Hacker News Reader

Comment by norw023623 | Hacker News Reader

I am from Norway, and we don't have an official state religion, although christianity is the largest religion. We used to have a church that was administered by the government (statskirke), but was separated from the government. The King is no longer the (symbolic) leader of the church, although he is a member of it still.

Even when Norway had an official state church, other religions were free to practice and was even sponsored by the government. All religions and faiths get the same financial support based on the number of members.

There's even at least one Hindu temple that I know of that receive financial support on equal terms.

It makes me question your other "facts"

View on HN

Ok. I have elaborated here. Thoughts?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Norway#:~:te....

[…]Christianity is the largest religion in Norway and Norway has historically been called a Christian country. A majority of the population are members of the Church of Norway with 64.9% of the population officially belonging to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway in 2021.[..]

FACT: if the majority of the population OFFICIALLY follows the Christian faith, then the DOMINANT religion is Christianity.

https://www.worldpolicycenter.org/policies/how-do-countries-...

[..]Special relationship with specific religion means that the constitution explicitly states it is secular, but establishes a special relationship with one specific religion. Types of special relationships include referencing a traditional religion, acknowledging the historical influence of a specific religion, or stating that the state is founded upon values or principles from a single religious tradition

Privileges religion over nonbelief means that the constitution explicitly states it is secular, but includes provisions to support religious practice over non-belief, such as granting tax exemptions to religious organizations, allowing religion in public schools, or recognizing or partnering with religious organizations in certain areas.

God included in oath of office means that the constitution explicitly states it is secular, but has certain officials swear before God in the official oath of office included in the constitution. The constitution does not provide for a further role for religion.

References God in preamble means that the constitution explicitly states it is secular, but references or thanks God in the preamble of the constitution. The constitution does not provide for a further role for religion.

No role for religion means that the constitution explicitly states it is secular and provides no role for religion. The constitution may explicitly place limitations on the role of religion.[..]

FACT: Only 5 countries satisfy the last criteria.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_India#:~:text=....

[..]The overlap of religion and state, through Concurrent List structure, has given various religions in India, state support to religious schools and personal laws. This state intervention while resonant with the dictates of each religion, are unequal and conflicting.

For example, a 1951 Religious and Charitable Endowment Indian law allows state governments to forcibly take over, own and operate Hindu temples, and collect revenue from offerings and redistribute that revenue to any non-temple purposes including maintenance of religious institutions opposed to the temple;

Indian law also allows Islamic and other minority religious schools to receive partial financial support from state and central government of India, to offer religious indoctrination, if the school agrees that the student has an option to opt out from religious indoctrination if he or she so asks, and that the school will not discriminate any student based on religion, race or any other grounds.[..]

FACT: India is officially a secular state being the seat of Hinduism where a billion Hindus live. It is a pseudo secular state when the majority are being subjected to special rules to appease the minority.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uniform_Civil_C...

[..]The Uniform Civil Code is a proposal in India to formulate and implement personal laws of citizens which apply on all citizens equally regardless of their religion. Currently, personal laws of various communities are governed by their religious scriptures.[..]

FACT: Personal laws cover marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and maintenance.

[..]Personal laws were first framed during the British Raj, mainly for Hindu and Muslim citizens.

UCC emerged as a crucial topic of interest in Indian politics following the Shah Bano case in 1985. The debate arose on the question of making certain laws applicable to all citizens without abridging the fundamental right to practice religious functions. The debate then focused on the Muslim Personal Law, which is partially based on the Sharia law, permitting unilateral divorce, polygamy and putting it among the legally applying the Sharia law.

Relevant to the parent here, Indian temples are managed by the state and every other religious institution is managed by their adherents despite Hinduism being the dominant religion in an officially secular state.

This gives special privileges to minorities while being extractive and punitive towards the Hindu majority adherants.[..]

It's a lot to process, but I'll try to condense my reply.

All religions in Norway are treated equally. Yes, there are Tax exemptions and financial support, but all religions, faiths and even humanistic organizations get the same benefit. There is no special treatments.

We still have some remnants due to historical and cultural reasons, as is natural (public holidays based on christian traditions), but if you follow a different religion, you have the right to extra days off in addition to the traditional holidays.

The only constitutional remnant is that the King should mention "so help me God" in his oath. But the King is strictly symbolic.

Let's remember the context for my reply. You stated that you saw no reason why India could not have an official religion, because European countries (Norway) had Christianity as an official religion.

My point is what you want is actually a huge difference from what Norway has and it is misleading to include it and many other countries (like Sweden) as examples.

Personally, I would be concerned if religion was mixed with politics. History has shown that it often does not work well.

1. I think it is wrong to compare Norway with India.

[..]Early Norwegians, like most Scandinavians, were once adherents of Norse paganism; the Sámi having a shamanistic religion.[13] Norway was gradually Christianized by Christian missionaries between 1000 and 1150. Before the Protestant Reformation in 1536/1537, Norwegians were part of the Catholic Church.[..]

Norwegian pagans lost their ancestors faith. Hindus did not.

As a democracy, Indians have the right to establish a Hindu nation through fair elections.

The colonial Brits left behind a system after The Partition when they departed. Pakistan and Bangladesh were cut off to create the Muslim nations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

Most Hindus wants a Uniform Civil Code in India. Not a separate legal system for Muslims(Shariat Law) and another system for the rest of the population.

2. Population of Norway is 5.5 million. Population of India is 1400 million.

3. [..] Religion in Norway is dominated by Lutheran Christianity, with 63.7% of the population belonging to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway in 2022.[1][2] The Catholic Church is the next largest Christian church at 3.1%.[3] The unaffiliated make up 18.3% of the population. Islam is followed by 3.4% of the population.[4][..]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Norway

4. Religion in India Hinduism (79.8%) Islam (14.2%) Christianity (2.3%) Sikhism (1.7%) Buddhism (0.7%) Animism/Adivasi (0.5%) Jainism (0.4%) No Religion (0.25%)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India

5. India does not have a Uniform Civil Code as in there are different laws for different religionists: there is Hindu Personal Law(Buddhists/Jains/Sikhs are included), Christian Personal Law and Muslim Personal Law(Shariat Law) even though the majority of the population are Hindu by faith.

Most Hindus would prefer a Uniform Civil Code.

>Most Hindus wants a Uniform Civil Code in India. Not a separate legal system for Muslims(Shariat Law) and another system for the rest of the population.

Sources? Not just a thousand sampled survey, but something asked with nearly 1billion of the population?

Why a personal law of one be the point of contest with the other? Care to explain?

>Hinduism (79.8%)

Here is the problem, the different tribes and sects which were not explicitly belonging to other religions are classified as Hinduism. While the customs and laws were different. Also a large part of the said population were considered as untouchable and subhuman by the agrarian elite of the same. They only categorise all as Hindus for power, but not willing to share any of the resources without a fight. The agrarian elite wants to control everything on behalf of Hindus. And the constitution is in their way. That's the only explanation for the hate the Secular notion gets from these section of the society.

It can be put for a vote. Your assumptions are as good as mine. India is still a democracy.

“Official” is not a synonym of “dominant”, though? Is it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com