I visited a cousin whom I respect much. He’s a level headed, intelligent, generous, soft spoken and honest person - you know the type of person who never intrudes into your space but who’s always around when you are in need.
We were talking in the family room on the first floor when I noticed a beautiful rare picture of Christ. Seeing me looking at it, he gave me its history, and added without my asking. ‘I didn’t put it in the drawing room, though it is worth displaying there. I decided to be secular’.
Well, that was a strange statement to make, for implicit in it was the notion that secularism signified absence of affiliation to any religion.
My cousin – let’s call him Suresh, is a believer. At least he is not a non-believer. He was always wary of questioning the existence of God. He’d rather play it safe. He did all the right things like going to church on Sundays and putting his children through catechism classes and ensuring they received the sacraments at the proper time as prescribed by the Church and society.
Yet he was reluctant to declare to the world that he was a Christian.
I thought hard on that issue.
If he does not want to flaunt his religion, it’s good. But the reluctance to admit that he is a believer for fear it’d would invest him with a non-secular image is, I think, a misreading of the concept of secularism.
Secularism does not demand disaffiliation from religion. Nor does it demand affiliation to any religion. It imperatively demands respect for religions other than yours, and respect for religions even though you do not believe in any.
Elementary, my dear Watson, you might say, but believe me, I find a lot of people who share Suresh’s anxiety about jeopardising their secular image if the world comes to know that they are believers.
An ardent Buddhist/Christian/Jain/Hindu/Muslim is secular if she/he respects other religions and the right of others to follow religions of their choice.
A committed atheist is secular if he respects the right of others to believe in God and recognizes their right to follow the religion of their choice. I think it is more difficult for an atheist to be secular than it is for a believer.
In my foolish younger days, I had a heated discussion with a rationalist cousin who was ridiculing me ‘cos I was a believer.
‘To agree with you that there is a god is like agreeing that the earth is flat and not round’, he roared.
‘It’s proved that the earth is round’, I retorted, equally loud, ‘ but is it proved there is no God?”
“Is it proved there is one?’ he yelled thrusting his forefinger intimidatingly into my face.
‘Is it proved there isn’t one?’ I too yelled, thrusting my forefinger towards the ceiling. His mother who is my aunt was watching this exchange with considerable interest and disapproval.
Ideologically, she was on my side but blood is thicker, and so she wanted to see her college going son outsmart me who had just joined as a lecturer in the local college. Besides, I was a woman who shouldn’t be arguing loudly and gesticulating in an unladylike manner.
IT IS NOT PROVED THERE IS A GOD, he thundered. My aunt quickly stepped in.
‘Both of you have proved your points’, she said. Probably, she realized that I was in no mood to relent and she didn’t want to see her niece disgrace herself with rising decibel levels and body language that is not conventionally associated with a ‘woman’.
I do not know how valid my argument was, but I do know his argument did not convince me. Probably because even as a toddler I had taken that leap of faith which made me so dependent on the God concept for my existence.
But I am a secular person, cos I respect a person’s right to question the existence of God – as long as he doesn’t thrust his convictions on me (like my cousin did) aggressively.
I got very unpopular with close relatives and friends sometime back when I argued that the there could be truth in the story of Ganapathy statues drinking milk. I don’t normally believe such impossible stories unless I see these things happening. But my journalist niece – a hardcore rationalist – told me she saw it happen. She couldn’t offer any explanation for the way milk disappeared from the bowl when it was held to the trunk of the Ganapathy figure. She was an eyewitness to this.
Till someone offers a scientific explanation for that strange phenomenon, I’ll believe that was a supernatural phenomenon – a miracle just as I believe in the miracles claimed by the Christian religion.
I believe God manifests himself in many forms. I believe every religion is a search for God. I am content being a Christian. This religion that I was born into gives me answers to the existential questions. But I don’t claim that this is the only religion that shows the way in the human quest for God.
And I do not believe in judging other religions.
Believe (or don’t believe) and let believe (or let not believe). That’s my idea of being secular.
This live and let live policy is the basis – the only basis – for secularism.
