5 ms·

french secularism is beautiful. all are equal under law. and freedom FROM religion. if your friend and his friends had this thing where they chopped of skin fro

french secularism is beautiful. all are equal under law. and freedom FROM religion. if your friend and his friends had this thing where they chopped of skin from their babies genitals. would you be ok with that? why is it ok when religious people do it? clearly following dogma in this case over reason is the symptom of mental illness or damage. religions are much more oppressive if you ask me. they function without a state or government. they are a low evolved form of government used to gain power.

dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into religious flamewar. This is exactly what we don't want here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
webmobdev 6y ago
> french secularism is beautiful. As an indian, I have to somewhat disagree. I find the idea of secularism beautiful and necessary for a democracy but the french way of implementing it uncomfortable and some what extremist (but understand their historic roots). Secularism in India is certainly inspired by US and European democracy (especially France), but is not similar: The Court also discussed the concept of "Indian Secularism", which was said to be based on "equal tolerance of all religions". Indian Secularism was distinct from Western Secularism as it is not anti-religious. It gives to all its citizens equal freedom of conscience and religion. ('Reckless Statements Demeaning Another Religious Faith Will Only Sow Seeds Of Hatred' : Madras High Court Warns Evangelist While Quashing FIR - https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/demeaning-another-religious-faith-seeds-of-hatred-madras-high-court-evangelist-fir-169464 https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/demeaning-another-religi... ). In practice, this means that the state doesn't believe it has to compete with religious ideas for its existence. So it doesn't mind if you display your religious identity in a government office or in public schools. So unlike France (and some other European states) that would frown on a Christian or a Hindu or a Muslim displaying their respective Gods or religion's symbols or even praying in government office, all these practices are quite common in India. One of the idea behind this is that people tend to view the unfamiliar with suspicion and distrust. And religion also introduces certain cultural beliefs in a society. Thus, in a multi-cultural and multi-religious country like ours, restricting cultural practices can create intolerance - people are generally more accepting of each other when they are exposed to each others culture, including religious ones, and understand it. Thus, not being "anti-religious" is especially helpful for the majority to understand the minority, and the minority to be comfortable in the society because everyone is encouraged to treat differing beliefs with tolerance (if not acceptance). Another reasoning is that the state understands that every human also aspires to spiritually develop. (The state doesn't consider spiritual development as necessarily religious in nature, but recognizes that it is the majority practice). Thus, indian secularism focuses on inclusiveness and equality by treating everyone as a spiritual being, and thus eschews being anti-religious. Instead of forcing any religious reforms from the top, it encourages reformists to work with the respective section of society for the changes they seek. Only when they have gained a certain momentum do they start considering it as political issue which needs legislative intervention. (Over the past 100 years, this is how Indian society has slowly done away with retrograde religious practices). This slow approach is necessary to make the reforms more acceptable and lasting in society. We could use the Guillotine too, but look at Turkey now after its staunch secularist leader who enforced secularism using state power, passed away ... if secularism doesn't come from society, it cannot survive. We in India too are now facing the same issue as the political party in power tries to push a religious identity on to our country and make many think that the ideas of secularism is not needed in India.
- snambi 6y ago
  Uh uh... most of this is untrue. The "Indian Secularism" is mostly what was leftover from the colonial era mixed with Traditional Hindu values. However, the Govt tries to "correct" or "change" the Native traditions periodically.
  - webmobdev 6y ago
    Obviously our colonial history has had a huge impact on our psyche, and influenced our democracy. As for "traditonal hindu values" or "native traditions", these are clever bogus arguments used by the current right-wing to do away with the indian secularism envisioned and enshrined in our constitution.
  - quetzthecoatl 6y ago
    absolutely. "Indian secularism" is the exact opposite of secularism. It's just discrimination on the basis of religious identity.
- quetzthecoatl 6y ago
  India is not secular, and whatever goes on in India in the name of secularism is the exact opposite of it. Rights are sanctioned and denied based on religious identity. In case you want to know how bad it is, the ones the most oppressed and poor are the lower caste hindus, and even now, it's illegal for a lower caste hindu to open and run school exclusively for lower caste hindus even with his own money. It's not just that state won't do it, but it has made it illegal for individual citizens to do it as well. Remember these are the folks with no money, no land and no connections. Their only means for social mobility is education. Meanwhile, a christian or muslim does it, he/she gets state funding, and the upper caste hindus are well off and connected. It's just caste system with extra steps. Of course this is well supported by upper caste hindus, muslims and christians - the old elite class. Aside from that, hindu temples and institutions are managed by the state and taxed, while other religions gets absolute freedom to run their institutions however - taxfree. Again, this is relic of colonial briton who really wanted to control the hindus as the main opposition to the raj came in the form of hindu nationalism. It's a religious apartheid state against the poor hindus - a relic of colonialism happily continued by the Indian elites who wielded power once the british left most likely because they hated the poor hindus even more than the british themselves.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
It’s beautiful for the government to threaten you with jail if you wear something the government believes to be religious? ha
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
> french secularism is beautiful. Unless you wish to wear religious articles.
franga2000 6y ago
Not sure if what you're talking about is French secularism, but I definitely agree with it up until the "mental illness" part. That part is where things become dangerous. Sure, churches and religions aren't special and they should follow the exact same rules as any other group of people and/or legal entity. But the moment you start mandating how people should think/what they should believe, even if their beliefs are ridiculous, you're going down one hell of a slippery slope.
- Bakary 6y ago
  In his defense, religious belief has a history of sliding down that slope at full speed in most cases when left to its own devices. I feel that religious extremism is often treated much less harshly than secularist abuses. One example of that is how various Western countries reacted to that French teacher being beheaded: they were more immediately concerned with discrimination than with the actual murder and its implications.
  - franga2000 6y ago
    Definitely, but if you start treating religion as a mental illness like OP suggested, you ought to also consider flat earthers and conspiracy theorists the same. And what is the line between a conspiracy theory in the usual sense and simply a yet-unproven theory that a conspiracy actually exists? That the government is spying on us all the time might've sounded like a conspiracy theory before Snowden, so should all the people who believed it have been committed to mental hospitals? Obviously this is a slippery slope argument in and of itself, but it illustrates the possibilities for abuse. But yes, religion seems to be a bit of a get-out-of-jail-free card these days - people and organizations get away with a lot of shady stuff under the disguise of religion and something really needs to be done about it.
    - Bakary 6y ago
      It's a bit circular because mental illness is societally determined. If enough people deem something to be an illness or no longer one, then so it shall tautologically be. >But yes, religion seems to be a bit of a get-out-of-jail-free card these days - people and organizations get away with a lot of shady stuff under the disguise of religion and something really needs to be done about it. Well that was my point: secularist impulses are often rejected, especially in the anglosphere. The people who could do something are often prevented from doing so, while religious orders are free to leave broken lives in their wake.
rat87 6y ago
Laicite is stupid France doesn't understand freedom of religion, a fundamental human right which they have pledged to uphold. Take the french school headscarf ban or the stupid outrage about the Burkini
- mr_toad 6y ago
  > freedom of religion, a fundamental human right They believe in not forcing people to follow a state religion. That’s not the same as letting people do whatever they want because “religion”. It’s not like most religions believe in freedom of religion anyway. The same people who argue for the right to wear certain headwear belong to a religion that prescribes the death penalty for apostasy.
  - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
    Most religions don't believe in freedom of religion, correct. OP is saying lacite is stupid because it's a type of secular religion rather than true freedom which does not maintain an orthodoxy.
- Bakary 6y ago
  They do understand the concept, they just start from premises that are different from that of the anglosphere.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Perhaps freedom from religion is a fundamental human right. Perhaps there are valid concerns that many women are being forced to cover themselves against their will, but are unable to do much about it. I havent studied this spesific issue enough to say either way, but I am not clear where your certainty is coming from.

