Thursday, October 16, 2003
Govt and religion
Itz a very contentiuos issue: Shud the Govt promote a specific religion??? Itz been a contentiuos issue in India and itz been an issue here in US too. A couple of weeks back a judge was dismissed because he installed a big plaque of Ten Commandments in the court's premises. It was said that this amounted to Court's propagation of religion.
Now itz the controversy over invoking of God's name in a school pledge that says "one nation under God." Now, I know u will say it doesnt promote any one religion. But then, doesnt it use the term "God". Now an atheist has taken offence that his daughter's freedom not to believe in God is violated!
There are "intellectuals' who say that the Govy shud keep itz hands off religion. For eg, when Saraswati Vandana was introduced in India, the "secularists" took offence saying it amounted to Govt-propagation of religion. Same with the Ten Commandments case in US!
I wud say that we shud draw a thin line of diff b/w "promotion of culture" and "propagation of religion". Religion is so closely bound to the culture of a society that I guess itz not possible for one to keep the two completely separate. I guess if the Govt takes a hard stance and totally tries to separate itself from the culture of the society, that wud lead to a lot of hear-burn among the ppl - and when I say ppl, I mean the ppl in majority. For eg, lighting of lamp at the beginning of any activity is part of Indian culture. If the Govt says that it will abandon this practice because it is not part of the culture of non-Hindu ppl, then that wud lead to quite a few heart-burns. I wud say the same with Saraswati Vandana or Ten Commandments. As long as the practice does not preach hatred against any other sects/religions, the I see no reason why it shud be detested.
Now itz the controversy over invoking of God's name in a school pledge that says "one nation under God." Now, I know u will say it doesnt promote any one religion. But then, doesnt it use the term "God". Now an atheist has taken offence that his daughter's freedom not to believe in God is violated!
There are "intellectuals' who say that the Govy shud keep itz hands off religion. For eg, when Saraswati Vandana was introduced in India, the "secularists" took offence saying it amounted to Govt-propagation of religion. Same with the Ten Commandments case in US!
I wud say that we shud draw a thin line of diff b/w "promotion of culture" and "propagation of religion". Religion is so closely bound to the culture of a society that I guess itz not possible for one to keep the two completely separate. I guess if the Govt takes a hard stance and totally tries to separate itself from the culture of the society, that wud lead to a lot of hear-burn among the ppl - and when I say ppl, I mean the ppl in majority. For eg, lighting of lamp at the beginning of any activity is part of Indian culture. If the Govt says that it will abandon this practice because it is not part of the culture of non-Hindu ppl, then that wud lead to quite a few heart-burns. I wud say the same with Saraswati Vandana or Ten Commandments. As long as the practice does not preach hatred against any other sects/religions, the I see no reason why it shud be detested.
You are visitor number
since May 1, 2005