'And they lived happily ever after'. If only the world was sane! One may believe in God or not, but it is religion that has brought in the greatest strife in the world. No thanks - to Hinduism, to Christianity, Islam and whatever.
ReplyDelete@ balachandran V
ReplyDeleteperfectly understand your sentiments.
Secularism basically meant division of church and state in Europe. The Indian form of secularism (respect to all religions) is absurd because it does interfere with state functions. In this definition the state has to be considerate for religious beliefs. We have too much strife because of it. However, real secularism would strictly prohibit any religious belief influencing the rule of law.
ReplyDeleteA possible definition of a secular person could be, one who does not wish his/her theistic beliefs to influence the state's political and legal setup and process. This is a big joke in India. If we go by this definition, every atheist is a natural secularist. And every Indian atheist has to live with the daily mockery of this humanist idea.
I don't understand what one means by 'respect to all religions'. Frankly, that sounds as if the person is not clear about any doctrines or does not have intellectual capacity to stand by his/her own beliefs. One can be tolerant of all the religions. For an atheist, tolerance, Yes. respect, No.
How a religion is independent of god? Without the religious structure and all the prophets, apostles, priests how one person gets the god's words for all his/her questions? How can a hierarchy be created without a person being closest to the god? Some atheists even argue, if we remove god and all the BS about him and his words (he is a male. Isn't he?) then religious structure can be appreciated for all the camaraderie and the social bonding they bring.
Till someone offers a scientific explanation for that strange phenomenon, I’ll believe that was a supernatural phenomenon– a miracle just as I believe in the miracles claimed by the Christian religion.
I do appreciate that you don't sing the regular theist song 'it's belief so I won't question'. The problem is when it comes to science, the stories part of the religions get a credibility issue. But there have been attempts made to explain few such miracles.
But I am a secular person, cos I respect a person’s right to question the existence of God – as long as he doesn’t thrust his convictions on me (like my cousin did) aggressively.
Proselytizing religions had it easy because they could exploit people's ignorance and fear of unknowns. Atheists will have it tough because they don't have such easy weapons. Aggression by a single atheist? Any person who knows the history will laugh at the usage of that word.
@ manju
ReplyDeleteyes. secularism originally meant separation of religion from the state. but definitions undergo mutation depending on the practice of concepts.
i'm afraid i dont agree with you that ' The Indian form of secularism (respect to all religions) is absurd because it does interfere with state function'. true, there are religious disputes which disturb governance, but our constitution is independent of religions.
i disagree with you here too: 'Frankly, that sounds as if the person is not clear about any doctrines or does not have intellectual capacity to stand by his/her own beliefs. One can be tolerant of all the religions. For an atheist, tolerance, Yes. respect, No.'
respect for other religions spring from the conviction that religions are quests for God/truth, and that perspectives on God are informed by collective temporal experience of each people, and therefore differ from region to region. therefore there is truth in every perpective/religion. truth is subjective. let's not forget that.
'How a religion is independent of god?'i have not claimed this in the post.
the long and short of my post is this: every citizen has the right to follow the religion of his choice, or remain an atheist. by respecting other religions i mean respecting other's right to worship or not to believe.
the long and short of my post is this: every citizen has the right to follow the religion of his choice, or remain an atheist. by respecting other religions i mean respecting other's right to worship or not to believe.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, atheist only questions but never denies that right (for the simple reason that it's not possible).
I suppose in your definition a secular theist;
- Would never indoctrinate his/her children with his/her faith
- Would happily marry person of other faith or an atheist without involving them any religious rituals of his/her faith
A rather curious last line in your post, Kochuthresiamma:
ReplyDelete"the long and short of my post is this: every citizen has the right to follow the religion of his choice, or remain an atheist. by respecting other religions i mean respecting other's right to worship or not to believe."
I'm intrigued by the possibility suggested by your use of'remain an atheist'. Is that the natural state of all children, before they are indoctrinated in the particular religion of their parents? What is the age at which the urge to define a deity shows up? Will an infant in arms do it or will the sense of 'I' kicking in, usually around the start of the terrible two's be the point of realization? Or will it never happen that a deity is imagined, short of exposure by the parents.
All interesting questions, I'm off to look for answers.
