Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

Theorists and practitioners commonly assume that the concept of human rights is secular and that it normally takes priority over other values. These assumptions are controversial for those who approach human rights from the perspective of religious beliefs. This article examines the arguments both of those who claim that religious beliefs must interpret human rights in their own terms and those who claim priority for the international (secular) legal understanding of the concept. It compares Western and Islamic approaches to religion, secularism, and human rights, and reaches two conclusions: 1) at the philosophical level, there may be no decisive argument for according priority to secularism or religion; 2) the politics of this debate may be more important in practice than questions of religious philosophy.

The popular liberal contention that supports the complete separation of church & state is challenged, & an alternative approach to conceptualizing moral guidelines & structuring political & religious institutions is presented. Political liberalism's adherence to the principles of state neutrality & secularism & defense of the total separation of state & church as the only means of preserving institutions is repudiated. Rather, it is asserted that moral ideals are more effectively articulated by observing the notion of relational neutrality, defined as taking into consideration only actual differences between religious groups, treating fairness as "evenhandedness," & prioritizing liberal democratic principles over liberal fundamentalisms. It is contended that the alternative approach promotes a better understanding of & resolution to conflicts over individual & group constitutional rights. Moreover, the alternative perspective overcomes the church-state dichotomy, permitting multiple relations, eg, "nonconstitutional pluralism." Future research is urged to address the issue of institutionalizing religious pluralism. 98 References. J. W. Parker