`sexual services` at a brothel.`` She turned it down, and now her unemployment benefits may be revoked.
Thanks to a new German employment law adopted two years ago, “any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job - including in the sex industry - or lose her unemployment benefit.” Under the new regulations, “working in the sex industry is not immoral any more” – so take it or leave.
It seems that your belief is whatever is written in the any law is just. Do you think the above law is just?
Do you think the fatwa issued by Khomaini about salman Rushdi was just? If we take your definition to be true then that was just as that was the law. Hudud ordenance is just, same is true for quota system in pakistan, as both are laws.
regards,
#119 Posted by ballukhan on March 23, 2005 2:59:00 am
``If just is not timeless and cease to be just after some boundaries then justice only means to assess someone according local norm/laws. How local a law do you think should be? Should it change every mile? every state/country/continent or planet? ...``
We all know....when you move from one state to another in the US with a gun you would probably be contravening a law. You would land yourself in the prison for doing so.
You may not know but in Alabama, it is illegal to wear a fake mustache that causes laughter in church.In Texas, it is illegal to curse in front of, or indecently expose oneself to, a corpse.In Michigan, a man legally owns his wife`s hair.Kansas law prohibits shooting rabbits from a motorboat.In Idaho, the law states all boxes of candy given as romantic gifts must weigh more than 50 pounds.It`s against the law to catch fish with your bare hands in Kansas.In California, animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school or place of worship.In Washington state, it`s against the law to sleep in an outhouse without the owner`s permission.Putting salt on a railroad track can be punishable by death in the state of Alabama.In Texas, it`s illegal to put graffiti on someone else`s cow.
In Alabama, dominoes may not be played on Sunday.In New York City, it`s illegal to shake a dust mop out a window.In Connorsville, Wisconsin a man is legally prohibited from shooting a gun while his female partner is having an orgasm.In New York, it`s against the law to throw a ball at someone`s head for fun.In Pueblo, Colorado, it is illegal to let a dandelion grow within city limits.In the state of Washington, it`s illegal to catch a fish by throwing a rock at it.It is illegal to lie down and fall asleep with your shoes on in North Dakota.In Berkeley, California, you can`t whistle for an escaped bird before 7:00 a.m.
So, if we look for certain immutables (except for some principles of law such as Principles of Natural Justice or Kantian Categorical Imperatives) then you are in for a great disappointment.
`` I am only saying that if norms are subjective then a person must only be assessed according to the norms applicable to him/her. You can not apply rules of today to an act committed centuries back. As the norm, as you say, has a temporal expiry date. ``
Ofcourse, in case holding belief in a reveled religion is declared as unlawful as pornography by our posterity , they would definitely consider our faith to be a prime example of their lawlessness and depraved past.
``Do you mean a physical threat or a psychological? ........ always have psychogical effects on their behaviour anyway, so in this case their perception can never be voluntary. ``
That is the issue about FREEWILL that needs even greater deliberation. I would suggest you can read something by John Rawls and other philosophers on the issue.
``Then why is it that the vote of an 18 year old carries the same weight as that of an 50 years old. ``
I believe this is to make the qualitative and numerical calculation of the voters` preferences in a democracy much simpler. I would love to have a calculation schema where the voter`s age, educational qualification is factored in to provide greater weightage to to the votes of an elder and educated voter.
``Why is it that a minor can drink coke but can not consume alcohol, have sex or smoke. What do you think is the difference between consuming alcohol and drinking coke?``
I go to the Himalayan region of Nainitaal in India too often...and find all the kids and women smoking and drinking without any issues wthin their community!!!!
regards,
We all know....when you move from one state to another in the US with a gun you would probably be contravening a law. You would land yourself in the prison for doing so.
You may not know but in Alabama, it is illegal to wear a fake mustache that causes laughter in church.In Texas, it is illegal to curse in front of, or indecently expose oneself to, a corpse.In Michigan, a man legally owns his wife`s hair.Kansas law prohibits shooting rabbits from a motorboat.In Idaho, the law states all boxes of candy given as romantic gifts must weigh more than 50 pounds.It`s against the law to catch fish with your bare hands in Kansas.In California, animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school or place of worship.In Washington state, it`s against the law to sleep in an outhouse without the owner`s permission.Putting salt on a railroad track can be punishable by death in the state of Alabama.In Texas, it`s illegal to put graffiti on someone else`s cow.
In Alabama, dominoes may not be played on Sunday.In New York City, it`s illegal to shake a dust mop out a window.In Connorsville, Wisconsin a man is legally prohibited from shooting a gun while his female partner is having an orgasm.In New York, it`s against the law to throw a ball at someone`s head for fun.In Pueblo, Colorado, it is illegal to let a dandelion grow within city limits.In the state of Washington, it`s illegal to catch a fish by throwing a rock at it.It is illegal to lie down and fall asleep with your shoes on in North Dakota.In Berkeley, California, you can`t whistle for an escaped bird before 7:00 a.m.
So, if we look for certain immutables (except for some principles of law such as Principles of Natural Justice or Kantian Categorical Imperatives) then you are in for a great disappointment.
`` I am only saying that if norms are subjective then a person must only be assessed according to the norms applicable to him/her. You can not apply rules of today to an act committed centuries back. As the norm, as you say, has a temporal expiry date. ``
Ofcourse, in case holding belief in a reveled religion is declared as unlawful as pornography by our posterity , they would definitely consider our faith to be a prime example of their lawlessness and depraved past.
``Do you mean a physical threat or a psychological? ........ always have psychogical effects on their behaviour anyway, so in this case their perception can never be voluntary. ``
That is the issue about FREEWILL that needs even greater deliberation. I would suggest you can read something by John Rawls and other philosophers on the issue.
``Then why is it that the vote of an 18 year old carries the same weight as that of an 50 years old. ``
I believe this is to make the qualitative and numerical calculation of the voters` preferences in a democracy much simpler. I would love to have a calculation schema where the voter`s age, educational qualification is factored in to provide greater weightage to to the votes of an elder and educated voter.
``Why is it that a minor can drink coke but can not consume alcohol, have sex or smoke. What do you think is the difference between consuming alcohol and drinking coke?``
I go to the Himalayan region of Nainitaal in India too often...and find all the kids and women smoking and drinking without any issues wthin their community!!!!
regards,
#118 Posted by paindupastry on March 22, 2005 10:08:19 am
Re: # 117
The pic is a few year sold but yeah im quite young. As a writer, yes i have admired ur writings. though im only talking about PP writers here. thanks for ur advice. take care
The pic is a few year sold but yeah im quite young. As a writer, yes i have admired ur writings. though im only talking about PP writers here. thanks for ur advice. take care
#117 Posted by freethinker on March 22, 2005 8:54:03 am
paindupastry:
Out of curiosity, I opened your page at Chowk. I saw your picture; you`re quite young as you said in one of your posts. Try to make the best use of your life. I wrote some place: ``Life is the gift of God and it is given you only once. Don`t waste it.`` I am an old man and have taken the liberty of giving you a piece of my mind.
I also noted that you consider me as one of your favorite writers. I am flattered. Thank you for your kind thoughts about me. I wish you well,
Mohammad Gill
Out of curiosity, I opened your page at Chowk. I saw your picture; you`re quite young as you said in one of your posts. Try to make the best use of your life. I wrote some place: ``Life is the gift of God and it is given you only once. Don`t waste it.`` I am an old man and have taken the liberty of giving you a piece of my mind.
I also noted that you consider me as one of your favorite writers. I am flattered. Thank you for your kind thoughts about me. I wish you well,
Mohammad Gill
#116 Posted by paindupastry on March 22, 2005 7:13:48 am
Re: # 115
sorry brother, but u dont seem to even know the exact definition of kaffir, if u did, u`d know tha kaafir and a free thinker are about exact opposites as can be!
sorry brother, but u dont seem to even know the exact definition of kaffir, if u did, u`d know tha kaafir and a free thinker are about exact opposites as can be!