Quite a few points in your post and in the comments that can be commented upon. Though it is also sane to restrict to a few lines like Balachandran!
ReplyDeleteIndian secularism is nonsense. It is politically manipulated and dictated. Appeasing the minority community when the appeasement can garner votes. The instances in recent history are many. The O.P Tyagi bill brought during the Janata party government days that proposed restrictions on religious conversions through enticement and luring.
The bill was vehemently opposed by the Church and the Government succumbed.I still remember the huge demonstration the Church organised of its flock in Thrivandrum. The ban on Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” by Rajiv Gandhi government was retarded and appeasement. And again Rajiv Gandhi government taking sides of the obscurantist Muslim mullahs over the court ruling on the ShaBano case. The official grant and subsidy for journey to Haj. What more do you need to see that the secularism here is appeasement?
As for the nonsense of Vinayaka idols drinking milk, please remember only Vinayakas made out of rough granite drank milk, not the ones made out of wood, metal or marble.Starnge behaviour isn’t it?
Belief or otherwise in God has nothing to do with secularism. Do we respect other faiths the way we do our faith, even if one is an atheist, a communist or an agonistic? The lofty claims for secular behaviour and principles will cave in like a pack of cards or a structure without proper and strong foundation, the moment ones son or daughter decides to marry outside ones faith.
Then what is all this talk and argument of lofty secular ideals?
Can we be impassioned in the same intense in all places of worship? If you are a believer in God will you agree that God is one and if he exists necessarily cannot be discriminating, and whether you go to a temple on a Sunday will bring you the same manna as a service in a church?
Sit back and introspect, look in and see if as a Christian, a catholic you will have peace in a protestant church. If you do then you are secular. This is the first test to know your secular credentials.
In simple terms,I understand that you meant freedom of religion,and the tolerance to other religions as the secular attitude.
ReplyDeleteI am Christian.I became so,because I was born in to a Catholic family.This is the situation of most.We haven't read or studied other religions and made a willful choice.Simply for that reason,I don't dare to criticize other religions. But then if you seriously believe in a religion,how come one can take all other religions in to respect?.For Christians there is only truth and one way.Other paths are wrong,they don't get salvation.
I respect the Hindu religion,it is more a way of spirituality than religion.And it doesn't teach anything bad.Honestly I cant respect ALL religions. I simply cannot tolerate any religion which justifies violence for any cause.So,I don't probably fall in to that secular category.
Ultimately,religion is a personal matter.So long as it remains so,it is not of any trouble.If we are really secular,we should not ask one's religion.But here everything is dependent on your religion.Our is not a secular system,it is religious system.
Few more thoughts
ReplyDeleteIn simple terms secularism is not denial or a non belief in God, it is the acceptance of the right to practise any faith, and at the same time and also foremost, respect other faiths.
India is not secular we are politically religious and manipulative.
We are all conditioned from the cradle and are taught that other faiths are hearsay and heretic hence wrong. When that nonsense is taught how will a child grow up with respect for the other?And be secular in outlook?
there is an interesting quote of Bertrand Russell that I love much, " I'm not willing to die for my beliefs , because tomorrow I may be proved wrong".
If only the hardcore fools understand !!!
to begin with, thanks to all for the response. this is an issue close to my heart - the responses give me a chance to sort out things to myself.
ReplyDelete@ anil kurup
your second comment endorses the burden of my post. thanks. however
'Indian secularism is nonsense. It is politically manipulate'
i agree with the 2nd half of your statement. but here i think we've got to separate secularism as envisioned by the architects of our constitution for which i use the term INDIAN SECULARISM, and the way political parties, when they come to power, manipulate the communal sentiments of the people in the name of secularism. the two are different issues.
'Do we respect other faiths the way we do our faith, even if one is an atheist, a communist or an agonistic? '
do we? well i dont know. is it possible? - most certainly yes.
'The lofty claims for secular behaviour and principles will cave in like a pack of cards or a structure without proper and strong foundation, the moment ones son or daughter decides to marry outside ones faith. '
you are generalising. i know many many parents who accept inter religious mariages.times have changed.
