It is a great irony that secularism which rests on a foundation of tolerance is itself very intolerant. Secularism is defined as the ability by adults to make decisions regarding themselves free from overt religious compulsion. The key over here is the ability to make decisions in an environment free from coercion. Most people have religion in mind when they think about coercion but what about cases where someone willingly adopts religious rules and practices and is prevented from doing so by secular authorities? Is this not a case where secularism is being intolerant?
The case in point is the burka ban in France. A tiny minority of French Muslim women wear this garment and yet from the hysteria that it has generated in France, one would get the impression that every single French woman is under imminent threat of being forced to wear the garment. Grand principles were invoked in the debate leading upto and beyond the ban. Yet is not the cardinal principle of secularism mentioned above on which France sets such store being violated? A woman who freely (and this is a key point) wants to wear the burka is forcibly being prevented from doing so. Should not secularism also include the ability of adults to make personal choices free from secular coercion? How can you have one and not the other?
It should be kept in mind that any dispensation, secular or religious, will impose certain restrictions on society. These restrictions are necessary for the smooth functioning of society. Without them, anarchy would reign fairly quickly. Most of these restrictions are common across societies. Certain restrictions are imposed based on particular social circumstances of the societies involved. The real issue is the ability of adults to make informed personal choices on all other matters free from all types of coercion.
No comments:
Post a Comment