#115 Posted by echoboom on March 22, 2005 4:34:51 am
Freethinker=Kaffir
It is impossible for a freethinker to be a muslim.
Think ``Freethinker``, Think ``Kaffir``.
When ``Freethinkers``( read: Kaffir), enemies of all religions esp. Islam, squeal it is cause for celebration.
Here is what such a ``freethinker``( read: Kaffir) writes.
And muslims get insights & tips of who is a friend and who is a foe.
The good news is that most in high places are now talking in FAVOUR of Islam and against the Kuffaars (read: Freethinkers).*
An Islamic constitution is huge peril.
One of the more disturbing byproducts of the U.S. involvement in Iraq is the recent outpouring of rationalization from across the American political and cultural spectrum for the incorporation of Islam into the new Iraqi constitution.
There`s nothing particularly surprising about such rationalizing on the right. Vice President Dick Cheney responded predictably to January`s Iraqi election, which expanded the power of Shiite religious parties, with the declaration that ``we have a great deal of confidence in where they`re headed.`` What else is an architect of the war going to say?
On the Christian right, such reactions are even more understandable; these are the very people who routinely denigrate America`s own constitutional separation of church and state. Why should they worry if the new Iraqi government prevents a woman from divorcing without her husband`s consent and gives her legal testimony only half the weight of a man`s? As long as the Iraqis steer clear of a Saudi-style ban on all other forms of worship (read Christianity), a religion-based Iraqi constitution poses no logical obstacle for U.S. fundamentalists.
But the neocon hawks and religious right are far from alone in their sanguine view of Islam as the basis for a friendly government. Some on the left, succumbing to a patronizing multiculturalism — freedom of conscience for me but not for thee — are also spouting rationalizations for looking the other way if Islamic law, or Sharia, is imposed on the people of Iraq.
Many members of the new Islamic studies establishment in U.S. universities see objections to a union between government and Islam as one more example of American provincialism. ``The mere mention of Islam in a constitutional context should not cause an overreaction,`` asserts Frank E. Vogel, director of Harvard University`s Islamic legal studies program.*
``This could be a legitimate cause for alarm, or it could be purely symbolic,`` adds Vogel, whose official academic title is ``Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques Adjunct Professor of Islamic Legal Studies.`` (The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, as it happens, is one of the official titles of the king of Saudi Arabia.)
But if history teaches us anything, it is that government enforcement of religious law has always been the natural enemy of individual and minority rights. One person`s religious symbolism may be another person`s real pain.*
One of the ``compromises`` suggested by multiculturalists is a framework of secular law that nevertheless gives religious authorities full jurisdiction over sensitive matters like marriage and divorce. That was precisely the compromise that the new Israeli state made with Orthodox rabbis in 1948.
Although most Israeli law is secular, Orthodox rabbinical courts have near-total jurisdiction over marriage and divorce.* A Jewish woman (even a non-observant Jewish woman) may divorce only if her husband gives her permission in the form of a get, a religious divorce decree. This ``compromise`` has consigned thousands of unhappy Israeli wives — known as agunot, which literally means ``chained women`` — to legal limbo. Without a get, a Jewish woman cannot remarry in Israel and her children from subsequent unions — even if she marries abroad — are considered illegitimate.
Does anyone seriously think that Islamic jurisdiction over family law will produce fairer treatment for Iraqi women than the Orthodox Jewish jurisdiction has produced for Israeli women?
In Afghanistan, the U.S gave in to the Islamic hard-line demand that the post-Taliban Afghan constitution prohibit passage of any law ``contrary to the sacred religion of Islam.`` Defenders of this Faustian bargain take comfort from the unwillingness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai to enforce it. But what happens when Karzai is succeeded by someone who may not share his moderate views? A constitution that gives religion a ``sacred`` status offers a standing invitation for politicians and clerics to define sanctity for the rest of society.