'Can we be impassioned in the same intense in all places of worship? '
no, but is that a requirement of secularism? i can speak only for myself. i understand the god concept the way i was taught from infancy and i know that those who follow other religions too relate to God the same way - the way they were taught from childhood. perfectly fair, legitimate and normal.so what's the big deal? my hindu and muslim friends are no less friends or no less acceptable because they are not christians. i am surprised this is discussed at all now. i have grown up with friends of all religions, celebrating and participating in festivals of friends of all religions. can i pray in a temple? yes. i can and i have done it. i join my hands, close my eyes and pray to God the way i was taught to pray from childhood.
i repeat - i believe ( not only i - a lot of people of my generation too) that ALL religions are a search for God, truth and a meaning for this existence. it does not require a himalayan effort to understand that the paths are different, but the goal is the same, and so all paths are to be acknowledges as such, and respected.this mind set comes naturally to us, the post independence generation from the once secular kerala.
shaw makes sense, as did gandhi when he said that human perception of truth changes. well i dont know if i'll die for my belief but i'll stick up for what i believe at the moment to be true. that's being true to myself.
@ dr antony
tolerance and respect are two things. tolerance is suffering something inspite of this and that - - respect is believing in the validity of something which is different from what you believe.
yes, i too am a catholic and there was a time when i too believed that only the church was on the right road to the discovery of God - but i got out of that mindset even before i was out of my teens. i think this is true of most people. as individuals we evolve - we begin to read, think and understand things different from the way we are taught.
i agree with you and go a step further. religion becomes spirtuality/spiritual experience when it becomes personal. ultimately,one has to find one's own way of dealing with the existential questions
Wrong usage of the word "secular" in the article. and most responses here have also repeated the same error. It is true maam, that the word has been used in contemporary English for different semantics however the error has to be recognised not compounded further. I have regular debates with atheists hence this issue is not new for me. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to profess that your being tolerant to other religions does not make you 'secular'. Thats the bottomline. Have a great day!
ReplyDeleteBy the way maam, your explanation of tolerance and respect in this context is also flawed. You need not acknowledge the validity of any doctrine to respect it. You can respect it for its sheer effect on people. Nazism was bollocks but you can't help but respect it for the power effected on its followers. Meanwhile, tolerance need not mean suffering something in spite of something else. Actually it DOES NOT mean that all. It just means that you acknowledge the existence of an entity and you personally allow it to exist. That is as simple a contextual definition as I can think of at the moment. Have a good day.
ReplyDeletei believe ... that ALL religions are a search for God, truth and a meaning for this existence.
ReplyDeleteThe part about god is decidedly wrong. I wonder whether this defense was first used by the Hindus at the onslaught of Christian missionaries. There are too many drawbacks in the caste system that it's easy for Christians and Muslims to attack it. The 'search for god' is a sort of diverting ploy from the factual caste situations to meaningless philosophical ideas. Now the same ploy is used by theists against atheists (same is about 'respect').
I have this notion about Hindutva defense because only especially in Advaita or some Vedanta philosophies the idea of god and truth are merged. It's for the person to realize the god. Here comes the idea of 'search for god'.
In other religions one has to submit himself/herself to the one true god.
But some other religions are either agnostic (like Buddhism) or atheistic (like Jainism).
Maybe there is some truth in 'search for truth and meaning of life'. But I would say, some of the brilliant minds who worked on furthering religious doctrines and the idea of god in the past, would be working as scientists dealing with physics, biology and mathematics. The point I'm making here the present day scientific field is built upon the fields that were attached to religion. Now, the religions are obsolete to understand truth and meaning of life (if we understand much about life then it's a wrong question to begin with ... I certainly don't mean that there is no meaning to life ... it's just a redundant question).
Well, it's certainly impossible for an average person to learn and understand everything that science has explained until now. Religions are certainly easy in that sense. But if somebody agrees with claims of Vedas that it's impossible to learn(or something similar) everything that there is in Vedas in one life , then every Veda believing average person can try to learn what science has to say about truth behind our universe and us. I guess it must be quicker than learning Vedas.
I wrote something overlooking many aspects. As I couldn't go on bringing up each point in between.