An Anti-Secularist. Manifesto. AshisNandy. I. Gandhi said he was secular. Yet, he thought poorly of those who wanted to keep religion and politics separate. He scandalized many in India who view themselves as progressive when, in the mids, he published ‘An Anti-Secularist Manifesto’. Free from the irate polemics seen in some recent anti-religious commentaries ( here and here), his “secularist manifesto” invites constructive.
|Published (Last):||20 November 2007|
|PDF File Size:||18.69 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.73 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Cease religious inculcation by the state by ending compulsory antu in schools and making religious education the study of what religions and other belief systems believe, rather than instruction in what to believe. Some operate outside the public sector while others come within its purview either through historical incorporation by the state eg church schools, religious hospitals or through manifestto entered into contracts with the state to pursue specific public purposes eg faith-based social service agencies.
Should we have insisted that Chaudhuri apologize to the nation for implicitly denigrating the nationalist movement? Like many who call themselves secularists, he claims to be against “banning religion from qn public square”, yet the tenor of this and other public interventions suggest a desire to keep it on a tight leash.
‘Secularism is an inaccessible concept’ – The Hindu
This is essentially a summary of article 9 of the European convention on human rights. Interestingly, although Harris suggests that someone opposed to the whole of his manifesto is “probably archbishop material”, its intent seems to converge with the ” procedural secularism ” proposed by Maniffsto Williams a few years ago.
Also published in Outlook magazine, at http: Should we be party to the epidemic of apologies that has swept the West and insist that Nandy take back everything he has said? Those, at least, are some starters for discussion.
Why, for example, must a marriage registrar be legally compelled to perform a same-sex civil partnership ceremony against her religious conscience when other colleagues are readily available to do so? His credentials secuparist an expert social critic have not spared him from controversies that follow those who comment on politics.
Legislators may quite legitimately be significantly, even primarily, motivated by their religious beliefs to support a law or policy, even though governments themselves would not invoke religious reasons to publicly justify official acts of state.
Nandy says that Eastern belief systems started out as fluid and seculsrist religions. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Please Email the Editor.
Disconnect religion from the state by: Loading comments… Trouble loading?
‘Secularism is an inaccessible concept’
Yet alongside these legitimate objectives the manifesto contains troubling elements, which serve to undermine his professed support for the right to manifest religious belief. Allow for reasonable secklarist to cater for religious practice in employment or in facilities eg Sikh turbans in the police force, the hijab or kara in uniform policies, and prayer facilities in the workplace but not to extend this to a blanket religious exemption based on subjective feelings, nor to impose religious practice on nonbelievers.
Unfortunately, political parties and governments have repeatedly used history as a tool to tell their version of things.
Second, it fails to recognise that an effective right to “manifest” belief is not only individual but organisational. But Harris wants to impose severe legal restrictions on the ability of such religious organisations to act according to their distinctive religious beliefs the moment they enter the public sector, thereby frustrating the very reason for them existing as distinct bodies rather than mere replicas of secular agencies.
How did we come to have such fragile sensibilities?
An Anti-Secularist Manifesto | Lal Salaam: A Blog by Vinay Lal
Protecting conscience would not imply a “blanket religious exemption based on subjective feelings” but rather a better balancing of objective legal rights. The Jaipur Literary Festival is known to stir controversy. Akbar and Ashoka never heard of manifsto. Williams distinguishes it from a “programmatic secularism”, which would seek to impose a secular humanist belief system on society via state power.
Nandy says, should be similarly plural and representative, irrespective of the person writing it.
This is maniifesto secularists: Show 25 25 50 All. Since at this point his penchant for detail is not on display, let me suggest two forms of religious public speech he might care to consider:.
Limit the right of religious people delivering public services for example marriage registrars, judges, pharmacists, or care workers to conscientiously object to carrying mnifesto lawful parts of their job to rare and specific exemptions eg doctors and abortion agreed by parliament.
Secularism is unfairly characterised and attacked by religious leaders as a way of seeking to protect their privileges.