Suchergebnisse

Examines the experience of Indonesia as a prime example of Islam's compatibility with democracy. The three main schools of thought in Islam regarding the relation between religion & state are described, along with equally controversial views within the Muslim world in regard to the relation between Islam & democracy. Although most Indonesians are Muslims, the nation's founders believed Indonesia should not be a theocratic state, but should uphold patriotic, humanitarian, & religious values. Religion is important in the private lives of the people, but they acknowledge diversity, & are basically egalitarian in their outlook, a necessary ingredient for democracy. It is noted that one of the five guiding principles upon which the Republic of Indonesia is based recognizes the existence of Almighty God, but religion functions as a moral support, not a state ideology. The emergence of political parties is examined as an indication of a healthy democracy. It is contended that Indonesia exemplifies a nation in which religion plays a vital social/moral role while remaining outside the power struggles of the political sphere. J. Lindroth

AbstractAt the height of the influence of the secularisation thesis religion was understood to be absent from affairs of state and the law, including international politics and international law. As the critique of secularisation gained momentum this master narrative fell apart, and a new consensus began to take shape. The notion that religion had been ignored and should be 'brought back in' to International Relations took centre stage among many academics and practitioners. The assumption is that restoring religion in the right way will help address the problems associated with having ignored religion in IR, paving the way for the marginalisation of violent religion and globalisation of religious freedom. This article undertakes a critical analysis of this restorative narrative and the religious and political world it is creating. It then proposes a different approach to the intersection of religion and world politics after secularism. This approach draws attention to the authority of transnational actors such as the United States, United Nations, and European Union to shape the public administration of religious affairs globally. Channels through which this is accomplished include the promotion of religious freedom, humanitarian intervention, foreign aid, nation building and democratisation, counterterrorism and peace-building efforts, and the pronouncements of supra-national courts.

Examines the two concepts of secularist thinking that have dominated 20th-century US political culture. Positive & a negative secularism, similar to Berlin's (1958) terms of positive & negative liberty, have had an impact on the institutions & practical politics of the current cultural conflict. Negative secularism, similar to First Amendment reasoning, holds that religion should not be established in the political framework, while positive secularism wishes to triumph over religious faith & to leave religion, at best, without influence in the political realm. Negative secularism implies a theoretic possibility that religionists & nonreligionists could be equal players in political decision making & that citizens have the freedom to participate according to their individual consciences & to associate in moral communities possessing political freedoms. Positive secularism contains the sinister features that fuel crusades, but there is a need to recognize that vibrantly pluralistic religious life offers the greatest potential for respect of the dignity of human life. L. A. Hoffman

HINDU MOBS IN AYODHYA, MUSLIMS MASSACRED IN GUJERAT. INDIA'S PROUD BOAST THAT ITS SECULARISM HELD TOGETHER ITS MANY CREEDS AND RACES IS IN TATTERS

Stability of Kyrgyzstan in light of economic problems and ethnic and religious tensions.

Secularism, for many of us, is not a terra incognita, and yet it is certainly an improperly defined and unexplained concept. For more than 150 years, intellectuals, politicians, and theologians have used secular and secularism in a rather ambiguous way. These terms therefore need to be clarified. The time has come to rethink our whole approach to the question of secularism. Given the inapplicability of the French model of secularism to the Muslim world, it becomes necessary to find a criterion by which state involvement, when it occurs in the domain of religion, can appear to the members of a religious group as both legitimate and fair. The Indian concept of secularism based on the toleration and equal protection of all religious communities without being supportive of any particular religion can supply this criterion. That said, to pursue a secular politics of rejecting sectarianism and demanding toleration requires that strategic priorities be rearranged without making historical shortcuts. In this case, a secular politics of toleration is a twofold struggle, a resistance to uniformization and an invitation to democratization. If such a strategy is to find any role in the regulation of the lives and activities of Islamic societies today, an alternative concept of secularism, rather than simply an alternative to it, needs to be worked out. The challenge is not to abandon secularism but to formulate it as a philosophy with spiritual values, rather than solely a policy of the state. This is the only way of rethinking our whole approach to the future in Muslim societies to the extent that the pluralist model of a "shared home" can be presented as "a third way" solution to the crisis of political societies in the Middle East and in opposition to the secular authoritarianism of the state and the rise of religious fundamentalism in civil society.

This paper discusses the varied perceptions of secularism both in its general meaning and its specific implementation in Turkey -- the first Muslim country that has the principle of secularism in its constitution. Initially giving the various understandings of the concept of secularism in Western academia, this paper contrasts those views with the implementation of Turkish secularism -- laiklik -- specifically in the light of the 2008 case of closure against the conservative ruling party by the staunchly secularist Chief Prosecutor. A close reading of the indictment and the ruling party's defense will be done in order to highlight the differences between each part's perceptions of secularism. Adapted from the source document.

Looking back over the century just ended, it is not easy to assess the status and prospects of secularism and the secular ideal in the United States. As is so often the case in American history, when one sets out in search of the simple and obvious, one soon comes face to face with a crowd of paradoxes. The psychologist Erik Erikson once observed that Americans have a talent for sustaining opposites, and he could hardly have been more right. Such Janus-faced doubleness, or multiplicity, is virtually the Americanspecialité de la maison.

Professor Smith has produced a comprehensive survey1 of the relations between state and religion in India which will be of great value to students of modern Indian government and politics as well as of religion. Moreover, this useful, stimulating and very readable study raises questions of compelling, interest for all who are concerned with problems of "church and state". India, the seat of a civilization renowned for elaboration of religious thought and pervasiveness of religious observance has, even by Professor Smith's rigorous standards, successfully established a secular state. In this volume, Professor Smith has undertaken to explain how this has come about, to analyze the Indian achievement and the problems that accompany it and, finally, to indicate how India may advance to the full realization of that "true secularism" which he so enthusiastically endorses.