Namaste Namo,
thank you for the post.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
Namo Narayana
Vajra, I would be called unsecular if I did not let a zoroaster or a jew to live in peace.
is this a statement or a question?
i wouldn't call you "unsecular" if you did not let a Jew live in peace, i would call you a bigot.
those things are not the same.
I wouldnt be called unsecular if I check the religious crime and social crime of an evangelist say christian and muslim. as simple as that.
crime has nothing to do with being secular or not, in my view. crime is crime is crime. i would, of course, agree that what a society may choose to call a crime can and is influenced by the various religous and political groups that exist within its national boundaries.
if you recognise Santa dharma, buddha dharma, jain, sikh as different religion.
indeed, this is my view.
I can very well convince that India is supremely secular not to mention zoraostrians and jews. makes sense ?
it would make sense if that is what secular meant, however, that is not what it means. secular does not mean religious tolerance and pluralism, in my view, it means to indicate the lack thereof.
metta,
~v
Meditation brings Wisdom, lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward and what holds you back.
~Buddha Shakyamuni
*******************************
I have gained this from philosophy:
That i do, without being commanded, what others do only through fear of Law.
~Aristotle
Bookmarks