Search results

Rawls distinction between "comprehensive" philosophical, moral and religious doctrines on the one hand, and "political" conceptions on the other hand, means that, in a secular State, citizens of faith are not allowed to use directly their religious arguments in the political sphere as this would threaten the equal dignity of their fellow citizens' conceptions of the Good. But what about a philosophical doctrine such as secularism or laicity? The logical consequence of Rawls's distinction is that every citizen, religious or secular, has to use public reasons in the political debate in application of his duty of civility. This raises the problematic issue of a liberal conception of secularism. In a Public Reason Revisited, Rawls paradoxically claims that the secular State cannot be defended on the basis of secularism. This essay proposes to explore this liberal alternative to secularism, concerned with the plurality and equal dignity of comprehensive reasonable doctrines. Adapted from the source document.

Contemporary discussions of secularism in India have been constrained by the tradition-modern (western) dichotomy. For some, secularism is originally a Christian doctrine adapted to modern western conditions, & means the strict separation of church & state. It is also predominantly a single-value doctrine, motivated either by liberty (as in the United states) or equality of citizenship (as in France) more suited to single-religion societies than to the socio-cultural context of India where it is more appropriate to rely on resources of multiple & indigenous religious traditions for the sake of quite different values of peace & toleration. Others argue that India has the civilizational resource from which to retrieve its own conception of secularism captured best by the phrase 'sarva dharma samb-hava' (equal respect for all religions). I argue instead that India has worked out a distinctive conception of the secular that was at once Indian & modern. This remains a practical conception rather than a coherent doctrine or theory, & can thus be called Indian secularism only by extension. This conception builds on traditional resources as well as on the legacy of the British colonial state but innovatively transforms them. Many distinctive features characterize it. First, it deals simultaneously with inter-religious & intra-religious domination. Second, it has an explicit multi-value character. Third, it rejects strict separation. Separation does not mean exclusion or strict neutrality but what I call principled distance. Fourth, it implies neither respectful indifference nor active hostility but respectful transformation of religion. In short, secularism inherits the tradition of religious reform that began in India both prior to the advent of colonial modernity & because of a critical engagement with it. Finally, Indian secularism is an ethically-sensitive practical settlement & less a scientific, rationalist doctrine worked out by ideologues & implemented by political agents. Adapted from the source document.

The Russian state is formally secular. Several elements, however, suggest that the principle of secularism has run out of steam in Russia. These include the absence of real debate concerning this particular question, growing state control over social forces, the increasing visibility of the Russian church in public spaces & the persecution to which many religious minorities are subjected. In addition to supporting this observation, which is based on a normative approach to secularism, a consideration of the social construction of relations between church & state allows one to assess the degree of secularization attained by Russia. This is the result of conflicts & compromises between social actors who identify with secular principles or who, conversely, condemn them in order to advance their own positions. In Russia, relations between politics & religion are defined according to the principle of "hierarchized pluralism" & are explained by the predominance of the collective over the individual in representations. As a central element of tradition, religion is a legitimizing factor of the social order. Representations of secularism, for their part, draw upon the Soviet heritage as well as liberal perceptions. Adapted from the source document.

Secular? Theocratic? The case of the Israeli state defies the usual categories & gives rise to much confusion; for this reason, it requires a nuanced approach. The secular cause is itself divided over the strategy to pursue. For moderates, the religious monopoly in the area of personal law must be broken by demanding, in particular, that civil marriage be made an option alongside religious marriage. For radicals, by contrast, arrangements of this type, however important they may otherwise be, only mask the intrinsic ambiguity that stems from the close ties between nation & religion (and not just between synagogue & state). After examining the political, cultural & demographic factors that have in recent decades given increased weight to religious forces in political & social life, one should take stock of the factors that provide a counterweight to religious expansion. These include the active intervention of the Supreme Court in religious affairs, the preponderance of a secular ethos shared by the economic, political & intellectual elites centered in Tel-Aviv & the presence of CIS immigrants -- a portion of whom are not Jewish according to religious criteria -- and immigrant workers who have long resided in Israel. Adapted from the source document.

Turkey is the only Muslim country in which laicism is enshrined in the constitution. State, politics & in Turkey are for the most part secularized. Moreover, Islam in Turkey has been politicized in two distinct ways: the state, in order to secularize the population, homogenize different ethnical & confessional groups & preserve the country's territorial integrity propagating a republican & ethno-nationalist state Islam; & by & social groups! so as to break the Kemalist monopoly on the interpretation of Islam & end restrictions on religious freedom. On the whole, the Kemalist interpretation of laicism is authoritarian & undemocratic. The extent to which it can serve as a model for other Muslim countries is therefore limited. Adapted from the source document.

For non-European countries such as Turkey & Mexico, the move toward modernity has meant the adoption of the French model of secularism rather than the Anglo-Saxon process of secularization. Today, however, the emergence of public Islam, of Islam in the public space -- as exemplified by the debate about the veil in France as well as in Turkey -- represents a challenge for the Republic whose secular & mono-cultural foundation is questioned. The contemporary Turkish experience offers a good opportunity to analyze the complex & tensed relationship between Republican secularism & the Muslim presence & to stress the dangers of confusing the public space & the Republic. The Turkish candidacy to membership of the European Union has revived & amplified the debate: Does Europe want to be a system of boundaries aiming to protect her against what she considers as the "other," or does she want to show its political capacity to redraw these boundaries by projecting herself into the future? Adapted from the source document.

It is deeply misleading to consider the United States as a democratic regime under the supervision of Christian guidelines, for it is indeed a secular state the principles of which are clearly set out in the First Amendment to the Constitution. In fact, since the colonial period, two antagonistic rationales have constantly meshed: a spirit of religion aiming to place all aspects of life under the auspices of divine law, & a spirit of secularity regularly consolidated by Supreme Court jurisprudential progress. Seven major periods can be identified, each marked by the dominance of one tendency or the other. If at times the theocratic position has won out, it has always been thwarted by the reactivation of the secular perspective. The history of this ebb & glow teaches us that the current fundamentalist revival fits in line with a secular tradition. It also prompts us to seek the balancing element that has enabled this paradoxical combination to remain coherent. Civil religion provides a key to this enigma. It refers to three principles: respect for God, considered to preside over the country's destiny, the conviction that the republican model offers an example for all of humanity & the desire to defend its underlying values. This is how, beyond the potentially conflictual dimension of the theocratic-separatist mix, civil religion has made the theocratic aspiration of radical Protestants compatible with the separatist will of the partisans of a secular state. Adapted from the source document.