That is why the Hijab is banned in France. That is why Minarets are banned in Switzerland. That is why covering your head is illegal in Turkey. That is why men can not wear beards in Egypt.
Yes secularism indeed:
2) It allows personal and religious freedoms.
3) It protects religion form government and the government from religion.
4) Everyone is treated equally & no religious litmus test is needed for anyone to hold public office.
5) Under secular system you are free to believe or not whatever God/gods you believe or not.
That is why the Hijab is banned in France. That is why Minarets are banned in Switzerland. That is why covering your head is illegal in Turkey. That is why men can not wear beards in Egypt.
.
So basically you are saying that all these things are not good.. and you would endorse a perfectly secular system where muslims are given liberties to follow their religious choices in these societies..
Or
You want to say that because these societies have a biased system against muslim liberties, therefore we should in retaliation have a system where religious liberties and choices are taken away from people living in our society who do not belong to majority religious affiliation..!!!
So basically you are saying that all these things are not good.. and you would endorse a perfectly secular system where muslims are given liberties to follow their religious choices in these societies..
Or
You want to say that because these societies have a biased system against muslim liberties, therefore we should in retaliation have a system where religious liberties and choices are taken away from people living in our society who do not belong to majority religious affiliation..!!!
Like a true Muslim Jihadi, he wants war with these Infidels.
So basically you are saying that all these things are not good.. and you would endorse a perfectly secular system where muslims are given liberties to follow their religious choices in these societies..
Or
You want to say that because these societies have a biased system against muslim liberties, therefore we should in retaliation have a system where religious liberties and choices are taken away from people living in our society who do not belong to majority religious affiliation..!!!
Saying neither. Saying the idealistic vision of Secularism you lot have does not stand the test of facts and reality.
That is why the Hijab is banned in France. That is why Minarets are banned in Switzerland. That is why covering your head is illegal in Turkey. That is why men can not wear beards in Egypt.
We are talking about secularism in theoretical sense. So, what France or Switzerland does is irrelevant to this discussion.
I think secularism is best system b/c of the following reasons:
1) It separates religion and government.
2) It allows personal and religious freedoms.
3) It protects religion form government and the government from religion.
4) Everyone is treated equally & no religious litmus test is needed for anyone to hold public office.
5) Under secular system you are free to believe or not whatever God/gods you believe or not.
I can go on and on, but the idea is that secularism = personal choices/freedoms w/o govt getting involved in people's personal lives.
Why would anyone be against such system?
These points are good for paper-weight but reality is the countries who have spent decades in secularism are taking a step out of it little by little as pointed out by CM.
^in what sense? I feel it is! The countries CM mention are in "retaliation" mode against anything religious affecting their society. I don't agree with it but an occurance here and there does not equate to a life long suffering of people under a non-secular government. the two can't be compared.
Shariah compliant theocracies are also an idealistic vision. The only difference is they don't fit with your personal view point.
Shamaz if we are speaking the theoretical sense, Shariah is based on divine providence. Nothing more Utopian than that. Of course what Saudi Arabia and Iran do are irrelevant to the discussion.
Theorist the HDI is a few decades old after the end of colonialism. It is by no means an indicator of the development of civilizations or nation states. Lets take the HDI of the dark ages or Colonial Africa. How does that compare?
These points are good for paper-weight but reality is the countries who have spent decades in secularism are taking a step out of it little by little as pointed out by CM.
AS in how? Unless I missed something, no European countries have enacted new blasphemy laws?
^in what sense? I feel it is! The countries CM mention are in "retaliation" mode against anything religious affecting their society. I don't agree with it but an occurance here and there does not equate to a life long suffering of people under a non-secular government. the two can't be compared.
Whether its "retaliation" mode or other, the act is against secularism, simple as that.
AS in how? Unless I missed something, no European countries have enacted new blasphemy laws?
so your criteria is only a blasphemy law?
