A state wanting to be secular has to 1st ask the Q, are all religions of the same kind, but following would tell us tht Sanatan is not..
1. Unlike most religions, Hinduism doesn't regard concept of god as being central to it .Hinduism does not venerate any particular person as its sole prophet or as its founder.
2. Not recognize particular book as absltly authoritative scripture or sustained by ecclesiastical organisation
3. Hindus refused to accept falsity of either their religion or any other, while the converse was never true wrt to semitic religions.
4. For semitics,religion revolves around truth of its doctrine,while hinduism holds truth & falsity predicates don't apply to human traditions
5. Means Hindus believe there are no false Gods but different deities.
6. However Semitics hold theirs is the true religion, while others are false & God has a plan revealed through their doctrine alone.
7. They claim exclusivity on truth.1st Jews claimed that exclusivity & have not given up, then X'tians.
8. Now youngest of Semitics child Islam claims sole right over truth & willing to fight to enforce their views
"For Hindu followers, the traditions followed by humans is unsettled, they argue that, truth in human traditions doesn't make sense, a westerner might wear trousers and pants, that is his tradition and it doesn't make sense to call this tradition true or false, it need not hold true for all humans for example."
Therefore if one supports conversions, it only means that one is converting from something false to something true.Consequently, the secular state that allows for the possibility of conversion is compelled to choose between the following: (a) both the Hindu traditions and the Semitic religions are epistemic candidates with respect to truth and falsity; or (b) they are not.
The Abrahamic self-description contains a claim of universal truth, which gives rise to acts of proselytisation as duty on the zealots & foot soldiers. The Sanatan/Tradition bound or Pagan view, on the other and, implies that every ‘religion' is a tradition—that is, a specific set of ancestral practices—characterising a human community. These traditions are followed not because they contain some exclusive truth binding the believer to God, but because they bind a community together.
Any attempt at interfering with the tradition of a community from the outside will be seen as illegitimate, since all traditions are part of the human quest for truth.
"Consider the situation in India. Say a citizen x is a Hindu who endorses the pagan claim that all traditions are part of a human quest for truth; while citizens y and z are a Muslim and a Christian respectively, who believe that their religion is the true revelation of (the biblical) God, while all other ‘traditions' are false religions. The value of non-interference is central to the tradition of citizen x and it is unethical for him to allow Muslims and Christians to interfere in the traditions of human communities. Thus, he opposes convrsion. At the same time, the value of proselytisation is central to the religions of citizen y and z."
How can the Indian state be neutral with respect to the attitudes of the citizens x, y and z? Either the state agrees with citizen x that ‘religion' is a human quest, no ‘religion' could be false, and, therefore, bans conversion; or it will have to agree with citizens y and z that religions could be the revelation of (the biblical) God, therefore, some ‘religions' could be false, and thus allow for conversion."
A state that claims to be secular can't treat all of the traditions or faiths on the same platform as that would amount to active discrimination by giving free hand to the aggressor and not protecting the rights of people holding tradition. When a cornered Tradition fights back in defence or anger at being left holding the secularism blabber, State in compulsions of vote banks decry it.
Quotes from a note by VenuG on Bharat Rakshak
No comments:
Post a Comment