>Secularism in my view has to be anti religion beyond a point, for it work > >effectively. > > >shiv >
There can only be one law. Secularism cannot be about "respecting" religion but has to be about ignoring it, unless religion gives secularism a reason to oppose it (i.e be anti-religion, with contempt if necessary, for only as long as religion makes it impossible for secularism to ignore it). As for whether religion should be limited to the private sphere, indeed it should. Perhaps people confuse "private" with "individual". In the context of a secular state, "private" means non-state i.e nothing to do with state. It can be public only in the sense of groups being able to get involved and being outside the confines of a private of home (but not of private/non-state property, except without the state's considered permission eg they may be allowed to use the street). A distinction needs to be made between the "private public space" and the state's sphere (eg when we say the public sector in economics, or public law being the state's domain). There is no room for religion in the latter and it must confine itself to the former. Perhaps progress can sometimes come from religion, in a particular place and time, and the secular state must ignore the source when agreeing with the outcome (even thankfully). Progressive thinkers may claim religion as the source of their inspiration, but the claim is totally irrelevant to the secular state. The same argument applies to legislators in a democracy. A secular state with democratic rule of law can only rely on scientific validity and democratic legitimacy. When the two are in conflict, individuals - whatever their role in state and/or society - must follow their conscience and say (and even do) what they think is right even as they accept the (legal) legitimacy of democratic majority. Usman
