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):||24 May 2006|
|PDF File Size:||15.18 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.28 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
An Anti-Secularist Manifesto | Lal Salaam: A Blog by Vinay Lal
If you agree with all the above, while you may be an ardent secularist, you are in no way “militant” or “aggressive”. Order by newest oldest recommendations.
Also published in Outlook magazine, at http: Allow for reasonable adjustment to cater for religious practice in employment or in facilities eg Sikh turbans in the police force, the manifezto 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.
Free from the irate polemics majifesto in some recent anti-religious commentaries here and herehis “secularist manifesto” invites constructive dialogue.
A secularist manifesto | Evan Harris | Opinion | The Guardian
Presumably Harris would not object to religious citizens exercising the same kind of democratic influence over law as that available to everyone else. This is essentially a summary of article 9 of the European convention on human rights. Catholicism Religion The papacy comment. They should, like anyone else, do so within the constraints of legality and civility.
It is these ideas with which Nandy was signifying his agreement, adding his own inimitable touch to the discussion. Nandy suggests that the ideas of Akbar and Ashoka would be more accessible to people rather than concepts of secularism, which have come in for some criticism. Akbar and Ashoka never heard of secularism. Those, at least, are some starters for discussion.
‘Secularism is an inaccessible concept’
If you agree with only most of that manifesto, you may well be a vicar. Nandy had not spoken in a vacuum: His stance is in accord with the trend of recent employment tribunal and court decisions but it departs from the generous British tradition accommodating conscientious objection wherever possible.
Cease religious inculcation by the state by ending compulsory worship in schools and making religious education the study of what religions and other belief systems believe, rather than instruction in what to believe. End discrimination against nonreligious belief systems or organisations by ending their exclusion from: Disconnect religion from the state by: Third, it elides the distinction between a separation of church and state and a separation of religion and state.
This is why secularists: He decries the attempt to prevent writers and intellectuals from expressing their views. Should we have insisted that Chaudhuri apologize to the nation for implicitly denigrating the nationalist movement?
There are, however, more critical questions at stake here. Related Articles A unique communal harmony in Kochi. Nandy mainfesto that Eastern belief systems started out as fluid and plural religions. For well over three decades, Nandy has been in the business, shall we say, of unsettling received ideas, controverting the most established opinions, and deploying the tactics of a street fighter against institutionalized forms of knowledge.
Secularism is unfairly characterised and attacked by religious leaders as a way of seeking to protect their privileges. In this way religious beliefs might shape the content of law just as secular humanist ones already do.
Under this model, advocates of contending belief systems may freely advance their political views in public debate within accepted rules of democratic engagement but with no one belief system enjoying entrenched constitutional privilege.
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. 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: Loading comments… Trouble loading?
By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. Printable version Jan 1, 3: Williams distinguishes it from a “programmatic secularism”, which would seek to impose a secular humanist belief system on society via state power.
And as long as this is the case, the Indian Republic will survive. First, it proposes a restrictive interpretation of the right to conscientious objection within the public sector, which would be limited to “rare and specific” exemptions agreed by parliament. The outcome would be a boisterous procedural secularism in which religious voices could make their distinctive contributions unconstrained by the sort of deliberative restraints often imposed by self-styled secularists.
In addition secularism aims to end religious privileges or persecutions and to fully separate the state from religion which is a ant means to that end.
Sociologist Ashis Nandy calls himself an anti-secularist. Loading comments… Trouble loading?
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: