Why do we need to focus on the concept of secularism if we want to understand the role of religion in contemporary affairs?

IntroductionGlobalization in the 21st ampere-second has resulted in greater revolution of peoples and spectral pluralism across the globe. Alongside a global resurgence in devotion, this trend has engendered new patterns of interaction and devious perceptions in the modern governmental and macrocosm range (Thomas, 2005 Hurd, 2008). This scenario poses a mold challenge to the modern policy-making system world-widely as it upholds worldly government activity as the universal foundation for multinational relations favoured for the stableness and peace it engenders. Concern reckoning the potence for social conflict and violence has heightened since the events of folk 11, 2001 as sound as the play tensions among sacrilegiousist occidental nations and religious secerns of jokester and Iran. These challenges give the problem of religious pluralism much of its urgency (Thomas, 2005). Secularism refers to a driving force that seeks for rejection, indifference, or exclu sion of piety and religious considerations in coeval personal business. In political terms it refers to the tactile sensation that piety should no(prenominal) play a role in brass, education, or some other parts of society in the quest towards the separation of and/or reduction of ties between devotion and government (often referred to as the church and the state) (Taylor, 2010). This is deemed necessary to enable the protection of the secures of religious minorities among other positions in a pluralist society, and therefore to enhance democracy (Taylor, 2005). Given its achiever in Western democracies ending the sectarian violence in atomic number 63 and enabling the peaceful stable co-existence of various communities in the United States (Hurd, 2008), the concept is however viewed with disdain and suspicion in non-Western states and cultures especially those with pre rife Islamic precepts. This sentiment derives from the systems assumption of moral high scope leadi ng to its belittling of other cultures and alternate preludees contempt for morality in public tincture and the legitimizing of regressions of negotiations with regard to alternative wooes (Taylor, 1998). This paper explores the need to direction on the concept of temporalism in order to understand the role of religion in modern-day affairs. The endeavour of this exploration is to find a solvent to challenges in the self-assurance of secularism in the modern public and political sphere which engenders resistance and and portends angry conflict. Secularisms sums, history and transformations, its preponderating varieties, as well as its strengths and limitations ar focused upon in following sections.History of secularismSecularism is a political tradition which has act to evolve over eight centuries communion important relationships with religious traditions such(prenominal) as Judeo-Christianity with which it sustains complex ties, and Islam, its primary alter-ego wit h which it maintains a long-standing relationship (Philpott, 2000). The secular notion has through time taken on a range of meanings with the earliest reference, saeculum, traced to the 13th century referring to a dualistic opposition within Christianity. Often with invalidating connotations, this term was used to realise worldly clergy from those living in seclusion in monasteries (Taylor, 2010). The term gradually shed off its Godless and profane connotation by the sixteenth century acquiring a new description of a transforming world. To turn in the last mentioned instance referred to the conversion from religious/priestly to civil possession or use. This process is described by Casanova (1994 24) as the passage, transfer, or relocation of persons, things, function, meanings, and so forth, from their traditional locations in the religious sphere to secular spheres. Onwards from the 19th century, further transformation led secularism to assume its present recognition in curr ent language which describes a movement expressly intended to provide a certain theory of life and claim with issue reference to a deity or a future life (Hurd, 2008). Secularists, therefore, refers to those of the belief that the church (the religious) and the worldly are in a continued historical contest, in which the world is gaining an upper hand irreversibly. Two roughageistics of secularism are revealed in its relevance to international relations and the political sphere. Secularizations earlier reference to the acquisition or possession of land (church properties) and people, normally by state actors, entailed massive appropriation and expropriation and often instigated religious wars (Asad, 2003). scorn secularisations contemporary reference to the separation of the church and the state predominant in Western circles, its meaning and connotation in the in a higher place context (now overshadowed), is still retained in numerous non-Western contexts (Taylor, 1998). For instance, with particular regard to the Middle East, the principle of secularism has served to legitimize the suppression of local practices and political