Support NeoGAF

[NeOak]

Sorry If I'm not adequately explaining my argument.

In countries like Bangladesh, which people in the West considered religious, thus less "progressive" than Western countries. I argue that all cultures participate in forms of symbolic thought and abstract thought, but each framed in different ways, one with Gods and the other with science.

All cultures participate in empirical activities and also symbolic abstract activities, that don't make sense. However in the West the prevailing thought is that Western action is justified with science, empirical or not. So I argue that perception that everything that Western people do is scientifically correct is wrong.

Again instead of trying to change cultures, we should look at the root of the problem (The State structure)

lol wat

No. You have a funny, and fucked up perception of the "west". Really.

And what does culture has to do with a state being secular or not? Your culture doesn't change if the state is secular or not. For example, a lot of the old colonies. In America under the Spanish, the catholic church was the official religion, and the other religions were suppressed with capital punishment. They got their independence and build secular governments. Did they stop being who they were? Did their culture change? Did they stop being Catholic?

No.

Same with the old British colonies. England was catholic, and then changed to Anglicanism. Did their culture change? No.

Did the British try to suppress Buddhism or Islam when they controlled those countries? No. Why? Because they were secular. Did their culture change when the British left? No. They still were the same culture they had been like the day before the British left.

The countries that installed secular governments are doing decently ok. The ones that involved religion? Not so good.

Look how Afghanistan was before the Taliban. Please try to argue that religion as part of their government helped preserve the "culture" of those people. I dare you.

Shit, not even China dared to try to change anything when they got Hong Kong back.

Unlike what is happening in Bangladesh with the minorities. If anything, their "culture" that you seem to argue is something we should leave alone, seems to be a culture of intolerance towards other religions or atheists.

Do you think that if their government turned secular, their culture will change? No. Not at all.

 

[Deserted Maniac Island]

A worldview based on hearsay, fallacious thinking and ancient writings by pre-scientific people is equivalent to the rigorous testing, peer review and predictive power of science...?

What is your 'logical' religious worldview?

You don't go live your life thinking about peer reviewed scientific research, and religious cultures don't participate in cultural acts thinking about religious books and rulings, these ideas are naturalized in a culture. The reason you do things are not strictly empirical and scientific (Economics are a good example of this, completely abstract, and not empirical), you participate in cultural acts that "Don't make sense" as much as religious cultures and peoples.

(I'm not talking about comparing scientific research and religion, but comparing secular and religious culture)

^Dunno about you, but secularism to me comes down to the idea that your religious convictions are your business and yours alone, therefor they should be kept the fuck out of politics which is the business of many.

Again this is a Western idea about the separation of religion and day-to-day life, however, this is why I argue that the idea of a State is the problem in religious cultures, because you can not separate religion from the way people live their life, without major cultural change, and a State requires secularization.

Thus without a State (Country, Borders, Government, Politics) in non Western areas, there is no need for cultural homogenization, and secularization. Applying the Western idea of the State and capitalism is the problem and not the culture.

 

[NeOak]

Again this is a Western idea about the separation of religion and day-to-day life, however, this is why I argue that the idea of a State is the problem in religious cultures, because you can not separate religion from the way people live their life, without major cultural change, and a State requires secularization.

Thus without a State (Country, Borders, Government, Politics) in non Western areas, there is no need for cultural homogenization, and secularization. Applying the Western idea of the State and capitalism is the problem and not the culture.

Are you sure? So without a state, what happens? We have a bunch of warlords trying to control area and people in certain parts of the Middle East. East, not "west".

And in those parts without a secular state, we have people of the same religion killing each other because they are of one sect or the other.

So what should we apply? The old Chinese way of a "God in earth" Emperor? Japan with their Shoguns? Russia with their Czar? The Sharia-law based Islamic State? North Korea's Juche?

Again, you have a fucked up notion of the west.

 

[Kenshin001]

I think the chances of this happening are zero and half the population would go mental if it were seriously proposed as anything but an intellectual exercise. It's also suspicious that the only source of this is right wing media outlets.

