What is your argument against secularism?

[Theorist]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

@psyah

Peace Shamraz Khan

Ok here is my response to your points:

1. Secularism means separating religion from government - so in this point you have said
   **
   I think secularism is better because it’s secular - logically you are not really saying anything … other than you like secularism for secularims’s sake … I can use the same reason for not liking secularism … that secularism is not better because it’s secular … When a factor is given that cannot substantiate what it sets out to achieve then that factor is void of mention … On this basis I reject your first reason … You will need to substantiate why religion and governance being separate is better and your other points should demonstrate this, for this reason this point is void**.

No, that’s now what it means that we like secularism for secularism’s sake. The reason we like secularism is because it separates religion from government. It can’t get any clearer than this. Secularism works because not everyone practices one religion and the rules of a secularist government would ideally apply to everybody. Like someone beautifully said earlier, do not confuse crimes with sins. Crimes are to be dealt with by our judicial system while no man should punish another man for what he believes to be a sin.

2. It allows personal and religious freedoms

It is religiously blind - however if many people of one type who are operating in a secular fashion will subject their own biases to religious minorities … this is what has been happening in Pakistan … the lack of tolerance for minorities is due to the people imposing their biases on them that they have exercised with their secular powers. If they followed Islam those intolerances would be criminal. Secularims itself is an empty shell - it becomes what it’s puppetmasters want it to become. They themselves have no rules that control them apart from one … don’t allow religion to affect your decisions.

So what if it’s religiously blind? It is a more humane ideology. Secular governing body would involve individuals or all background and religions. A secularist government doesn’t SEE religion. You are assuming that a secular government would only appoint atheists/agnostics. That couldn’t be farther from the truth.

3. Secularism actually makes religious people subservient to government and hence religion itself is bent for the needs of those in power.

Again assuming that secularist government officials will have no religion.

4. It is interesting that for a good job we look for capability and credentials, but for public office the same is stated here as though it is some sort of hinderance … besides secularism does not set out to achieve this … rather this is a tennet of democracy - and democracy is not necessarily secular - this is because a majority can vote in religion as what happened in the case of Pakistan. **Pure secularism will not allow religion to be voted in by democractic means **… !!!

5)Islam allows this too - and since this does not set apart secularism from religion per se - I can’t accept this as a valid plus point that distinguishes it from religion.

Again assuming that it’s going to be all atheists/agnostics! We are talking about taking religious laws out of our land constitution, judicial system, and law enforcement. No one’s saying take religion out of the people. That’s absurd! Secularists don’t have anything against anyone wanting to practice their religion but don’t let it govern others’ lives. IT’s no wonder Pakistan started off as a country with different religions now nonmuslims minorities feel threatened so they are doing their best to get out of the country or keep it on the down low. Horrible!

My reason for being against secularism is:

The moral qualities required for a balanced state are present in religion - they are not subject to change, but are subject to interpretation so long as the overall benefits outweigh the harms and off possible harms are reduced to elimination. This quality is not what “secularism” sets out to achieve … it only sets out to achieve one thing … separation … all the other things that people say about it are what they feel secularism achieves through practice …

The moral qualities of religions are still stuck in the centuries they were born in. They haven’t grown at all. All religious people are delusional and confused as heck. Secularism offers growth opportunity, it changes with time. Its utmost priority remains protecting mankind. Religions offer no such growth. religious government sees religion of the person first than decide whether or not your life is worth protecting.

On the other hand religion - or more specifically Islam states this:

Imam An-Nawawis 40 hadith collection:
Stated Prophet Muhammad (SAW) …
“There shall be no harm nor reciprocating harm”

How wise are thy commandments, Lord. Each of them applies to somebody I know.
-Samuel Levenson