| Revision as of 23:42, 12 October 2006 editHornplease (talk | contribs)9,260 edits →Newspaper thing: reply.← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:57, 12 October 2006 edit undoHornplease (talk | contribs)9,260 edits replyNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :::I want a source that calls the Hindu pseudo-secular. Otherwise it's, if nothing else, OR. ] | :::I want a source that calls the Hindu pseudo-secular. Otherwise it's, if nothing else, OR. ] | ||
| :::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.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 23:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No it wouldnt. Please read ], in particular . ] 23:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:57, 12 October 2006
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).
Newspaper thing
- 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 . Hornplease 23:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)