 

[esquire]

I really dislike when people use the words like "Modern," because secularization is not "Modern" but a different cultural model. People in "Developed" countries are bounded by scientific thinking, as much as any religious country, because both science and religion are cultural. Sure the ideas of science are universal, but the terminology, and the way people interpret the scientific "facts." For example: Hand sanitizer does not actually help, but people are convinced that it is, because some scientist probably tested this out.

The problem with state and religion, is the state, not the religion. The idea of a state is capitalist and western centered idea, that why it does not work with a lot of cultures.

Sorry If I'm not adequately explaining my argument.

In countries like Bangladesh, which people in the West considered religious, thus less "progressive" than Western countries. I argue that all cultures participate in forms of symbolic thought and abstract thought, but each framed in different ways, one with Gods and the other with science.

All cultures participate in empirical activities and also symbolic abstract activities, that don't make sense. However in the West the prevailing thought is that Western action is justified with science, empirical or not. So I argue that perception that everything that Western people do is scientifically correct is wrong.

Again instead of trying to change cultures, we should look at the root of the problem (The State structure)

"The problem with ______ is ______ not the religion (i.e. Islam is perfect so don't question it)"

and the rest of the stuff this guy is saying are fairly typical Salafist propaganda talking points. The subtle digs at the nation-state concept are a huge red flag too. Salafists believe secular concepts for organizing people like the nation-state are un-Islamic. This is the same ideology Islamic extremist groups like ISIS follow in case that wasn't already clear to you. I'm surprised people who talk like that even exist on NeoGAF.

If he was talking to a more predominantly muslim audience he would extrapolate on his latter points that infer western/secular moral corruption and hypocrisy when they cast judgement on Muslims/Muslim societies.

PS. Deserted Maniac Island, I believe you are deeply confused about the fundamental nature of human beings, but your brainwashing is so thorough that you are already prepared to preach your ideas on a forum like this. It's too late for you so I'll only caution that you think very carefully of the choices you make next.


EDIT:

[Sorry for double post]

Lol (I'm an Atheist!). I'm just trying to apply the Anthropological idea of Cultural Relativism, and not to cast a judgment about a culture relative to the ideas of your own culture. As I have stated in the "Developed" culture the idea of the state works, but does not need to applied to everyplace in the world. We should critique Islam (And I'm a very big critic of Islam myself, because I'm apart of the culture), but the criticism should not come with pushing the idea that Western thought is superior, this is what happened in early Anthropological studies (Calling Africans "savages" because they engage in different cultural practices). The culture of Islam has many maladaptive elements, but what are we going to do about it, wipe it out and replace it with a secular democracy? This is the balance between Cultural Relativism and Ethnocentrism that is hard to achieve.

[I'm sorry if this is coming of as preaching in a forum, I'm just trying to start an interesting argument about questioning the notion of "Progressivism," and I'm done for the day!]

"What I'm trying to argue is that Religion and science (Secular) thought are equal, one is not more logical than the other. The idea of the contemporary State was based on secular government, so when you apply it to religious cultures, the reaction is not that great. So instead of trying to Secularize religious culture, we should reconsider if the whole world needs to be fragmented in states."

Maybe you are intentionally trying to be glib for the sake of argument.

The western world isn't as secular as it might seem on the surface. Some western countries might be a bit more unique than other western states in that they don't have an official state religion but in other western countries, particularly those that have/had a monarchy, the monarch is/was the head of their respective church.

You are painting with too broad a brush in your statements comparing secular and non-secular societies. Context and history are necessary in virtually every example. I'm sorry if I don't have time to go into every detail and explain everything here but I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Good, hope reason wins out.

 

[Deserted Maniac Island]

Are you sure? So without a state, what happens? We have a bunch of warlords trying to control area and people in certain parts of the Middle East. East, not "west".

And in those parts without a secular state, we have people of the same religion killing each other because they are of one sect or the other.

So what should we apply? The old Chinese way of a "God in earth" Emperor? Japan with their Shoguns? Russia with their Czar? The Sharia-law based Islamic State? North Korea's Juche?

Again, you have a fucked up notion of the west.

By West I mean the idea of a Capitalist Secular State with a democracy.

There is no perfect solution to the problem (And most likely there is no solution), but if you look at band, triable, and chief societies, they have a more egalitarian society, than even in a democracy. Yes, there may be wars, but letting the cultural adapt on its own, without being involved in a globalized world, it will have better results.

lol wat

No. You have a funny, and fucked up perception of the "west". Really.

And what does culture has to do with a state being secular or not? Your culture doesn't change if the state is secular or not. For example, a lot of the old colonies. In America under the Spanish, the catholic church was the official religion, and the other religions were suppressed with capital punishment. They got their independence and build secular governments. Did they stop being who they were? Did their culture change? Did they stop being Catholic?

No.

Same with the old British colonies. England was catholic, and then changed to Anglicanism. Did their culture change? No.

Did the British try to suppress Buddhism or Islam when they controlled those countries? No. Why? Because they were secular. Did their culture change when the British left? No. They still were the same culture they had been like the day before the British left.

The countries that installed secular governments are doing decently ok. The ones that involved religion? Not so good.

Look how Afghanistan was before the Taliban. Please try to argue that religion as part of their government helped preserve the "culture" of those people. I dare you.

Shit, not even China dared to try to change anything when they got Hong Kong back.

Unlike what is happening in Bangladesh with the minorities. If anything, their "culture" that you seem to argue is something we should leave alone, seems to be a culture of intolerance towards other religions or atheists.

Do you think that if their government turned secular, their culture will change? No. Not at all.

Ugh ... My whole argument is that a State does not work without secularism (Because the idea of the State structure is a Western idea, and applied to countries in the mideast and Africa as recently as 100 years, or less), but we shouldn't force people into secularization, and revise the idea that whole world needs to be categorized in countries with fixed boarders, with a government that presides over many people, and with capitalist culture. This may work in the West, but it does not work in over cultures, look at the Mideast and Africa.

And don't every dare to say that colonialism didn't try to change cultures! The British called Africans "Savages" because they didn't wear cloths, or didn't conform to the "Better" British culture. And this colonial mindset is still present in contemporary culture, with conceptions of Western thought and culture to be superior to other cultures, and more "advanced" and "progressive."

(Plus, secularization is not acultural [without culture], it is a form of culture, with its own cultural ideas and taboos)

 

[Deserted Maniac Island]

"The problem with ______ is ______ not the religion (i.e. Islam is perfect so don't question it)"

and the rest of the stuff this guy is saying are fairly typical Salafist propaganda talking points. The subtle digs at the nation-state concept are a huge red flag too. Salafists believe secular concepts for organizing people like the nation-state are un-Islamic. This is the same ideology Islamic extremist groups like ISIS follow in case that wasn't already clear to you. I'm surprised people who talk like that even exist on NeoGAF.

If he was talking to a more predominantly muslim audience he would extrapolate on his latter points that infer western/secular moral corruption and hypocrisy when they cast judgement on Muslims/Muslim societies.

PS. Deserted Maniac Island, I believe you are deeply confused about the fundamental nature of human beings, but your brainwashing is so thorough that you are already prepared to preach your ideas on a forum like this. It's too late for you so I'll only caution that you think very carefully of the choices you make next.

[Sorry for double post]

Lol (I'm an Atheist!). I'm just trying to apply the Anthropological idea of Cultural Relativism, and not to cast a judgment about a culture relative to the ideas of your own culture. As I have stated in the "Developed" culture the idea of the state works, but does not need to applied to everyplace in the world. We should critique Islam (And I'm a very big critic of Islam myself, because I'm apart of the culture), but the criticism should not come with pushing the idea that Western thought is superior, this is what happened in early Anthropological studies (Calling Africans "savages" because they engage in different cultural practices). The culture of Islam has many maladaptive elements, but what are we going to do about it, wipe it out and replace it with a secular democracy? This is the balance between Cultural Relativism and Ethnocentrism that is hard to achieve.

