Re: Sanjeev's allergy to the word 'socialism'

[Charu datt <charu@ix.netcom.com>]

Indranil DasGupta wrote:

> Also, we ought to take out the word "secular" which by definition
> connotes an "irreligious" state, and instead put in language found for
> example in the U.S. constitution concerning the doctrine of separation
> of church and state.

I still don't see what's wrong with "secular".Can you elaborate on why you
think
non-religious or "irreligious" is a bad thing?

I think the US "separation of church and state" is a reference to european
monarchies where the church had considerable political power, and the
authority
to make laws and levy taxes. The monarch was also sometimes the head of the
state church [as with the church of england], or the monarch owed some kind
of
allegiance to the pope.

IMO, a secular state simply describes a state that does not derive any of
its governing principles from religion. In India, organized religion has
never
had power on the scale comparable to Europe or the Islamic world so I don't
see
why we should be applying remedies to problems we never had.

-Charu


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------