Optimists about a church-state compromise in Iraq dreamily suggest that the new Iraqi government, whatever its constitution actually says about religion, will most likely adopt the de facto moderate course of Afghanistan instead of the repressive models of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Let`s hope so — not for our own sake but for the sake of those Iraqis who yearn for personal freedom and do not want their lives controlled by religious fanatics.
The sad and disgraceful common strand running through the many rationalizations for an Islam-based Iraqi constitution is an implicit and, in the case of the Bush administration, explicit denial of the importance of secular Enlightenment values in American history. Without the administration`s constant political drumbeat equating U.S. patriotism with religious faith, it would be much harder to argue on behalf of theocracy in other cultures.**
If we fail to honor the secular side of our civic heritage at home, it certainly follows that we cannot object to majority-rule theocracy abroad.
* clap in approval , ** standing ovation.
It is impossible for a freethinker to be a muslim.
Think ``Freethinker``, Think ``Kaffir``.
When ``Freethinkers``( read: Kaffir), enemies of all religions esp. Islam, squeal it is cause for celebration.
Here is what such a ``freethinker``( read: Kaffir) writes.
And muslims get insights & tips of who is a friend and who is a foe.
The good news is that most in high places are now talking in FAVOUR of Islam and against the Kuffaars (read: Freethinkers).*
COMMENTARY
Sharia: Iraq`s Dark Cloud
One of the more disturbing byproducts of the U.S. involvement in Iraq is the recent outpouring of rationalization from across the American political and cultural spectrum for the incorporation of Islam into the new Iraqi constitution.
There`s nothing particularly surprising about such rationalizing on the right. Vice President Dick Cheney responded predictably to January`s Iraqi election, which expanded the power of Shiite religious parties, with the declaration that ``we have a great deal of confidence in where they`re headed.`` What else is an architect of the war going to say?
On the Christian right, such reactions are even more understandable; these are the very people who routinely denigrate America`s own constitutional separation of church and state. Why should they worry if the new Iraqi government prevents a woman from divorcing without her husband`s consent and gives her legal testimony only half the weight of a man`s? As long as the Iraqis steer clear of a Saudi-style ban on all other forms of worship (read Christianity), a religion-based Iraqi constitution poses no logical obstacle for U.S. fundamentalists.
But the neocon hawks and religious right are far from alone in their sanguine view of Islam as the basis for a friendly government. Some on the left, succumbing to a patronizing multiculturalism — freedom of conscience for me but not for thee — are also spouting rationalizations for looking the other way if Islamic law, or Sharia, is imposed on the people of Iraq.
Many members of the new Islamic studies establishment in U.S. universities see objections to a union between government and Islam as one more example of American provincialism. ``The mere mention of Islam in a constitutional context should not cause an overreaction,`` asserts Frank E. Vogel, director of Harvard University`s Islamic legal studies program.*
``This could be a legitimate cause for alarm, or it could be purely symbolic,`` adds Vogel, whose official academic title is ``Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques Adjunct Professor of Islamic Legal Studies.`` (The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, as it happens, is one of the official titles of the king of Saudi Arabia.)
But if history teaches us anything, it is that government enforcement of religious law has always been the natural enemy of individual and minority rights. One person`s religious symbolism may be another person`s real pain.*
One of the ``compromises`` suggested by multiculturalists is a framework of secular law that nevertheless gives religious authorities full jurisdiction over sensitive matters like marriage and divorce. That was precisely the compromise that the new Israeli state made with Orthodox rabbis in 1948.
Although most Israeli law is secular, Orthodox rabbinical courts have near-total jurisdiction over marriage and divorce.* A Jewish woman (even a non-observant Jewish woman) may divorce only if her husband gives her permission in the form of a get, a religious divorce decree. This ``compromise`` has consigned thousands of unhappy Israeli wives — known as agunot, which literally means ``chained women`` — to legal limbo. Without a get, a Jewish woman cannot remarry in Israel and her children from subsequent unions — even if she marries abroad — are considered illegitimate.
Does anyone seriously think that Islamic jurisdiction over family law will produce fairer treatment for Iraqi women than the Orthodox Jewish jurisdiction has produced for Israeli women?