[I'm sorry if this is coming of as preaching in a forum, I'm just trying to start an interesting argument about questioning the notion of "Progressivism," and I'm done for the day!]

Edit:

"What I'm trying to argue is that Religion and science (Secular) thought are equal, one is not more logical than the other. The idea of the contemporary State was based on secular government, so when you apply it to religious cultures, the reaction is not that great. So instead of trying to Secularize religious culture, we should reconsider if the whole world needs to be fragmented in states."

Maybe you are intentionally trying to be glib for the sake of argument.

The western world isn't as secular as it might seem on the surface. Some western countries might be a bit more unique than other western states in that they don't have an official state religion but in other western countries, particularly those that have/had a monarchy, the monarch is/was the head of their respective church.

You are painting with too broad a brush in your statements comparing secular and non-secular societies. Context and history are necessary in virtually every example. I'm sorry if I don't have time to go into every detail and explain everything here but I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying.

I completely understand, and your argument is valid, however, when we look at contemporary norms of culture, the historical context is less important. And you are right about secular societies not being completely secular in beliefs, but they are secular in policy. Look at Quebec after the Quite Revolution, people had the opposite reaction to religion and state, making modern-day Quebec very secular in government and policy, and this effects people's perceptions of religion, but people don't think about the historical context but they just live their lives. What I'm trying to convey is that all cultures engage in arbitrary actions, that the respective culture thinks is natural, and "makes sense," and we shouldn't make judgements because their arbitrary shit is different than our arbitrary shit.

I think anthropology tries to get at some kind of universality, with ideas like universal taboos (Incest and murder), that why my argument seems broader (Holistic?).

 

[Ether_Snake]

Sorry If I'm not adequately explaining my argument.

In countries like Bangladesh, which people in the West considered religious, thus less "progressive" than Western countries. I argue that all cultures participate in forms of symbolic thought and abstract thought, but each framed in different ways, one with Gods and the other with science.

All cultures participate in empirical activities and also symbolic abstract activities, that don't make sense. However in the West the prevailing thought is that Western action is justified with science, empirical or not. So I argue that perception that everything that Western people do is scientifically correct is wrong.

Again instead of trying to change cultures, we should look at the root of the problem (The State structure)

People don't wash their hands for symbolic reasons, they wash their hands because they know it has been demonstrated that anti microbial agents can kill bacteria/germs. There is no symbolism in there.

Science is a method use to validate information, something religion doesn't do. Of course science is progressive and religion is not.

 

[Ashes]

the rigorous testing, peer review and predictive power of science...?
?

It would be an interesting thread to see how true this actually is in secular society.

 

[Deserted Maniac Island]

People don't wash their hands for symbolic reasons, they wash their hands because they know it has been demonstrated that anti microbial agents can kill bacteria/germs. There is no symbolism in there.

Science is a method use to validate information, something religion doesn't do. Of course science is progressive and religion is not.

This may be true scientifically, but people in everyday life don't think about how soap kills germs, because you can not see germs and bacteria, that requires an act of abstract thought, a thought that someone out there tested this out and it works, because we as people can not empirically see the results of hand soap, but when we are taught by people that this is a normal act, it complies us more than the scientific basis of the act itself. We are socially taught about hygiene (If you want to know more about this read Mary Douglas' book Purity and Danger), however most of it is completely arbitrary, not entirely based on facts, ideas like eating with your hands vs eating with a fork.

To your second point, you can't disconnect culture and science, or religion and culture. Both types of culture engage in symbolic, arbitrary actions that are very naturalized to the people, that just "make sense." Religious culture engage in empirical actions, as much as a secular scientific culture, and vice-versa. Saying that science is more "Progressive" means that people who don't "understand" science (Most cultures understand the empirical realties of their environment, but not the abstract elements of science, like atoms) are somehow less "progressive" and that is just plainly wrong. We understand the world in terms of degrees development, suggesting a chronological advancement of culture and technology, which is wrong, because all culture is arbitrary, and people's culture really matter to them.

