Secularism: the other extreme? The debate is raging on ET about what should be the contours of a state: Secular or Divine?

Many of the westernized-brains are in favor of a religion-less state, or may I dare say, a God-less state. I said westernized because secularism is one of the three pillars of the modern, rather postmodern West; the other two being Humanism and Liberalism. Regarded as panacea by some, but pandemic by others, Secularism has been defined as a state without religion, and this paradigm is touted as a solution to religious intolerance, and also as a benchmark of impartiality. The whole theory is based on one overwhelming assumption: Religion is a private matter and should have no say in the socio-political affairs, albeit secular-model is not against any religion per se. But the tall claims that Secularism makes about being a savior-system and of impartiality should first be put to the test of logic, as should be done while discerning any other model. The base of secularist ideals is actually Humanism. The word humanism opposes inclination to God and religion. Its famous meaning is anthropocentrism. That is, man has to think of himself, his pleasure, enjoyment and comfort, there being a god or an angel is not his concern. So, religion is a marginal issue, and not a way of life. If those who want to worship God go to the house of worship like a poet who recites a poem and supplicates to his God, it is no ones business. The secularists are concerned with which law should rule over society; what kind of an economic and political system should be instituted. Religion should not be allowed to interfere in this domain. This is the first point of departure between Secularism and religion which states that the pivot is God and that all thoughts must revolve around the concept of God. From this, it can be subtly inferred that the claim of Secularism that its not against any religion is self-contradictory: After marginalizing the status of religion to a mere private concern away from public domain, how can it claim not be confronting any? Secularism might not be against any particular religious-brand, but it certainly is against them all, as it is restricting the scope of religion as a whole. As long as the religion does not intrude into the society, secularists have no problems with it, but what objective-criteria do they have to advocate that religion is a private matter, and why should the religious clan accept the secularist-definition of religion? If no one should be allowed to impose his definition of religion on others, then what right a secularist has to impose his? What benchmark of right and wrong does secularism follow to govern a society? And by what logic should this interpretation of it be allowed to supersede the other philosophies that are not in sync with it? From this argument it can thus be stated that secularism is not an impartial system because the claim that the state should have no particular ideology is an ideology in itself, which puts secular-model in line with other state-models (religious or otherwise), and certainly not on the pedestal. It is just like any other self-righteous belief.

Fact is that by throwing the religion out of society, Secularism (based on Humanism) has posed a colossal danger to it by creating a sheer imbalance between mans temporal and spiritual dimensions. Religion and spirituality is an undeniable necessity of mankind, same as his material needs are. Society needs a system that can strike this critical balance. Inclination to any extreme shall lead us to an inevitable doom. If state-laws are based purely on mans desires (anthropocentrism), no matter how selfish or corrupt they might be, then its not hard to guess what impact it will have on the rest of society. Free-will is not always the right-will. Secularism as a solution to religious intolerance creates far more predicaments for the humankind than it can solve. The solution of intolerance is in the hands of intelligentsia, who have the power of critical thinking, to stand firm and counter the deluge of fanatic ideologies of any extreme--religious or secular. Throwing religion out of the window is not the solution because for society spiritual-side is as important as the material one. Had materialism been enough for peace of mind, then U.S, worlds top-secular state, wouldnt have problems akin to this, reported by Washington Post, Tuesday, June 7, 2005:
One-quarter of all Americans met the criteria for having a mental illness within the past year, and fully a quarter of those had a "serious" disorder that significantly disrupted their ability to function day to day, according to the largest and most detailed survey of the nation's mental health, published yesterday

Author: Syed M Haider Rizvi Student, Chartered Accountancy