On secularism.

A definition of secularism is as follows:

"1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
3. a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations" (www.dictionary.com)
Secularism in no way allows different ideologies to exist peacefully together. All it does is to separate religion from civil affairs or rejects religious considerations all together. This may result in peaceful coexistence, or it may not. There are too many examples of countries where it has resulted in the positive and too many in which it has resulted in the negative.

Iraq was a very secular country under Saddam, yet so many communitities were targeted - specifically Shias. Turkey is a fanatically secular country, yet a Kurdish lady was put in jail for eight years, for using a line of Kurdish in the Assembly. Turkey continously kills Kurds. Pakistan was quite secular under Ayub etc., but look at what happened in 71. Most of the colonialism and the WWs was done and fought by secular states.

In fact, far far more violence. human rights violations, slavery etc. has occured in the 20th century by secular forces than non-secular forces. This is a fact, with statistical evidence. And thus cannot be denied.

This, of course, does not mean secularism is bad. It just means that it is incorrect to automatically equate it with humanism or goodness, as a political concept. In fact, by doing so, you are doing the same thing that religionists do, i.e. taking a social concept, and equating it with a utopian solution.

I really don't think secularism as we see it today will last too long. Secularism, as we see it today, is a very new concept (barely a few centuries old), with its foundations in a European interpretation of Christianity, and its separation from the State. It has become popular, amongst a select group, due to the economic and social progress made by European countries. People tend to equate that progress directly with secularism. When, in fact, many other factors were involved, like democarcy, distrubution of power, literacy rates, free market economy, end of monarchies, an exhaustion with massive wars, industrial revolution, discovery of new lands, colonization and exploitation of non-European peoples, etc.

Even today, no country is purely secular. There is religion in their laws. This is now reaching a critical point due to the debates around gay marriage. These debates will spread to polygamy, and other forms of unions. And will alter the socieites completely. Either people will move back towards religion as in the USA. Or they will move towards athiesm, as in Europe.

I have always felt that it is only possible to have pure secularism in an athiest society. For example, how many individuals with secular concepts, in Pakistan, are willing to support gay marriages. Marriage is purely a religious concept, and in a secular society, the state should have nothing to do with it. There are, after all, more gays in Pakistan, than Ahmedis. Why not fight for gay rights also? Do you support gay marriages?

Within the Pakistani society, secularism and religion are heavily politicized. People use them to hide their faults. An MMA leader will push religion to hide his shortcomings. And BB will push herself as the crusader of secularism, to hide her corruption scandals, as well as the other faults in her party.

If this is not the politicization of religion and secularism, then what exactly is it?