Separation of the state from explicit religious affiliation is in my view a good thing
What's not healthy is the promotion of irreligion - whose inevitable end is unbridled materialism and untrammeled growth of the state
What's not healthy is the promotion of irreligion - whose inevitable end is unbridled materialism and untrammeled growth of the state
As a conservative, I am mostly pro-religion
I see it as a bulwark against the enlargement of the state, the dissolution of family, rampant materialism, progressivism and scientism
But I have reservations around the state privileging any single religion
I see it as a bulwark against the enlargement of the state, the dissolution of family, rampant materialism, progressivism and scientism
But I have reservations around the state privileging any single religion
Because what makes religion a bulwark against progressivism / scientism is its embrace of "prejudice" and its variegated forms that differ across geographies and also across social strata
Once you impose homogeneity, religion loses its usefulness
Once you impose homogeneity, religion loses its usefulness
E.g Would I like it if India were to declare itself a "Vedic state" and the PM were to conduct Rajasuya Yajna?
No
Because such a selective championing of an ancient strand of high culture much to the exclusion of later strands, makes the religious superstructure brittle
No
Because such a selective championing of an ancient strand of high culture much to the exclusion of later strands, makes the religious superstructure brittle
What is healthy is for the state to distance itself from explicit religious activity
And to promote diversity in religion.
Provide freedom to religious institutions to run schools, colleges, charities, and yes..temples, with relatively less oversight
And to promote diversity in religion.
Provide freedom to religious institutions to run schools, colleges, charities, and yes..temples, with relatively less oversight