In Afghanistan, the U.S gave in to the Islamic hard-line demand that the post-Taliban Afghan constitution prohibit passage of any law ``contrary to the sacred religion of Islam.`` Defenders of this Faustian bargain take comfort from the unwillingness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai to enforce it. But what happens when Karzai is succeeded by someone who may not share his moderate views? A constitution that gives religion a ``sacred`` status offers a standing invitation for politicians and clerics to define sanctity for the rest of society.
Optimists about a church-state compromise in Iraq dreamily suggest that the new Iraqi government, whatever its constitution actually says about religion, will most likely adopt the de facto moderate course of Afghanistan instead of the repressive models of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Let`s hope so — not for our own sake but for the sake of those Iraqis who yearn for personal freedom and do not want their lives controlled by religious fanatics.
The sad and disgraceful common strand running through the many rationalizations for an Islam-based Iraqi constitution is an implicit and, in the case of the Bush administration, explicit denial of the importance of secular Enlightenment values in American history. Without the administration`s constant political drumbeat equating U.S. patriotism with religious faith, it would be much harder to argue on behalf of theocracy in other cultures.**
If we fail to honor the secular side of our civic heritage at home, it certainly follows that we cannot object to majority-rule theocracy abroad.
* clap in approval , ** standing ovation.
#113 Posted by Sohail_rao on March 21, 2005 11:52:33 pm
Re: # 112
Dear Ballukhan,
If just is not timeless and cease to be just after some boundaries then justice only means to assess someone according local norm/laws. How local a law do you think should be? Should it change every mile? every state/country/continent or planet?
If just is temporal in nature and has boudaries of applicability then you can not apply western laws to eastern/middle eastern countries. They have their own rules acceptable to them.
``whether you consider yourself to be part of Changez Khan`s moral community or not!!! The same goes for honour killings! `` There is no reason to be angry. I am only saying that if norms are subjective then a person must only be assessed according to the norms applicable to him/her. You can not apply rules of today to an act committed centuries back. As the norm, as you say, has a temporal expiry date. This is a simple inefence that a child can draw from what. you have said.
``Now we come to the crux- the issue is that what is ``acceptable`` is always relative to the shared moral precepts of the ommunity of people who uphold them......the only issue is whether the community of people who share those precepts do so VOLUNTARILY or out of fear and coecion??`` Do you mean a physical threat or a psychological? If you mean physical then jihadis are voluntarily doing what they are doing, as there is no physical threat present for them to become Osama. There is psychological threat present though, may it be for punishment or reward to be a martyr. If you mean psychogical then psychological taming is done is the west too... though they do not use the ``religion`` for that but use ``humanity``. Even if the taming is not done, people will always have psychogical effects on their behaviour anyway, so in this case their perception can never be voluntary.
``person below 18 years mens-rea cannot be ascribed because minors are incapable of forming a culpable intention``. Then why is it that the vote of an 18 year old carries the same weight as that of an 50 years old. Is the 50 year old, normally, not able to take better decision than 18 years? Is this not unjust to the older that their vote today is equal to that of a person who was minor yesterday and has turned 18 today and has casted his vote?
I will repeat my earlier question for you too.. Why is it that a minor can drink coke but can not consume alcohol, have sex or smoke. What do you think is the difference between consuming alcohol and drinking coke? There must be something different between them that made the law maker make such a law.
regards,
Dear Ballukhan,
If just is not timeless and cease to be just after some boundaries then justice only means to assess someone according local norm/laws. How local a law do you think should be? Should it change every mile? every state/country/continent or planet?
If just is temporal in nature and has boudaries of applicability then you can not apply western laws to eastern/middle eastern countries. They have their own rules acceptable to them.
``whether you consider yourself to be part of Changez Khan`s moral community or not!!! The same goes for honour killings! `` There is no reason to be angry. I am only saying that if norms are subjective then a person must only be assessed according to the norms applicable to him/her. You can not apply rules of today to an act committed centuries back. As the norm, as you say, has a temporal expiry date. This is a simple inefence that a child can draw from what. you have said.