(Btw this is just basic anthropology, if you want to expand on this look up Malinowski. And I'm not trying to make a value judgment of religion or science, that is not my place to say which is worse or better, I'm just looking at the general culture that impacts both points of view.)

 

[Moronwind]

Again this is a Western idea about the separation of religion and day-to-day life, however, this is why I argue that the idea of a State is the problem in religious cultures, because you can not separate religion from the way people live their life, without major cultural change, and a State requires secularization.

Thus without a State (Country, Borders, Government, Politics) in non Western areas, there is no need for cultural homogenization, and secularization. Applying the Western idea of the State and capitalism is the problem and not the culture.

I'm not sure what problem it is you're looking to solve. Are you suggesting secular bloggers would be safer if the tribes and communities were left to their own devices, cause from where I'm standing it looks like the state is often the one thing that stands between the individual and the mob in islamic societies. The individual by the way, is something that really needs to be emphasized here, cause this is not a matter of what "the people" want. In a secular society muslims are basically free live out their faith however they please as long as they don't tread on others (that is, expect others to adhere to their rules), so what's this about separation of religion and day-to-day life? All I'm saying is that religion should be a voluntary activity, the alternative is oppression.

 

[astroturfing]

Not sure this is a good idea tbh. I get the feeling this would embolden extremists if anything.

who gives a shit what extremists think? unless they want to start a decades long civil war or something then yea, maybe best to do as they want.

 

[diamount]

I'll have to wonder how many of these people TRULY would want to live under Islam.

 

[The Albatross]

This process actually began in 2010. Bangladesh was founded as a secular country, but in 1977 Islam was adopted as the official state religion. In 2010, the Bangladeshi supreme court overturned this and made it legal to recognize other religions in public. This is what's considered "secularism" in Bangladesh, which is different from Western views of secularism, which generally means no state sponsor of religion or a separation of church and state. Secularism in Bangladesh is that there can be a state religion, but other religions are permitted.

 

[Deserted Maniac Island]

I'm not sure what problem it is you're looking to solve. Are you suggesting secular bloggers would be safer if the tribes and communities were left to their own devices, cause from where I'm standing it looks like the state is often the one thing that stands between the individual and the mob in islamic societies. The individual by the way, is something that really needs to be emphasized here, cause this is not a matter of what "the people" want. In a secular society muslims are basically free live out their faith however they please as long as they don't tread on others (that is, expect others to adhere to their rules), so what's this about separation of religion and day-to-day life? All I'm saying is that religion should be a voluntary activity, the alternative is oppression.

Well I'm not going to say there is a solution that is perfect. Anyway without infrastructure provided from the government, the internet wouldn't thrive (Small scale societies today don't the internet because they have a different economic model based on subsistence). The way I see it is either we continue expecting cultures to conform to Western secular culture and economics, or we try to take a different approach than a government that tries to represent everyone.

I think we underestimate the power of cultural adaptation in small scale societies (Look at Eating Christmas in the Kalahari by Richard Borshay Lee). Our conception of individual freedom is very different than the rest of the world, tribal (Which should not be taken as a pejorative term) societies are more egalitarian and have personal mobility and freedom (They don't specialized jobs, and don't have the economic need to make a surplus), but they may not have the acceptance of "dissidents" (If you consider tribal societies being authoritarian or having official law). Issues of freedom are not black and white, because essentially the idea of freedom is cultural (And each culture has different ideas of freedom), especially in a globalized world, where ideas are becoming more cross-cultural.

To your point that we should try to achieve governments that represent everyone, that means there has to be cultural norms people conform to, in you case you argue secularization, but this has not worked with islamization of governments (Really has not worked!) nor will it work with secularization. In large scale state societies there is more homogenization of culture (Which can be interpreted as less personal freedom) and cultural change and adaptation takes a long time and can be very dramatic, because there are some many people under the cultural umbrella.

To put it simply, there is no perfect solution. Its a take and give. We're all fucked...

