When atheists and secularists want to play God

In India, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, a state in south India, said that Lord Ram, a god in the Hindu pantheon, did not exist. The chief minister M. Karunanidhi heads the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) which has strong atheist underpinnings.

Karunanidhi was reacting to Hindus, the majority community in India, who are opposed to a canal that could damage Adam’s Bridge or Ram Setu between India and Sri Lanka.

The Hindus, quoting from a Sanskrit epic called the Ramayana, believe the bridge, which consists of a chain of limestone shoals, was built by supporters of Lord Ram to reach Sri Lanka, and rescue his abducted wife Sita from the asura king, Ravana.

Where is it said that this Ram was an architect, asked Karunanidhi who described the bridge as “natural” rather than man-made. Protests by agitated Hindus led to the burning of a bus killing two persons.

Move over to the UK. A Hindu woman working at Heathrow Airport, for caterers Eurest, was dismissed for wearing a nose stud, which she said was a mark of her Hindu faith, reports the BBC.

Last year, another Heathrow worker Nadia Eweida was suspended by British Airways for wearing a Christian cross, but later reinstated following condemnation by clerics and politicians, according to the BBC.

These moves violate people’s right to practice their faith. A nose ring or a cross can in no way be considered offensive.

Secularists are getting mixed up between secularism, which means that religion should not interfere in state matters, and the right of human beings to believe in what they want, and wear the symbols of their religious identity.

Last year, the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the wearing of full face veils, called the niqab, by Muslim women was a " a mark of separation and that is why it makes other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable," according to the International Herald Tribune and other newspapers.

Blair was closing ranks with Jack Straw, the leader of the House of Commons, who earlier in the month said he did not believe women should wear the full-face veil.

Earlier, the French parliament passed a law in March, 2004 that bans the wearing of religious symbols, such as the Islamic veil, and large Christian crosses in schools.

Secularists have expressed their opposition to the niqab as a sign of the oppression of women in Muslim society, but a number of Muslim women have said that it is an expersssion of their identity. Which should serve as a reminder that other religious communities and cultures should not be always judged by Western standards.

These remarks and rules also demonstrate that atheists and secularists can at times be as intolerant of other people’s views as fundamentalists and fascists.

To be sure, the secularists and progressive Muslims are within their rights to push for change, but not by law, expuslions, and public pronouncements by officials of the state. That goes against another prized Western tenet – the separation of the State and religion.


Related Articles:

Ram Setu: the importance of religious symbols

Ram Setu: the importance of religious symbols

It is a “chain of limestone shoals” between India and Sri Lanka, variously called Adam’s Bridge, Ram Bridge, and Ram Setu. To the Hindus it is the bridge built by Lord Ram’s supporters in the Ramayana.

It is currently agitating Indians to extreme lengths, that some are questioning whether the epic Ramayana was actually a record of historic events. Even TV channels in India are plunging into what should have been, if at all, a debate by religious scholars and historians.

The immediate cause of this crisis is that the Indian government has has approved a multi-million dollar Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project that aims to create a ship channel across the Palk Strait between India and Sri Lanka.

The debate about the historical accuracy of the Ramayana and Ram Setu, I think misses the point. Any religion has its sacred spots that come from a set of beliefs. These spots provide the points of reference to that religion, and are a part of the iconography of a religion. For centuries the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, which stands on the spot where Christian believe Jesus was born in a manger, has been a source of inspiration and piety for millions of Christians worldwide.

So why not the Ram Setu ?

The separation of state from religion requires that religion should not interfere with the way a country is run, but does not require you to deny religion. For many communities, including communities in India, their religion describes their worldview, prescribes certain behavior, and proscribes others. So religion is about building communities, about promoting social stability through a set of rules of conduct.

The dangers come when a religion assumes a certain exclusivity that is believed to be derived from God, and gets intolerant of other religions. Every religion has gone through these phases in India and abroad. The Spanish Inquisition from 1478 was born out of this intolerance, and so is a lot of Islamic fundamentalism.

The demand that Ram Setu be protected is not a reflection of intolerance. It is a demand from a religious community that the government preserve a place that it considers sacred. That parties like the Bhartiya Janata Party (known to have some intolerant people in their ranks), have espoused this cause, does not make the demand per se intolerant.

To be sure, there are development objectives to be met. The channel will cut down shipping time, as many ships will no longer have to go around Sri Lanka, to traverse between the east and west of India. Sure, there may be room for compromise, but whatever scope was there may have already been snuffed by intemperate comments about the Ramayana.