``Now we come to the crux- the issue is that what is ``acceptable`` is always relative to the shared moral precepts of the ommunity of people who uphold them......the only issue is whether the community of people who share those precepts do so VOLUNTARILY or out of fear and coecion??`` Do you mean a physical threat or a psychological? If you mean physical then jihadis are voluntarily doing what they are doing, as there is no physical threat present for them to become Osama. There is psychological threat present though, may it be for punishment or reward to be a martyr. If you mean psychogical then psychological taming is done is the west too... though they do not use the ``religion`` for that but use ``humanity``. Even if the taming is not done, people will always have psychogical effects on their behaviour anyway, so in this case their perception can never be voluntary.
``person below 18 years mens-rea cannot be ascribed because minors are incapable of forming a culpable intention``. Then why is it that the vote of an 18 year old carries the same weight as that of an 50 years old. Is the 50 year old, normally, not able to take better decision than 18 years? Is this not unjust to the older that their vote today is equal to that of a person who was minor yesterday and has turned 18 today and has casted his vote?
I will repeat my earlier question for you too.. Why is it that a minor can drink coke but can not consume alcohol, have sex or smoke. What do you think is the difference between consuming alcohol and drinking coke? There must be something different between them that made the law maker make such a law.
regards,
#112 Posted by ballukhan on March 21, 2005 10:42:06 pm
``If just is not timeless and boundless then you must not call ``Changez khan`` a barberian. It was very acceptable bahaviour at that time and in that culture. Same is the case with ``honour killings``. ....``
You have opened the pandora`s box on the issue of timelessness of moral and legal precepts? The issue has been raised over the years from Plato to Kant and Hegel to Habermas. Whether calling Changez Khan a murderer or a deeply religious man out to follow his religious convictions is just whether you consider yourself to be part of Changez Khan`s moral community or not!!! The same goes for honour killings!
Obviously those christian followers who burnt the `heretics` for holding on to copernician theory were absolutely convinced that they were right, And of course those jehadis who decapicitated their captives were equally convinced about the timelessness of their convictions- they considered their acts to be bringing rewards in the heavans without any sin!!
``According to your theory that is very acceptable behaviour. ...``
Now we come to the crux- the issue is that what is ``acceptable`` is always relative to the shared moral precepts of the ommunity of people who uphold them......the only issue is whether the community of people who share those precepts do so VOLUNTARILY or out of fear and coecion?? So let us discuss the issue of consensus which is not coerced and influenced by the existing relations of power (what John Rawls calls as the ``Original Position``) and not the content of the legal precepts.
As regards the dilemman you put forth, I could not consider it to be a dilemma per se because in a society which accepts a psychological thesis that for any criminal act commited by a person below 18 years mens-rea cannot be ascribed because minors are incapable of forming a culpable intention, it is but logical that in such a society minors should be apriori considered not mature enough to take a decision regarding who should represent him in the government!!
regards,
Ballu Khan Warasi
You have opened the pandora`s box on the issue of timelessness of moral and legal precepts? The issue has been raised over the years from Plato to Kant and Hegel to Habermas. Whether calling Changez Khan a murderer or a deeply religious man out to follow his religious convictions is just whether you consider yourself to be part of Changez Khan`s moral community or not!!! The same goes for honour killings!
Obviously those christian followers who burnt the `heretics` for holding on to copernician theory were absolutely convinced that they were right, And of course those jehadis who decapicitated their captives were equally convinced about the timelessness of their convictions- they considered their acts to be bringing rewards in the heavans without any sin!!
``According to your theory that is very acceptable behaviour. ...``
Now we come to the crux- the issue is that what is ``acceptable`` is always relative to the shared moral precepts of the ommunity of people who uphold them......the only issue is whether the community of people who share those precepts do so VOLUNTARILY or out of fear and coecion?? So let us discuss the issue of consensus which is not coerced and influenced by the existing relations of power (what John Rawls calls as the ``Original Position``) and not the content of the legal precepts.