establishments. This has contributed to the hegemonic test to transform or to take possession of the region in avocation of contemporary Western ideals (Hurd, 2008). In the second instance, an important characteristic derived is secularisms presumption to clear distinguish between transcendental and temporal matters. In its definition of what is considered ordinary, or mundane, it by default assigns a place for religion with the secular notion only making sense relative to its religious counterpart (Hurd, 2004). As Asad (2003 192) argues, secularism defines itself as the foundation upon which the religious is fashioned the touch at which dialogue on theology is hatched in the dialogue of modernity. It thus assumes itself to be above the fray holding alternative approaches in particular those associated with religion in conde scension and as jeopardiseing. These characteristics present distinct sets of problems first, is its potential to jeopardize democratic politics given that groups or individuals dissenting to the secular approach are considered threatening to stability and are shut out of public deliberations. Secularists, for example, generally shun non-theistic public philosophies and are notably exceedingly wary of political Islam (Davie, 2003). This is the reason, for instance, politics of Turkey and Pakistan in support of a civic role for Islam and which involve non-secular and non-Western platforms and partiesare frowned upon and are worrisome to Western secularist ideals. They threaten the boundaries that secularists impose between the sacred and the secular (Banchoff, 2007). Dislike and disapproval outgrowth to this makes Western powers, regardless of their actual policies, to be perceived as computer backup the repression of Islamist parties which increases the potential for terrorism ( Hurd, 2008 Bruce, 2003). Contrary to secularisms self-representation, it has sometimes been associated with the un sound, domineering and violent yet within the movement, there is a predilection to associate religion with these negative traits in the public sphere (Taylor, 1998 Hurd, 2008). Secularisms automatic linkage with democracy and public order is thus questionable. An indiscriminate secularism in an more and more inter mutualist, pluralist and globalized world in which individuals and groups derive morality from different sources is prone to seeks. These risks admit potential up arises from adherents and supporters of alternative non-secular/non-Western approaches shut out from negotiations between religion and politics and in pursuit of public order (Banchoff, 2007 Davie, et al, 2003). Given secularisms dominance in successful Western democracies, there is withal a risk of blindness to its limitations. The following section describes two varieties of secularism and exp lores their implications for international politics and affairs in the public sphere which have been shown to be prodigious (Hurd, 2008).Laicism and international relationsLaicism refers to the belief in the need to exclude religion from the public realm of politics and confining it to a blank spot where it cannot threaten the liberties of palliate thinking citizens and political stability (Taylor, 1998). This belief forms the essence of present-day political thought. Through a complex and contested process, this approach attempts to limit and to limit religious disputes thus provide an authoritative and self-reliant public space (Philpott, 2000). The consequent separation of the church and state was intended to serve as a fanny for provide the basis for cohesive politics and competency in the face of diversity and religious pluralism. Laicism relegates religion and associated beliefs to things to be analyse or an inferior culture conflicting with the ideals of modern living , politics and development (Hurd, 2008). Consequently, secularism has been described by some as having a strain of dogmatism given its propensity to validate a single authoritative basis of public ethics and reason (Taylor, 1998). The policing and constant delineation of this boundary poses challenges especially when society diversifies to contain substantial numbers of adherents of non-Judeo-Christian religions often suspicious of such endeavours (Hurd, 2008 Casanova, 1994). at that place are therefore calls for a more vibrant pluralist approach in the public sphere.Judeo-Christian secularism and international relationsThrough its realisation of a place for religion in politics, this approach avoids the pitfalls that befall laicism. In its greens ground strategy, codes of political order and peaceful co-existence are concord upon by members of a political community based on third estate doctrines (Taylor, 2010). However, these common set of values has its roots in Christianit y which is a significant feature defining Western civilization (Philpott, 2000). It should be noted that many other religions around the world have complicated patterns of church-state relations as Christianity (Hurd, 2004). The challenge for global relations in this regard, is that secularism, however defined, ends at the boundaries of Western civilization which portends a fault line between the West and