Swamy's article is about how to wipe out Islamic terrorism. The approach that he is advocating, one of fighting fire with fire, is not novel though I have never seen it articulated in these many words. The article has undoubtedly touched a raw nerve.
I find this thread to be a thought-provoking one in which secularism and the freedom to practice multiple religions within a secular democracy have been discussed. Not clear what its relationship is to Swamy's article. Can secularism wipe out Islamic terror? The issue is a serious one. I view the human need for governance, religion and morality as distinct and find in secularism an appropriate compromise.I am a moral athiest who is willing to put up with the traffic jams, loudspeakers, and firecrackers, and tolerate the practice of religion. There are days when I wonder whether it is alright to tolerate all religions but one. Unfortunately secularism offers no half measures. I have friends who are also moral atheists but who do not want to extend to others the freedom to practice religion. Odd group this because despite being atheistic they are not secular. Whether they prefer communism to secular democracy is an interesting question that I have never asked. Again, thought provoking stuff. Cheers, Arjun. On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:12 PM, ss <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