As regards the dilemman you put forth, I could not consider it to be a dilemma per se because in a society which accepts a psychological thesis that for any criminal act commited by a person below 18 years mens-rea cannot be ascribed because minors are incapable of forming a culpable intention, it is but logical that in such a society minors should be apriori considered not mature enough to take a decision regarding who should represent him in the government!!
regards,
Ballu Khan Warasi
#111 Posted by arjun_m on March 21, 2005 8:22:55 pm
#108 by echoboom on March 21, 2005 12:14pm PT
It simply means that for muslims who are forced to choose.. SECULARISM, ATHEISM, or any ISM for that matter, is just nonsense.
It`s the ISMs or the STANs....guess more muslims would chose the ISMs if that was made a requirement for immigrating to the west....and who knows, it might be someday....
It simply means that for muslims who are forced to choose.. SECULARISM, ATHEISM, or any ISM for that matter, is just nonsense.
It`s the ISMs or the STANs....guess more muslims would chose the ISMs if that was made a requirement for immigrating to the west....and who knows, it might be someday....
#110 Posted by vertex on March 21, 2005 7:43:24 pm
amit,
Sorry for the delay.
``Instead of looking at the issue in abstract, let us look at it from a practical point of view. In your version of an ideal religious society, how would a non-believer fare?``
Look, I am not talking about utopias here. I am not looking for clerical rule, or whatever. I would appreciate it if my religious history was not being manipulated to support a rather vauge argument.
How would non-believers fare? Realistically, I would say that the state and community are responsible for their security and economic integration. That implies NO discrimination for the most part. Realistically, high posts like president or prime minister would probably be denied. However, beyond that...let them do what they are capable of doing! Uniform tax, and all that. I am all for a modern nation state, and am not interested in projecting tribal structures to urban environments.
Sorry for the delay.
``Instead of looking at the issue in abstract, let us look at it from a practical point of view. In your version of an ideal religious society, how would a non-believer fare?``
Look, I am not talking about utopias here. I am not looking for clerical rule, or whatever. I would appreciate it if my religious history was not being manipulated to support a rather vauge argument.
How would non-believers fare? Realistically, I would say that the state and community are responsible for their security and economic integration. That implies NO discrimination for the most part. Realistically, high posts like president or prime minister would probably be denied. However, beyond that...let them do what they are capable of doing! Uniform tax, and all that. I am all for a modern nation state, and am not interested in projecting tribal structures to urban environments.
#109 Posted by Ashutosh_Gandhi on March 21, 2005 1:27:22 pm
Secularism is absence (or indifference) of religion for a government policies.
Its a simple defination and it seems that the author is trying to complicate it. There is no need to broaden the defination of being secular the way indian government did it in the past.
Its a simple defination and it seems that the author is trying to complicate it. There is no need to broaden the defination of being secular the way indian government did it in the past.
#108 Posted by echoboom on March 21, 2005 12:14:03 pm
Very unique, very amusing--Oh how true colours and false gods are revealed.
Renouncing Islam Opens Australia’s Asylum Doors
SYDNEY, March 21, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – In a precedent that could cause serious consequences, a group of 30 Iranian and Iraqi detainees in Australia who had their asylum claims rejected have won a review of their cases after some converted to Christianity.
...continued.
read all
Now the interesting question here is why do they not claim asylum on the basis of renouncing Islam for no religion viz atheism, secularism, agnosticism?
It simply means that for muslims who are forced to choose.. SECULARISM, ATHEISM, or any ISM for that matter, is just nonsense.
Well the answer is clear. It enables them to hold on to the rope of Allah and keep their options open. This `taqiyaa` system like having anglicising muslim names is a legit way to
become part of the system and work from inside out.
I say: It`s good. Nobody but nobody leaves Islam; no matter how much convincing they may sound to the rejoicers.
Has never happened. Will never happen. Allah has Himself assured its protection, so how can it? & 1400 years and still going & going & going is enough evidence--isn`t it?
But one has to have a scientific & logical mind to see this Truth.
