Talk:Pseudo-secularism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Pseudo-secularism in India

In my view, some information seems subjective. For example, the statement about Hindu religious songs/prayers being allowed in general schools is misleading. General schools do not have religious songs - the prayers are mostly based on (1) ethical poetry and do not refer to any god of any religion or (2) nationalistic songs like Vande Mataram or Jana Gana Mana. However it would help if someone can provide more accurate information and references. Thank you. Rohitbd 14:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

States non involvement with religion (A reference to the dictionary for the exact meaning of the word 'secularism' may be essential if the reader is an Indian as the word is often misunderstood in India) to my mind would go hand in hand with the right of people to profess/propagate religous thought. The state should not be for or against the religious faiths. Therefore no anti religion book, movie etc should be banned by the government because it is not the state's business to come out in the support of any religion. The state's role is to only ensure that the right to express religious views is upheld without threats of violence/fear by groups of opposing interests. Banning of books/movies by the state for fear of public violence can be resorted to but it would then imply an admission of failure of the civil machinery to maintain law and order and protect individuals and groups from expressing themselves - which is their right. A citizen of a secular state is as much within his rights to critisize any/all reigions as propagating the same. The state is no one to bat for the religious conservatives. In a secular state, the right to express/propagate religous views automatically includes right to criticise religious thought. (Blasphemy against any religion cannot be illegal in a true secular state).

[edit] Newspaper thing

[1] - As close as I have come to backing nids assertion as of right now.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hornplease, for what do you want a source?? Do you doubt that "The Hindu" backed Hussain when he painted the goddesses nude?? Or do you think that this behavious is secualr and you want a source which says that this is the behavious which is exactly called pseudo-secular.--nids(♂) 08:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I want a source that calls the Hindu pseudo-secular. Otherwise it's, if nothing else, OR. Hornplease
Except that proving the Hindu backed up Hussain (which I'm looking for) while giving the documented reaction on the Moh'd cartoons would obviously verify double standards, which would not be OR.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
No it wouldnt. Please read WP:OR, in particular [2]. Hornplease 23:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah but that was before the RSS Gujarat quote calling it pseudo-secular. Point C is verified as well from the RSS and from mainstream publications like the pioneer [3] (kept it until pioneer article is found). Perhaps newspapers should be removed and title changed to "M.F. Hussain vis-avis Muhammad Cartoons" or something.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Not if you dont want a long disquisition on the dissimilarites between the cases. Best not to drag it in. If you keep this article free of partisan wrangling, that will be a job well done. Hornplease 00:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct in the dissimilarities. Mf Hussain insulted Deities while the cartoon merely insulted a dead person. The only diference was that Hindus reacted in a civilized manner. Its even worse than I stated before.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Possibly. Others might have other views; I have heard Khajuraho and what not quoted in this context. I myself have no opinion. But does it belong on this page? It's clearly a synthesis that falls under WP:OR. If nothing else, all other cases discuss state policy. reHornplease 00:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes Khajuraho. The outside of the temple is actually a set of guidelines ("illustrated" if you get my drift) of what not to do. the inside sanctum is free of pornographic nonsense. Bakaman Bakatalk 00:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
That sound you hear is me not caring. The point is that there are arguments made on bith sides, and if you include one you have to include the other, made by about as many people. So the page should be kept free of, as I said, partisan wrangling. Finally, please note that my remarks about syntheses and state policy still stand. Hornplease 00:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
So hornplease, what kind of a source do you want. Where The Hindu says that it has behaved in a pseudo-secualrist manner. Gr8.nids(♂) 07:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The only sound I hear is Akon. Since you obviously have reasons against calling "secular" newspapers Psec I guess us non Psec will just have to disregard your POV like we did on Category:Hindu politicians. Nids, there's no point in arguing with a secular, see what Mani Shankar Aiyar says.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It is very clear what I am saying. Unless you have a Reliable source saying that it is a major problem that newpapers are pseudosecular, you cannot have it here. Putting two things together like was done earlier is a specific violation of WP:OR, especially the synthesis section I referred you to. In any case, newspapers do not belong here - every single other example is of state policies. This isnt a generalised list of hypocrites. Hornplease 21:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Will it be fine for you if we just report this incident and call it secular.nids(♂) 22:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is fine in Pseudo-secularism except the destruction of all things Hindu.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. I am not sure what that is supposed to imply, Baka, but I assume it was directed at me. Whatever. Nidhish, thank you for listening. I dont think that the incident can be reported on this page. It doesnt fit in with the rest of the examples, for one; all the others are about biased state policy. It doesnt have citations as being discussed sufficiently elsewhere.
If you want to start an article on the Hussain controversy, go ahead. It might belong in the discussion there. Hornplease 08:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you arguing that this behaviour is not Pseudo-secularist?? I dont see any other scenario in which you can say that this incident can not be reported on this page.--nids(♂) 15:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasmaking a comment on Secularism as a whole. Bakaman Bakatalk 17:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Nidhish, I am arguing that pseudosecularism is properly applied as a criticism to government policy, as it is everywhere on this page. Also, it just isnt cited or non-OR enough, as I also pointed out. Hornplease 22:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
We have specifically pointed out incidents through which it is clearly inferrable that "The Hindu" acted in pseudo-secularist manner. Do you agree?? What i could collect from your comments is that you want a source which specifically says that the way in which "The Hindu" behaved is called pseudo-secularism. (i.e. it is not enough to source 2+2 and equate it to 4. we will now have to find a source that says the complete equation 2+2=4.)--nids(♂) 22:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


I dont want to say whether I think this instance is sufficient to say that the Hindu acted in a particular manner. It is true that I think you need a reference that states "many people frequently accuse newspapers in India, especially the Hindu, of being very pseudosecular".
I also think you are missing the point that the article focuses only on governments. There is a reason for this. Governments are bound to secularism. No individual or newspaper is similarly bound; there is no law stopping them from being hypocrites. So it isnt really that encyclopaedic; the article isnt a list of hypocrites. Hornplease

[edit] India

The previous version described the term pseudo-secularism as if it was a listing of facts. However, it fails to take into consideration that the term is used as a political smear word in Indian politics. My wordings deal with how the term is used in the Indian context. The chapter could be expanded, but the former version should not stay (especially the 'media' section is hilarious). --Soman 10:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germany

So what are the two Christian groups? Lutheranism and Catholicism (e.g., from Bavaria)? Inquiring minds want to know. Ggugvunt 19:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"The so-called Landeskirchen (regional churches) -- Lutheran and Reformed, or a union of the two -- raise almost all their income through the church tax. The Roman Catholics are also supported by state taxes. The government in effect passes the plate for the church and is paid by the church for its services."--Editor2020 (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] india / communal

Can we have a contextual definition & link for "communal" in the section on India? I'm loath to attempt one, myself, but there needs to be some additional information here. --Lquilter (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)