Thread by @shrikanth_krish

On this thread

Not being secular ! = persecution of minorities

You can choose not to be a secular state
That doesn't give you the license to persecute people whose identity you dislike

And it's not about "what I get for it"

Certain ethical positions have to be deontological

https://twitter.com/entropied/status/1202513566273814528

And even if one were to take a consequentialist view -

It is never a good idea to maim / hurt people and prevent 10-15% of your population from achieving their creative potential

It is one thing to have a "national" culture that is centered around the mainstream majority religion / mores

All for that

Another thing to have a state where there is physical / economic harm caused to people who may not be close to that mainstream

The latter is not on

Just to take US as an example -

US is not quite a "secular" country. In the sense that the dominant political and religious culture is one that stems from the Judeo-Christian and Anglo-Saxon heritage of the early settlers

(Contd..)

So suppose a Hindu immigrant is outside of that pale (both in terms of his religious, moral outlook and racial identity), I don't expect a "cultural connect" for him in US

One has to meet the local culture halfway if he has to partake in its public life

(Contd..)

But as a private citizen, he is free to practice his distinctive religion and adhere to his cultural norms, and pursue his economic interests in a country which is unapologetically Christian / Anglo Saxon in its roots

That's how the model should be