On 14 August 2011 02:58, Indrajit Gupta <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Whether the state needs to oppose expression of religion with contempt or > not is not clear, but the point is well made that the state needs to get to > a situation of ignoring religion as rapidly as possible, and to thrust it > away actively from the public sphere - surely the sense that was sought to > be conveyed - until that point of ignoring may be achieved. In the example > above, the tradition has been that the state for all purposes looks on this > display as a matter entirely avoidable, but to be managed well wherever and > whenever it impinges on the public sphere at all. > > > Thanks IG. There is no need for contempt, I agree. Ignoring religion in the political spheres of state is just an extension of the law having to ensure it remains blind. The law must be enforced, when and if required, swiftly and boldly but, yes, without prejudice. People like me though, can become (more) subjective when provoked beyond a point and in our distress desire the law to share our prejudice. To that extent, the law must ignore people like me. More appreciation, I guess, for those who have been able to do an adequate job, as part of the state, of managing a secular state liberal enough to try and ensure the freedom of ideas and expression of all its citizens in a non-secularised society. BR Usman
