On Saturday 13 Aug 2011 12:15:57 am Heather Madrone wrote: > Secularism > needs to make a place at the table for religion, but it needs to be its > proper place, and balanced by basic human rights and the rights of > minorities. Where religious views work to enforce human rights and the > rights of minorities, religion and secularism are natural allies and can > work together harmoniously. > > It's a different matter where religious views seek to seriously limit > the rights of individuals or require specific religious observances on > the parts of individuals. In those cases, religion and secularism are > opponents. >
Now let me convert the above statement, (which I agree with) into a quasi- scientific rhetorical question: How well would secularism as defined by Heather above work if a country has people with: 1. Predominantly (>95%) one religion 2. A mix of religions in which 20 or 25% do not belong to a majority religion. 3. A mix of religions where no religion has followers who form an overwhelming majority. In part answer to my own question, it seems to me that the devil is in the detail. If there are major differences in religious beliefs on details like what constitutes human rights or what constitutes an impingement on one's unfettered right to practise religion then secularism takes a battering for being wishy washy and not implementing uniform laws. Secularism in my view has to be anti religion beyond a point, for it work effectively. shiv
