Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- List of Figures -- Prologue: 'Handmaiden to the National Unities' -- Chapter 1: Theocracy and Anthropocracy -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.1.1 Representing Theocracy -- 1.1.2 Practical Theocracy -- 1.1.3 Anthropocracy -- 1.2 Conclusion: Foundationally Anthropocratic? -- References -- Chapter 2: Non-theocratic Politics: Secularism and Anthropocracy -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.1.1 Secularism -- 2.1.2 Two Theories of Science -- 2.1.3 Secularism, Post-secularism, and Anthropocracy -- 2.2 Conclusion: An Anthropocratic Age? -- References -- Chapter 3: Anthropocratic Republic? -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.1.1 Anthropocracy Alaturca -- 3.1.2 The AKP and Anthropocracy -- 3.2 Conclusion: A Global Political Mode? -- References -- Epilogue -- References -- Index.

In Theocratic Secularism, author Naser Ghobadzadeh questions the religious logic used to legitimize the rule of the clergy in Iran. Ghobadzadeh argues that orthodox shi'ism considers the institution of government to be outside the realm of religion and religious leaders. Coining the term 'theocratic secularism', Ghobadzadeh ultimately argues for the re-instatement of a form of political secularism in Iran.

Limits of liberal secularism -- Stories of liberal secularism -- The political theology of the two kingdoms -- Liberty, tyranny, and the divine order -- The enlightenment and the secular -- Religious toleration in British India -- Straitjackets of secularism

Several critics of Indian secularism maintain that given the pervasive role of religion in the lives of the Indian people, secularism, defined as the separation of politics or the state from religion, is an intolerable, alien, modernist imposition on the Indian society. This, I argue, is a misreading of the Indian constitutional vision, which enjoins the state to be equally tolerant of all religions and which therefore requires the state to steer clear of both theocracy or fundamentalism and the "wall of separation" model of secularism. Regarding the dichotomy, which the critics draw between Nehruvian secularism and Gandhian religiosity, I suggest that what is distinctive to Indian secularism is the complementation or articulation between the democratic state and the politics of satya and ahimsa, whereby the relative autonomy of religion and politics from each other can be used for the moral-political reconstruction of both the religious traditions and the modern state.

AbstractAs religiousness is declining across democracies, scientific interest in secular orientations and their political implications is growing. One specific and particularly important aspect of secular attitudes is political secularism. Political secularism is not merely the absence of religiousness, but rather a world view which holds that religious beliefs should play no role in politics. While there are hundreds of survey instruments that measure the strength and content of religiousness, there is no comparable measure that taps into political secularism. In this research note, I briefly review the concept of political secularism and present a cluster of items which target it. Utilizing data from four large population representative samples taken from the eastern and western states of Germany, I use confirmatory factor analysis to show that these items form a short but internally consistent scale. This scale also displays convergent and discriminant validity. It may be readily used in future surveys.

Does liberal democracy require a strict separation between state and religion? In Anglophone liberal political theory, the separationist model of the First Amendment of the US Constitution has provided the basic template for the rightful relationship between state and religion. Yet this model is ill-suited to the evaluation of the secular achievements of most states, including India. This article sets out a new framework, minimal secularism, as a transnational framework of normative comparison. Minimal secularism does not single out religion as special, and it appeals to abstract liberal democratic ideals such as equal inclusion and personal liberty. Actual debates about secularism in India are shown to revolve around these ideals. The study of recent Indian controversies—about the Uniform Civil Code, the status of Muslims, and the rise of BJP nationalism—also sheds light on some blind spots of Western secularism and the conception of sovereignty and religion it relies on.

Does liberal democracy require a strict separation between state and religion? In Anglophone liberal political theory, the separationist model of the First Amendment of the US Constitution has provided the basic template for the rightful relationship between state and religion. Yet this model is ill suited to the evaluation of the secular achievements of most states, including India. This Article sets out a new framework, minimal secularism, as a transnational framework of normative comparison. Minimal secularism does not single out religion as special; and it appeals to abstract liberal democratic ideals such as equal inclusion and personal liberty. Actual debates about secularism in India are shown to revolve around these ideals. The study of recent Indian controversies - about the Uniform Civil Code, the status of Muslims and the rise of BJP nationalism - also sheds light on some blind spots of western secularism and the conception of sovereignty and religion it relies on.

AbstractSecularism has been a defining norm for the modern, liberal Indian state. The constitutionally secular Gujarat state is believed to have undergone a paradigmatic shift in 2002, when it supported a massacre of Muslim citizens. This article investigates the empirical as well as normative state in situations of inter-religious violence. It traces the journey of the secular norm over a 45-year period, in the context of contests over identity, political ideology and socio-political dominance. The picture that emerges is much more nuanced than that projected by stark pronouncements of paradigm shifts and the inauguration of a Hindu rashtra.2

Secularism is an important source of political authority in International Relations theory and practice. Secularists identify something called 'religion' and separate it from the domains of the state, the economy and science. This separation facilitates a consensus which is sustained by a powerful yet historically contingent set of beliefs, including secularism as the realization of God's will, secularism as the natural evolution toward universal morality and secularism as a normal consequence of economic modernization. Despite these aspirations, secularism is unequipped to serve as a universal model of public life, either domestically or internationally. The creation of the category of religion and its demarcation from politics is a highly politicized decision that is not subject to a final settlement, and the pretense of a final settlement exacerbates international conflict rather than diminishing it. The religion/politics negotiation is a fluid site of authority with complex relations to the state system, the global economy, international ethics and other more heavily theorized locations of power in international relations.

An impetus was given to the discussion on whether or not Indian secularism is a myth or a reality. A secular society is one in which individuals are free to practise their religion of choice. The Constitution of India recognises and upholds the principle of religious toleration, making India a nation that is home to a number of distinct faiths. The term "secular" was not included in the original version of the Indian Constitution; nevertheless, it was added in 1976 as part of the 42nd Amendment. Nevertheless, the values of secular character have always been a part of the constitutional fabric of India, and this has been the case since the very beginning. The Judiciary has, on numerous occasions, drawn attention to this particular facet as well. It is possible to state with absolute certainty that secularism is one of the guiding principles of the Constitution and that this position will never be subject to revision. Nonetheless, there have been cases where the state has been seen to favour a specific religion over the concept of secularism. In order to better understand Indian secularism, we've written this piece. Secularism in India is described as a myth or reality and the issues related with it are discussed.

Abstract
My article offers commentary about Jacques Berlinerblau's new book Secularism: The Basics.

This book engages contemporary debates about the notion of secularism outside of the field of education in order to consider how secularism shapes the formation of progressive sexuality education. Focusing on the US, Canada, Ireland, Aotearoa-New Zealand and Australia, this text considers the affinities, prejudices, and attachments of scholars who advocate secular worldviews in the context of sexuality education, and some of the consequences that ensue from these ways of seeing. This study identifies and interrogates how secularism infuses progressive sexuality education. It asks readers to consider their own investments in particular ways of thinking and researching in the field of sexuality education, and to think about how these investments have developed and how they shape existing discourses within the field of sexuality education. It hones in on how progressive sexuality education has come to develop in the way that it has, and how this relates to conceits of secularism. This book prompts a consideration of how "progressive" scholarship and practice might get in the way of meaningful conversations with students, teachers, and peers who think differently about the field of sexuality education