dang 6y ago

Please don't take HN threads further into religious flamewar. This is exactly what we don't want here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

webmobdev 6y ago

> french secularism is beautiful. As an indian, I have to somewhat disagree. I find the idea of secularism beautiful and necessary for a democracy but the french way of implementing it uncomfortable and some what extremist (but understand their historic roots). Secularism in India is certainly inspired by US and European democracy (especially France), but is not similar: The Court also discussed the concept of "Indian Secularism", which was said to be based on "equal tolerance of all religions". Indian Secularism was distinct from Western Secularism as it is not anti-religious. It gives to all its citizens equal freedom of conscience and religion. ('Reckless Statements Demeaning Another Religious Faith Will Only Sow Seeds Of Hatred' : Madras High Court Warns Evangelist While Quashing FIR - https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/demeaning-another-religious-faith-seeds-of-hatred-madras-high-court-evangelist-fir-169464 https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/demeaning-another-religi... ). In practice, this means that the state doesn't believe it has to compete with religious ideas for its existence. So it doesn't mind if you display your religious identity in a government office or in public schools. So unlike France (and some other European states) that would frown on a Christian or a Hindu or a Muslim displaying their respective Gods or religion's symbols or even praying in government office, all these practices are quite common in India. One of the idea behind this is that people tend to view the unfamiliar with suspicion and distrust. And religion also introduces certain cultural beliefs in a society. Thus, in a multi-cultural and multi-religious country like ours, restricting cultural practices can create intolerance - people are generally more accepting of each other when they are exposed to each others culture, including religious ones, and understand it. Thus, not being "anti-religious" is especially helpful for the majority to understand the minority, and the minority to be comfortable in the society because everyone is encouraged to treat differing beliefs with tolerance (if not acceptance). Another reasoning is that the state understands that every human also aspires to spiritually develop. (The state doesn't consider spiritual development as necessarily religious in nature, but recognizes that it is the majority practice). Thus, indian secularism focuses on inclusiveness and equality by treating everyone as a spiritual being, and thus eschews being anti-religious. Instead of forcing any religious reforms from the top, it encourages reformists to work with the respective section of society for the changes they seek. Only when they have gained a certain momentum do they start considering it as political issue which needs legislative intervention. (Over the past 100 years, this is how Indian society has slowly done away with retrograde religious practices). This slow approach is necessary to make the reforms more acceptable and lasting in society. We could use the Guillotine too, but look at Turkey now after its staunch secularist leader who enforced secularism using state power, passed away ... if secularism doesn't come from society, it cannot survive. We in India too are now facing the same issue as the political party in power tries to push a religious identity on to our country and make many think that the ideas of secularism is not needed in India.

