a flawed State?

Rama, among the grandest of religious icons, unfortunately,
merely reduced to the biggest of all misused religio-political icons
in the contemporary Indian politics

I think about the ideology of any nation state being based solely on people belonging to a single religion (Pakistan being a Muslim nation; the RSS's 'noble' and 'pure' dream of the 'Hindu Rashtra', to name a neighboring few) as essentially flawed, as even though at an unconscious level, it looks very much rooted in religious intolerance, and as a natural byproduct fosters extremism too. It directly seems to imply that people from different religions worshiping different gods cannot coexist peacefully and be part of a composite society, even at this point of human civilization (from a historical prespective), and that, for a creation and sustainence of a peaceful and socially coherent political entity, people should essentially belong to the same religion worshiping the same gods (or, Gods, if you wish so) as used to happen millenniums ago...

This ideology is either prejudiced in its thinking that social bonds between people 'should' and can 'only' be based on 'religious-brotherhood' bonds (hmm! breeding ground for intolerance, leading to extremism there), or it underestimates the social cohesion between people based on the implicit racial bonding (of the homo sapiens race, I mean; each species is hard-wired similarly), or is a leftover remnant of the days when the Church used to have a supreme power over the State. Whatever may be the case, the growth of human civilization over times is gradually rendering this ideology, which may have been once the most important tool for political and societal cohesion, redundant in the current world scenario. Also, not to mention the threat this ideology poses to the current world peace and further 'growth' of the civilization, if peaceful coexistence and tolerance between varying world religious communities (and 'races' too, I must add) can be defined as one of the comparative yardsticks!

I won't go on commenting with certainty but I am beginning to notice that the roots of all 'religious extremism' based terrorism worldwide, can be traced back to the 'source' nations that are either a nonsecular state, or which politically implicitly endorse a specific religious body or creed. Correlation or causation?

What ever may be the case, all this is does goes into making me a very firm believer in the disestablishment process, marking a clear-cut separation of Church from the State, and the people having a freedom of religion, or freedom from religion altogether (if I may add so) as their fundamental right, as granted and fiercely protected by the state...

This major and important socio-political transition, of creation and sustenance of secular nation states (it seems most of which are also democratic!), with people shedding their inhibitions, being more tolerant to, respecting, and entrusting in people from 'other religions', may be a leap of faith for many, a natural progression for some, and quite a blasphemy for others, but, is here to stay for sure, and I hope, for the good!

P.S. This is just me thinking out loud on matters I wished I understood more. I am neither a student of political science or sociology and like subjects, and these are just my elementary level perceptions that I have acquired in a society I grew up, and watch. Consider these thoughts as my first steps towards an interest in the serious understanding and analysis of such socio-political or religious matters...

Our hostage gods

Contrary to what the various religious leaders and self-supposed guardians of various world religions would like to believe and assert, their revered gods and messengers are not a proprietary of their respective religions, and neither do they possess the exclusive right to grant people licenses to worship them, at their damn discretion.

जगन्नाथपुर मंदिर, पूरी | the Jagannath temple, Puri / Picture by Jason

In an ancient and among the most revered hindu temples, the jagannath temple in Puri, India, non-hindu people or even converts to hinduism (this eliminates most of the foreign ISKCON devotees of krishna too), are not allowed to enter and offer their prayers. The temple authority lays too much emphasis on being a hindu by birth, rather being a spiritual or even a religious person! May be the hindu gods there don't like people with dual citizenships of religions ;) or may be those gods are real victims and the long suffering hostages of these 'religious' bigots, guarding those four temple walls.

On a sadder note, this always makes me feel shameful that I am a hindu by birth, as I cannot bring myself to identify with such archaic practices and philosophies, and even sacred privileges that are conferred upon me just because of an accidental (or even if not) virtue of my birth. It's one of the most revered hindu temples of lord vishnu, and among the four sacred dhams established by the Adi Shankaracharya, but I don't think I will ever pay my visits to the gods enclosed and blinded behind the four walls there, till this archaic and ugly law stands. I also doubt whether the temple trust authority can justify it as part of some hindu religious guideline, and intend to do a background check regarding the constitutional legality of such discriminating act. But heck, here faith still (read bigotry) supersedes law at times.

And I am not even going to discuss the systemic and unanimous prejudice against the gods in all major religions, no exceptions, when it comes to not allowing them to 'accept' many special religious services and duties from their women devotees, when they can unassumingly accept those from the male counterparts. In orthodox christianity a women can't be ordained / become a pope; same with orthodox judaism; mormonism; hinduism too has its fair share of such non-sense; and about muslim women the less said the better

Writer-producer David E. Kelley^# so rightly rightly echoed these sentiments as:

"The ugly fact is that we are okay with bigotry as long as it is cloaked in faith... Religion has a mean legacy... We cannot deny that religion is one place where we allow hate, oppression and discrimination to fester, as it seeks safe haven in the constitution."

Time for enlightened religious people to take control of the situation and release our hostage gods (irrespective of their religion; they all equally need us) from ages of tyranny from the 'religious ignorance' of 'religious people'? I don't think in at least another 100 years to come...

Just in case, if you happen to be an atheist or an agnostic and missed the whole point, view the whole scenario with a role-reversal point of view. Who are the real hostages here: gods, or us?

And, at the risk of getting 'lynched' by the people whose 'religious sentiments' I might have knowingly or unknowingly 'hurt', I have knowingly omitted those 'grammatical capitalizations’ from various 'holy' words associated with various religions, because I don't respect any world religion in their current form, the way they are practiced in our times, as opposed to the way they should be practiced. Yes, it can be argued that it’s not the religions, but the religious leadership that has failed us, nevertheless, people should not be allowed to get away committing civil rights or human rights violation under the hood of religion, and it's about time that the religions systemically fostering and perpetuating such, be categorically banned, denied their tax-exempt status, be tried in the court of law for such violations among starters. Now, you are free to think of this as a “ridiculous, sacrilegious, or even a blasphemous act of heresy” being committed here, nevertheless, the views stand tall, with reference to the current acceptable worldwide civil rights or human rights (not to be confused with the civil/human rights scale as considered a reference by the taliban and likes) or even 'god rights' (they too are  the victims here, as this whole nonsense is unfortunately falsely justified in their 'holy' name) standards...

^# The Gods must be Crazy, Boston Legal