Respect your valued opinion. Before the moderators pull my ear and hauls me back to the topic, you would have the last word.
Meanwhile my last two cents.
Bangladesh, has after a long struggle with majoritarian religious fundamentalism finally crushed the menace in good measure. Bangladesh continues a laser like focus on any disruptive elements that would thwart its quest for internal stability. Bangladesh does not practice atheism ( though I wish they did) but secularism which is the next best thing. With religion out of the picture the result has been a focus on the economy and social development. Which is why Bangladesh has overtaken its former constituent nation as well as its giant neighbor on all social and economic indices.
Its former constituent is struggling to get out of the vice like grip of religious fundamentalism and terror which has cost it tens of thousands of lives and rendered it bankrupt. Bangladesh's neighbor once a chest thumping self proclaimed champion of "secularism" and tolerance is now going down the path of its western neighbor into chaos and economic decline.
The positive aspects of removing religion from politics are obvious in a scenario of three nations in the same region that have emerged from British colonialism just 73 years back.
How a resurgence of religion corrupts even societies that have had long spells of communism can be seen in the case of Ukraine where a clear Orthodox vs Catholic divide has arisen, with armed conflict in the Donbass.
I rest my case. An atheist environment is the best. A secular environment if implemented in full is an acceptable compromise.
Meanwhile my last two cents.
Will refer you to the only nation in the Indian subcontinent that has a secular implemented constitution.
Bangladesh, has after a long struggle with majoritarian religious fundamentalism finally crushed the menace in good measure. Bangladesh continues a laser like focus on any disruptive elements that would thwart its quest for internal stability. Bangladesh does not practice atheism ( though I wish they did) but secularism which is the next best thing. With religion out of the picture the result has been a focus on the economy and social development. Which is why Bangladesh has overtaken its former constituent nation as well as its giant neighbor on all social and economic indices.
Its former constituent is struggling to get out of the vice like grip of religious fundamentalism and terror which has cost it tens of thousands of lives and rendered it bankrupt. Bangladesh's neighbor once a chest thumping self proclaimed champion of "secularism" and tolerance is now going down the path of its western neighbor into chaos and economic decline.
The positive aspects of removing religion from politics are obvious in a scenario of three nations in the same region that have emerged from British colonialism just 73 years back.
I agree with you that the monarchy that ruled Iran was nothing but a Western puppet, with a brutal regime, just like every other monarchy in the Middle East abd the Muslim world in general. I was referring to the social development. The society, gender equality, and education in the Shah's Iran was a lot different from Saudi Arabia and in my view progressive. The Shah was a Western puppet but he was secular and Iran retained most of its Jewish population even after the creation of Israel.
How a resurgence of religion corrupts even societies that have had long spells of communism can be seen in the case of Ukraine where a clear Orthodox vs Catholic divide has arisen, with armed conflict in the Donbass.
I rest my case. An atheist environment is the best. A secular environment if implemented in full is an acceptable compromise.
