Respect your opinion but will disagree.
Religion ( any religion) has no place in politics, revolution, education or day to day government. Confined to personal and community spirituality and moral sustenance religion has a role.
On religious "revolutions".
1. The "Islamic Revolution" in Iran has turned a once modern and progressive country into a regressive society and an international pariah.
2. Until 1980 Afghanistan was a modern secular socialist society with full rights to women and minorities. The deliberate religious manipulation of the Anti-Soviet resistance has left a legacy of social regression that will persist for the foreseeable future.
3. Pakistan when founded was intended to be a secular quasi-socialist state with proposed anti- feudal land reforms and a path toward industrialization. In the late 1950s to mid 1960s it was ahead of South Korea and Singapore both in economic and social indices. It failed when an " Islamic " constitution was incorporated.
4. Somalia, Ethiopia, Egypt have gone the same way. The Central Asian CIS is going the same way with all the Soviet era reforms going down the tube.
5. Once stable Yugoslavia has been ripped asunder when communist era secularism was junked and Greek Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats, and
Bosnian Muslims slaughtered each other.
6. The two significant countries that will go into the dustbin over obsession with religion are Russia and of course India.
Mercifully Chjna seems to have somehow handled the problem of reversion to obscurantism.
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.
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.
Well i have to respectfully disagree with the entire theory.
I don't really care much about what kind of revolution it is that took place in which country, but i don't think any of those case in reality, has anything to do with secularism vs religion debate. This is a fantasy debate that in reality never existed.
After cold war, US had the power of sanction, so any nation that didn't follow US interest, was sanctioned under disguise of protecting democracy. It is about wealth. It has been, all along.
As far as Bangladesh is concerned, the word "secularism" is subjected to debate. Secularism here is more "imposed" rather than "democratically" chosen . Democracy & freedom never goes together.
For last progressiveness is subjected to different point of view. For some country, getting nude in middle of road, making porn video in front of word is barometer of progressiveness.
I would very much like anyone here to prove mathematically that , secularism minus power of controlling flow of wealth has ever made any state successful. Secularism is simply a disguise. As for religion is concerned, it is matter of that particular group what they prefer for them.