snambi 6y ago
Uh uh... most of this is untrue. The "Indian Secularism" is mostly what was leftover from the colonial era mixed with Traditional Hindu values. However, the Govt tries to "correct" or "change" the Native traditions periodically.
- webmobdev 6y ago
  Obviously our colonial history has had a huge impact on our psyche, and influenced our democracy. As for "traditonal hindu values" or "native traditions", these are clever bogus arguments used by the current right-wing to do away with the indian secularism envisioned and enshrined in our constitution.
- quetzthecoatl 6y ago
  absolutely. "Indian secularism" is the exact opposite of secularism. It's just discrimination on the basis of religious identity.
quetzthecoatl 6y ago
India is not secular, and whatever goes on in India in the name of secularism is the exact opposite of it. Rights are sanctioned and denied based on religious identity. In case you want to know how bad it is, the ones the most oppressed and poor are the lower caste hindus, and even now, it's illegal for a lower caste hindu to open and run school exclusively for lower caste hindus even with his own money. It's not just that state won't do it, but it has made it illegal for individual citizens to do it as well. Remember these are the folks with no money, no land and no connections. Their only means for social mobility is education. Meanwhile, a christian or muslim does it, he/she gets state funding, and the upper caste hindus are well off and connected. It's just caste system with extra steps. Of course this is well supported by upper caste hindus, muslims and christians - the old elite class. Aside from that, hindu temples and institutions are managed by the state and taxed, while other religions gets absolute freedom to run their institutions however - taxfree. Again, this is relic of colonial briton who really wanted to control the hindus as the main opposition to the raj came in the form of hindu nationalism. It's a religious apartheid state against the poor hindus - a relic of colonialism happily continued by the Indian elites who wielded power once the british left most likely because they hated the poor hindus even more than the british themselves.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

It’s beautiful for the government to threaten you with jail if you wear something the government believes to be religious? ha

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

> french secularism is beautiful. Unless you wish to wear religious articles.

franga2000 6y ago

Not sure if what you're talking about is French secularism, but I definitely agree with it up until the "mental illness" part. That part is where things become dangerous. Sure, churches and religions aren't special and they should follow the exact same rules as any other group of people and/or legal entity. But the moment you start mandating how people should think/what they should believe, even if their beliefs are ridiculous, you're going down one hell of a slippery slope.

Bakary 6y ago
In his defense, religious belief has a history of sliding down that slope at full speed in most cases when left to its own devices. I feel that religious extremism is often treated much less harshly than secularist abuses. One example of that is how various Western countries reacted to that French teacher being beheaded: they were more immediately concerned with discrimination than with the actual murder and its implications.
- franga2000 6y ago
  Definitely, but if you start treating religion as a mental illness like OP suggested, you ought to also consider flat earthers and conspiracy theorists the same. And what is the line between a conspiracy theory in the usual sense and simply a yet-unproven theory that a conspiracy actually exists? That the government is spying on us all the time might've sounded like a conspiracy theory before Snowden, so should all the people who believed it have been committed to mental hospitals? Obviously this is a slippery slope argument in and of itself, but it illustrates the possibilities for abuse. But yes, religion seems to be a bit of a get-out-of-jail-free card these days - people and organizations get away with a lot of shady stuff under the disguise of religion and something really needs to be done about it.
  - Bakary 6y ago
    It's a bit circular because mental illness is societally determined. If enough people deem something to be an illness or no longer one, then so it shall tautologically be. >But yes, religion seems to be a bit of a get-out-of-jail-free card these days - people and organizations get away with a lot of shady stuff under the disguise of religion and something really needs to be done about it. Well that was my point: secularist impulses are often rejected, especially in the anglosphere. The people who could do something are often prevented from doing so, while religious orders are free to leave broken lives in their wake.

rat87 6y ago

Laicite is stupid France doesn't understand freedom of religion, a fundamental human right which they have pledged to uphold. Take the french school headscarf ban or the stupid outrage about the Burkini

mr_toad 6y ago
> freedom of religion, a fundamental human right They believe in not forcing people to follow a state religion. That’s not the same as letting people do whatever they want because “religion”. It’s not like most religions believe in freedom of religion anyway. The same people who argue for the right to wear certain headwear belong to a religion that prescribes the death penalty for apostasy.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  Most religions don't believe in freedom of religion, correct. OP is saying lacite is stupid because it's a type of secular religion rather than true freedom which does not maintain an orthodoxy.
Bakary 6y ago
They do understand the concept, they just start from premises that are different from that of the anglosphere.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Perhaps freedom from religion is a fundamental human right. Perhaps there are valid concerns that many women are being forced to cover themselves against their will, but are unable to do much about it. I havent studied this spesific issue enough to say either way, but I am not clear where your certainty is coming from.