On Tuesday 09 Aug 2011 6:54:23 pm Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote: > 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. > This is how I see it - although I was unable to frame the statement as well as Kiran has done.
I do not see this as a weakness or failure of the concept of secularism. Secularism would be completely unnecesary if religions had all agreed on how to run society, or if one religion with one set of rules was absolutely perfect for every human being. Neither is true and religions have led to strife. This takes me back to an earlier thought I had expressed on Silk; Political religions themselves were attempts to unify divided society. That worked - up to a point. But after that even religions failed, Secularism was a necesary "next step" in the evolution of human society to allow the creation of new forms of government such as secular democracies and communism. That takes me on to another question. How secular is communism? shiv
