Now Secularism is the threat!!

nothing wrong with a religious discussion so long as it is civil. i've learned a lot on QL.

different ID and abusing Dr. Naik.

in secular country religious freedom is abundant. why because the goverment gives freedom to choose which religion he/she likes. goverment never pay much attention about the concept of a particular religion whether it is true or false. it is up to the people to find and choose.(free will)

Another good thing is you can become informed about the religion of others thus learning understanding, tolerance and respect.

If your beliefs are strong then you will be happy to go to other places of worship.

On holiday this year in India a couple took me to a Hindu temple and explained the offering they were giving.

Also I had lunch in a Sheikh temple.

Both experiences were great :)

Not suitable for comments.

haters and liars

oryx this is part of a prophecy that time will come that nobody can remember God's name and nobody will ever think of being a religious, we see it today in our time some of its presence now.not an insult...and you are right there are freedom of choice to practice your faith in secular country, i aggree on that. but as i percieved secularism will prevail in the very long future.

I agree, Oryx. Secular countries (USA, UK etc) exhibit far more religous tolerance and diversity than theocratic ones, like Saudi Arabia.

Zakir Naik seems to just go around the world telling everyone why they should hate people who are different. He seems to preach thinly veiled hate and intolerance, and is himself every bit as intolerant as those he seeks to condemn.

The world needs fewer people in than world like this if we want to live peacefully.

while he was here in Doha

Thats a big insult to all those who practice their religion in a secular country.

In fact in a secular country there is the opportunity to practice and explore your beliefs more as you are free from persecution.

There is lots of religion in secular countries you are wrong on that score.

in secularism the people(congress/senate)are the one to create the law base on the necessity of that law. even this law go against the law of God.

secular law might prevail in the future .

people will forget GOd. not knowing His name. time will come when all inhabitants of earth will be disbelievers of God probably secularist/athiest/scientist.

they will creat synthetic life( just started recently). no battle/debate about religion because there will be no religion at all except science.

religious education is part of the national curriculum. it is far more evident in rural area which have less choice for parents and children. i'm not saying the UK is a devout country but to call it truly secular when bishops have voting rights in parliament, christian holidays are national holidays and the head of state is also the head of the church is over the top.

How does religion influence education in the UK?

You can go to a religious school if you want to, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish......but all schools must meet certain standards.... seems pretty fair to me.

My school was multi-faith I can't remember any one religious dogma presiding over the school....but then again it was quite a few years ago ;)

zakir naik QUOTE:

If you analyse Christianity you will find that the product is zero, but the marketing is 100 per cent. In Islam, the product is 100 but the marketing is zero. If you analyse them, they do a lot of research, but their product [continues to be] zero. We have to improve our marketing skills.

UNQUOTE

mr zakir, you have got your facts wrong...WHAT product do you have??... ZILCH is the answer

Dr. Zakir Naik, continues to “effectively” evade debate invitations of legendary Christian apologists such as Sam Shamoun, James White, David Wood, etc... i am not surprised..lol... you need to have something of essence in your hand, mr naik.

In fact, did you know that, Dr. Zakir Naik has been now banned in many different places and has over twenty fatwas from other Muslims...why? Among many reasons, one reason being that this monkey is an ardent supporter of Al Qaeda, propagating violence against the 'infidels'

Noted cleric Kalbe Jawwad tells: “Naik is bringing a bad name to Muslims. Such people should be condemned and socially boycotted.” He said Naik was being financed by the Wahabi sect that allegedly perpetrates violence in the name of religion.

“Naik has just mugged up some verses from the Koran and pretends to be an Islamic scholar,” Lucknow’s Naib Imam Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahali says.

don't let the religion to rule you, you better rule . . .

neyo . . . what does that have to do with this?

strange . . . by constitution, yes. by practice . . . ask all the persecuted religious minorities who are are beaten, raped and killed in front of the state authorities, particularly in the rural areas. and i am not bashing india, just making the point. india is lovely country and have always enjoyed my visits and the hospitality i have been shown.

You don't need to market/advertise your religion all the time, let the people to see what you have,?