``If its draw & lure that powerful, there must be something to it``--the muslim-to-be muses
Renouncing Islam Opens Australia’s Asylum Doors
SYDNEY, March 21, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – In a precedent that could cause serious consequences, a group of 30 Iranian and Iraqi detainees in Australia who had their asylum claims rejected have won a review of their cases after some converted to Christianity.
...continued.
read all
Now the interesting question here is why do they not claim asylum on the basis of renouncing Islam for no religion viz atheism, secularism, agnosticism?
It simply means that for muslims who are forced to choose.. SECULARISM, ATHEISM, or any ISM for that matter, is just nonsense.
Well the answer is clear. It enables them to hold on to the rope of Allah and keep their options open. This `taqiyaa` system like having anglicising muslim names is a legit way to
become part of the system and work from inside out.
I say: It`s good. Nobody but nobody leaves Islam; no matter how much convincing they may sound to the rejoicers.
Has never happened. Will never happen. Allah has Himself assured its protection, so how can it? & 1400 years and still going & going & going is enough evidence--isn`t it?
But one has to have a scientific & logical mind to see this Truth.
``If its draw & lure that powerful, there must be something to it``--the muslim-to-be muses
#107 Posted by Romair on March 21, 2005 11:52:20 am
Paindupastry #103: Best of luck.
I have a lot of respect for people who not only talk the talk, but walk the walk also. It doesn`t matter whether you win or lose, as long as you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. You are very correct, in saying that Pakistan (specifically its secular side) lacks rabble-rousers. This is why I can never see them succeeding. They are too interested in moving into countries and places where secularism exists, already. But they do not have the passion to bring about secularism anywhere, where it does not exist; like Pakistan.
This is why they are losing out to the mullahs. The mullahs are extremely passionate about their cause. They are out in the streets. They stick with what they believe, over decades.
Until the secular side is able to take them on in this turf, it will never win. Changes don`t come through drawing room conversations. They come through a passionate sacrifice. I have yet to see any secular group get even a handful of people on the streets of Lahore. For starters, that is what they need to do. For every million man march of the MMA, they need to carry out their own million man march.
And they need to stop throwing their eggs into the PPP and PML basket. These parties are not secular. They are just non-theocratic. And they are too tainted by corruption and ill-governance. They need to start new fresher groups.
They should take a lesson from Imran Khan. And see the sacrifices he has made. He loses again and again, but he is sticking with it..............
I have a lot of respect for people who not only talk the talk, but walk the walk also. It doesn`t matter whether you win or lose, as long as you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. You are very correct, in saying that Pakistan (specifically its secular side) lacks rabble-rousers. This is why I can never see them succeeding. They are too interested in moving into countries and places where secularism exists, already. But they do not have the passion to bring about secularism anywhere, where it does not exist; like Pakistan.
This is why they are losing out to the mullahs. The mullahs are extremely passionate about their cause. They are out in the streets. They stick with what they believe, over decades.
Until the secular side is able to take them on in this turf, it will never win. Changes don`t come through drawing room conversations. They come through a passionate sacrifice. I have yet to see any secular group get even a handful of people on the streets of Lahore. For starters, that is what they need to do. For every million man march of the MMA, they need to carry out their own million man march.
And they need to stop throwing their eggs into the PPP and PML basket. These parties are not secular. They are just non-theocratic. And they are too tainted by corruption and ill-governance. They need to start new fresher groups.
They should take a lesson from Imran Khan. And see the sacrifices he has made. He loses again and again, but he is sticking with it..............
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- nkg: Re: # 162 Salim... We love... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- nkg: Re: # 308 DM... "While I... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- MeiraJ08: Sahir, of the Barcelona... Demon
- nkg: Re: # 299 Anil... At least... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- nkg: #342 contd... from biped quadraped... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- MeiraJ08: #100, yes Nb, I... Fathers and Daughters
- nkg: Re: # 296 Masadi... So, you... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- kashkin: Friends, Thank you all for... Cockroaches of Disruption
