On 9 August 2011 19:12, Charles Haynes <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Kiran K Karthikeyan > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Therefore, if religion is not considered while framing laws, these > > laws impinge on one's religious beliefs. > > Not if the law is broad in what it allows, and narrow in what it > compels or forbids. > How exactly do you apply your prescribed framework to not contradict the belief that the universe is a few thousand years old and was created by god over a week? Not spend tax payer money on space exploration, large telescopes? Evolution and astronomy not being taught in schools or giving these loons the ability to set up schools that don't teach it and take society back a few hundred years? The above is nothing compared to a guy believing that he will go to heaven for killing a non-believer. The law can neither be broad or narrow in his case. > > Basically, there is no way to merge the two i.e. for secularism to be > > implemented to its true meaning requires the majority of society to > relegate > > religion to their "personal" space. Obviously some religions make this > > easier than others, some are outright impossible. > > Religions in a secular society need not be restricted to a personal > space, people are welcome to practice their religion with their > co-religionists as much as they like. What is restricted is requiring > non-believing people to participate in your religion. > Does that include bursting firecrackers into the night not allowing you to sleep regardless of your religious compulsion? Or blaring over a 4 square block area the call to prayer/devotional songs? Or not license psychological/psychiatric practice? > > > While individuals can respect other citizens' religious views as long as > > they restrict it to their personal space, the constitution/government > cannot > > to be truly secular. > > Untrue. There is plenty of room between the personal and the official. > > -- Charles > >