Isn't India a successful secular country?

yeah, that's what it seems to me,

but most countries in europe are NOT secular by your definition. france, yes. germany--depends on the state. Ireland, Spain, Poland and Italy definitely not. UK, Scandinavia, sort of but they have state religions that influence education and whose leaders have voting rights in their legislatures.

If you define successful by giving freedom to practice any religion you choose free from persecution then you have most of Europe.

lax in their practice of christianity and tolerant of other religions, but not secular.

I thought norway was secular? Oh man I am confused now.

still waiting for an example of a successful secular state winn or anyone else. define successful any way you want.

religion was not banned in either nazi germany or russia, only priests and christians who spoke out against the regimes.

norway has a state church: evangelical lutheran church of norway, which receives state funds and the king of norway is its head. the church is involved in health care and state funded schools.

Not really because secularism respects religious diversity and protects citizens right to worship and practice their religion. In a multi religious country it stops one religious group having influence over the legal system and thus effecting other religious groups.

Enva Hoxha in Albania was originally Muslim - when he became communist and took over he banned religion and demolished places of worship. No respect for human right to believe and have faith and show it.

Result is not the same scotia. In a secular state, te result is that everyone is free to follow his own religion and worship. In Stalin's and Mao's regimes no religion ws allowed.

Scotia: Guess you did not read the definition I posted above.

To say Stalin did not mix politics with religion is understatement; he was against allowing religions and worship to exist. That comes nowhere under the definition of secularism.

Saddam's failure doesnt have anything to do with secularism. No where it is said that secularism will stop a country from collapsing even if they make mistakes in every other field.

yes oryx, but the effect is the same, religion having no role in politics is the result, policies made not influenced by religion, this is the whole point behind separating state from religion.

ok winn. then what's your example of a successful secular state? the nazis did not impose a state religion and neither did stalin. plenty of christians and and russian orthodox were part of both and plenty were not.

norway

But with Stalin et al there was NO RELIGION so they weren't separated they were banned....

Papa - depends what you define as successful I guess

Stalin is secular, no question about it, if the religion is not mixed with politics it is secular, most eastern euro nations are also examples of failures secular nation. Even Iraq was a secular nation. Under saddam people can eat publicly during ramadan and alcohol was freely available, none of his policies influenced by religion.

Edited.

Scotia: I would put it this way: "to claim islam is bad because of a few bad apples is same as claiming secularism is bad coz of Mao n Stalin (whom you percieve to be secular). At least the bad apples claimed to be muslim. Stalin and Mao didnot go anwhere near secularism.

So called secularist regimes became unsuccessful only when people failed its ideals and they stopped being secular. The success or failure of an idea doesnt decide its worth, it only shows how well it was implemented.

Imagine how the preacher here would have done his sermons if his host countries werent secular.

Exactly Stalin - Mao etc were not secular cos they banned religion

Communist = No religion

Papa: "the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief."

The word was first used in 1851 by George Holyoake to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief.

(www.answers.com)

ok educate me - where is secularism unsuccessful?

Cos i was going thru a list of Latin American countries to see which ones are secular or not thinking about this

I am not blaming anybody, just saying that to claim islam is bad because of a few bad apples is the same as claiming secularism is always successful.

Easy peasy

Secularism is when you separate church and state

With Stalin et al. there is no church just state so isn't secular

so give us your def of secularism then . . .

Scotia: Well, jus coz Hitler 'claimed' to be secular can you blame secularism? That would be as silly as blaming whole of a faith coz of a few bad eggs, no?

Also, Stalin and Mao werent secular , they were against any kind of religion at all. Jus coz they dont follow any faith doesnt mean they were secular.

verisi: I have read the whole interview. No other mentions on secularism. Wish you could share your analysis.

@kavkish agreed.

worst crimes against humanity last century were committed by men with secular ideology--Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and such. but then before that it was mostly about religion. some people just like an excuse to kill and too many people sit quiet and let them do it.

Discussion on religion always leads to arguements.

Letz respect each others religion and move forward in life...

Joseph Stalin was once a seminarian.

try to analyze the whole piece

Well Stalin, hitler, and many more evil men were secular...