 

[M3d10n]

I'm not sure what problem it is you're looking to solve. Are you suggesting secular bloggers would be safer if the tribes and communities were left to their own devices, cause from where I'm standing it looks like the state is often the one thing that stands between the individual and the mob in islamic societies. The individual by the way, is something that really needs to be emphasized here, cause this is not a matter of what "the people" want. In a secular society muslims are basically free live out their faith however they please as long as they don't tread on others (that is, expect others to adhere to their rules), so what's this about separation of religion and day-to-day life? All I'm saying is that religion should be a voluntary activity, the alternative is oppression.

But what if oppression and treading into is part of one's culture? Then you are the opressor!

/s

 

[Deserted Maniac Island]

But what if oppression and treading into is part of one's culture? Then you are the opressor!

/s

Actually they can be, they are called maladaptive elements of culture. For example highly patriarchal cultures, were women are seen as lesser than men. This is one of the problems you have to face in anthropology, we have to criticize unjust cultural practices, but we can't propose a particular solution.

[Need to bow out of this thread, this the most I've posted in one thread! Sorry...]

 

[Dayner_Kurdi]

would i want it to happen? no, also the chances of happen are very low, and could even take turn even to the worst, a mass protest will happen and another breeding ground to fight the "enamy" of Islam.

Islam has become from a religion to a tool to control the public sadly.

 

[Sapphire Dreams]

would i want it to happen? no, also the chances of happen are very low, and could even take turn even to the worst, a mass protest will happen and another breeding ground to fight the "enamy" of Islam.

Islam has become from a religion to a tool to control the public sadly.

That doesn't mean we should never oppose it though.

 

[Stereogatari]

From what I've seen, Islamists are now far more entrenched in South Asian communities than they are in places like Turkey. The ship has sailed, with regards to peacefully detaching religion from the state at this point in these South Asian states; it would be pure chaos. Minorities would be intensely persecuted, as they would be held responsible by the extremists for the loss of that religion's state status.

That and the fact that Islamists have some weird relationship with the secular military entities in Pakistan and Bangladesh. It almost looks as if the military permits the existence and growth of Islamist communities there.

It's pretty much a living embodiment of this:

 

[cameron]

Case dismissed.

AP: "Bangladesh court rejects removing Islam as state religion"

DHAKA, Bangladesh -- Bangladesh's top court rejected a 28-year-old petition Monday to remove Islam as the official religion of the Muslim-majority South Asian nation.

The decision by the three-judge High Court panel had been widely expected. The court said the 15-member group that filed the petition in 1988 has no legitimacy because it was never registered with authorities.

Government lawyers said the court's rejection means that Islam will remain Bangladesh's official religion, and that equal rights for minority religions guaranteed by the constitution will not be affected.

Aljazeera: "Bangladesh court upholds Islam as religion of the state"

The court ruled that the petitioning organisation, the Committee against Autocracy and Communalism, did not have the right to be heard in the court.

Justice Quazi Reza-Ul Hoque, one of the three judges sitting on the bench, said that the court found that "the petitioner does not have locus standi and that is why the petition will be summarily rejected".

The organisation's lawyer, Subrata Chowdhury, said that he was "100 percent disappointed" with the decision.

"Without a hearing and without giving us any chance to present our argument on the point of locus standi, the court dismissed the case," he told Al Jazeera.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Well. That's that. I could forsee this preventing a lot of backlash and unnecessary violence by those that don't want the change.

It is a Muslim majority country after all.

 

[Count Dookkake]

That's a shame.

 

[Gunslinger]

Adopt cricket instead. Its more popular than anything else.

I know right. As a Bangladeshi I agree. Cricket here is what soccer is to Brazil.

 

[Chola]

I know right. As a Bangladeshi I agree. Cricket here is what soccer is to Brazil.

but brazil wins matches, lol

 

[victreeb3l]

Bangladesh has more important things to tackle than state religion so them upholding it really doesnt mean anything.

but brazil wins matches, lol

Soon! T20 was pretty bad for us. But well get there.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

IIRC, didn't angry religious mobs in Bangladesh murder harmless internet bloggers? I'm pleasantly surprised that they'd consider such a dramatic move.