The above post will help your clarify some of doubts, I believe.
Indian secularism debates ( taking some or another stance wrt religion is a
private affair) is an instance of the the process of secularization of an
empirical religion which Christianity is. Religion does not depend upon any
antecedents (for instance, the rationality of John Horgan while ditching
Buddhism). However, when it exists among human beings, it is constrained.
Secularization is a process that tries to get rid of many such constraints.
We also need to distinguish the secularization of *the* religion and that of
*a* religion as well to understand whats going on.
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:05 PM, indigenous1985 <indigenous1985@...>wrote:
> --- In TheHeathenInHisBlindness@yahoogroups.com, vnr1995 <vnr1995@...>
> > Anyway, just adding a link to Balu's posting to not let this thread hang
> in mid-air.
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenInHisBlindness/message/1535
> Reviving this thread to better understand some of the stuff from the link.
> It says:
> "However, when these elements from a Christian world view migrate to
> non-religious cultures, then such elements cease being parts of a
> world view (because such a world view is not present in the other
> culture). Instead they now belong to certain domain theories, each of
> which is a partial description of a slice of the world."
> What exactly is a domain theory? Wiki says it is something to do with math
> but I don't think this is what is meant here. Does it mean things like
> sociology, psychology etc.?
> "`Secular' thinking people in the West (freethinkers, atheists, etc)
> believe that they have a world view. When pressed to say what it is,
> they come up with claims from several domain theories (like, say, the
> need for secularism and religious toleration). We can understand the
> situation now. Religion can also be described as a world view. These
> claims make some `deep' sense because they are parts of the world view
> (only because of that do they make sense). However, these `secular'
> people think that they are not religious. Therefore, they cannot
> identify their world view (religion under another description; they
> are not believers and therefore�). Thus, they come up with claims that
> appear to belong to domain theories (`all human beings are equal').
> When you draw their attention to this fact, they are both convinced
> that such claims belong to their world views and yet they cannot
> refute the fact that such claims belong to partial descriptions of
> slices of the world. Hence the unease."
> What is the problem with "partial descriptions of slices of the world." Is
> it that it is not a comprehensive world view?
> Still further:
> "In order to build a theory about world views, we first need to come to
> grips with the process of secularization of Christianity in the West. That
> is what we are working on. At the moment, we have a richer
> understanding of this process than I had when I wrote `The Heathen..'.
> We are now able identify, for instance, that religious violence is a
> necessary component of the process of secularisation;"
> What bearing would this have in the Indian context? Also, this cannot be
> used as an argument against secularism in general because religious violence
> would probably be worse without secularism.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]