non-West common grounds (Davie, et al, 2003 Thomas, 2005 Myers and Brodeur, 2006). much(prenominal) a common ground exclusively dependent upon Western religious traditions is thus ill equipped to meet the demands of contemporary societies in and outside the West. In this regard, the common ground therefore becomes a representation of one among many parties or interests (Davie, 2003 Davie, et al, 2003 Philpott, 2000). With these limitations of the dual approaches of secularism, it is necessary in the interest of forgo international relations and contemporary affairs to consider t he secular social reality. There might be need to approach secularism as among possible solutions to modern challenges associated with religion and public order. The secularization ikon has served well as a model for the accommodation of religious pluralism and diversity in the public sphere, guiding decision-making in various contexts (Banchoff, 2007 Taylor, 2005). Yet consensus on secular public order is not universally shared and is sometimes viewed unkindly, with contempt, or out rightly rejected by those dominated and/or excluded as religious those who disagree with the transcendental/temporal divide and those who feel that their politics, culture and territory has been taken over or is challenged through secularist justifications. as well as included are those who feel closed out of public controversy and communication (Haynes, 1998 Casanova, 1994 Bruce, 2003). Secularism belittles non-Western alternatives in the negotiation of religion and politics, expressing contempt fo r religion in public life, particularly with regard to Islam, and legitimizes repression of negotiations of such alternative approaches. Through its wardrobe of neutrality and identification with reason, freedom and the democratic, secularism engenders what is described by Honig (Hurd, 2008 Casanova, 1994) as resistances and remainders. The latter constitute those within secularism who seek to upset conventional assumptions nearly morality, rationality and good. Secularism strives to silence these by shifting them onto the category of the religious in clearly dangerous tendencies with potential to incite violence and counter-reactions (Hurd, 2008). At present, secularism lays claim to the right to define the role of religion in politics and in so doing closes off important debates regarding possible alternative moral bases and public order. This, in turn, makes secularists to be perceived as seeking to privatize and to define the political subject area (Banchoff, 2007 Bruce, 200 3). This engenders hostile responses and criticisms against its hegemonic objectives and aspirations from among the excluded with some resorting to extreme tactics to air their grievances (Banchoff, 2007 Haynes, 1998). Such eventualities are not solely attributable to extremist religious belief as commonly perceived (Thomas, 2005), but as shown can be in response to secularisms fervent attempts towards the universalization of secular modernity through its specific model. In both its varieties, secularism occasionally acts as a belief intolerant of other beliefs, exhibiting a tendency to restrict political space (Taylor, 1998 Myers and Brodeur, 2006). It is widely agreed that secularism, including its clearly anti-religious variants, needs to be re-evaluated as a model for the organization of public life through the exploration of its implications for contemporary affairs. This is particularly needful with regard to states outside of historical Christendom and settler colonies upon w hich secularism is foisted upon (Davie, et al, 2003 Thomas, 2005 Hurd, 2008). It seems that secularism operates blindly with regard to its unforeseen implications and the consequences of its tendencies to pursue the universalization of its mores. Its zealous struggle against religious credulity blinds it to its own inadequacies while it claims moral superiority and displaces violent and antidemocratic tendencies to the domain of religion and religious fervour or unrestrained commitment (Taylor, 2005 Hurd, 2004). Though secularism purports to be external in the territorial contest between religion and politics, it is not as its history and nature locates it within the spectrum of theological politics (Philpott, 2000). righteousness is an ingrained marker of collective identity and entails the submersion of ultimate meaning in peoples beliefs and practices, including social and institutional practices (Banchoff, 2007). There are social and political challenges posed by emergent reli gious pluralism inhering in the interaction among religious groups in society and politics. A friction of religious communities in the political arena whitethorn cause marrow pillars of democracy to falter minority rights and majority rule (Banchoff, 2007 Bruce, 2003). Religious tensions may undermine effective government by the majority and, as well, dominant traditions may seek to constrain minority groups. However, a multiplicity of belief traditions presents not just challenges for governance and social cohesion but also opportunities for a more vibrant political culture and civil society. For instance, rising faith communities (especially Islam) are engaging democratic processes wherever they reside in the world, and secular majorities and established religious groups are also accommodative (not just resistant) to the new dynamic cultural and political landscape (Haynes, 1998). In foregoing discourse, this paper does not propose the reversal of secularism or the reinstatem ent of religion in the public sphere. In its stead, the secular ideas of democratic politics should be broadened to have intercourse positive contributions of other approaches such as the non-secular and the non-Western to pubic life and religion. There essential be developed a space for continuous discourse among religious traditions, as well as among the religious and the secular so as to transcend the volatile limitations of the secularist approaches. This would also enable the incorporation of a non-hegemonic place for religion in politics addressing the conflicting legacy of secularization in public sphere in the West and outside it. If this is not addressed, those excluded may eventually haunt and destabilize the same closures that bring about their exclusion. It is therefore imperative for the international community to consider the support of pluralistic democracy which inevitably might entail support for religious parties alternatively than propping up secularist politic al solutions. Minority voices in the new dispensation need to be heard. Remedy through the reconsideration of procedure is deemed insufficient given secularisms prior assumption of itself as above the fray marking its domain and associating itself with rational argument, tolerance, justice, common sense, public interest, and public authority (Davie, et al, 2003 Thomas, 2005). It thus derides religion as that which is not. Most secularists refuse to acknowledge the possible functioning of alternative non-secular and yet democratic models of order in the public sphere which could be legitimate rivals to its dominance (Banchoff, 2007 Davie, et al, 2003 Taylor, 2005).ConclusionFocus on the concept of secularism affords us the opportunity to observe that the current foundation of international politics is farther from being neutral or universal given its religious heritages and character to which it seems oblivious. Secularisms self-confidence in its objectivity and neutrality which the n drives its hegemonic aspirations may therefore be a threat to the preservation of global peace and security. It is thus argued that for value pluralism to hold, relations in contemporary affairs including the international public sphere (international relations) must distance themselves from secularist history and especially its connotations and negative perceptions. The secular foundation of modernity, particularly secularisms assumptions concerning the inevitability of secularization, must be reconsidered and better relations among states and religions fostered in order to strengthen political interdependence and international freedom, as well as to forestall conflicts from conflicting values. The majorities must respect religious freedom but must also get away with varied traditions such as Islam which incorporate different views of social indebtedness and personal responsibility some which are at odds with dominant secular views. Therefore, the secular foundation must be e xchanged with a post-secular project in which secularism and religion are considered on equal footing.ReferencesAsad, T. 2003. Formations of the Secular, Stanford, CA Stanford University PressBanchoff, T. (ed.) 2007. Democracy and the New Religious Pluralism, Oxford Oxford University Press.Bruce, S. 2003. Politics and morality, Cambridge PolityCasanova, J. 1994. habitual Religions in the innovational World, Chicago and capital of the United Kingdom The University of Chicago PressDavie, G. 2003. The ontogeny of the Sociology of Religion In Michele Dillon (ed.), Handbook of the Sociology of Religion. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, pp. 61-84.Davie, G., P., Heelas, and L., Woodhead (eds.) 2003, Predicting Religion Christian, Secular and Alternative Futures. London Ashgate.Haynes, J. 1998. Religion and Global Politics, London & New York LongmanHurd, E. 2004, The Political Authority of Secularism in international Relations, In European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 10, no. 2Hurd, E, 2008. The politics of secularism in International Relations, Princeton Princeton University Press.Myers, S. and P. Brodeur, (eds.) 2006, The Pluralist Paradigm Democracy and Religion in the 21st Century.Scranton and London Scranton University Press Philpott, D. 2000. The Religious Roots of Modern International Relations. In World Politics 52 (January) 206-245.Taylor, C. 1998. Modes of Secularism, In R. Bhargava (ed.) Secularism and its Critics. Calcutta Oxford University Press, pp. 31-53.Taylor, P., 2005. exemption of religion UN and European human rights law and practice. Cambridge CUP Taylor, C. 2010. The Meaning of Secularism, In The Hedgehog Review, fall. http//www.iasc-culture.org/THR/archives/Fall2010/Taylor_lo.pdfThomas, S. 2005. Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Relations, London Basingstoke