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 century has resulted in greater diversity of peoples and phantasmal pluralism across the globe. Alongside a global resurgence in devotion, this bowel movement has engendered sensitive patterns of interaction and shifting perceptions in the advanced(a) policy-making and ordinary field of battle (Thomas, 2005 Hurd, 2008). This scenario poses a direct challenge to the modern semipolitical establishment planetaryly as it upholds blasphemous government activity as the familiar al-Qaeda for international dealing favoured for the stableness and peace it engenders. Concern regarding the potential for neighborly conflict and force play has heightened since the events of September 11, 2001 as well as the gravel tensions among secularist Western nations and spiritual state of matters of flop and Iran. These challenges give the problem of sacred pluralism often of its urgency (Thomas, 2005). Secularism refers to a movement that seeks for rejection, indifference, or exclusion of faith and religious considerations in contemporary affairs. In political terms it refers to the article of belief that religious belief should non play a role in g overnment, education, or other parts of society in the quest towards the separation of and/or lessening of ties mingled with religion and government (often referred to as the church and the state) (Taylor, 2010). This is deemed necessary to alter the protection of the rights of religious minorities among other positions in a pluralist society, and on that pointfore to nurture democracy (Taylor, 2005). Given its success in Western democracies ending the sectarist violence in Europe and enabling the peaceful stable co-existence of several(a) 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 predominant Muslim beliefs. This sentiment derives from the systems arrogance of moral high ground leading to its belittling of other cultures and p fictitious character approaches contempt for religion in unexclusive heart and the legitimizing of regressions of negotiations with regard to alternate(a) approaches (Taylor, 1998). This paper explores the collect to focus on the concept of secularism in enunciate to understand the role of religion in contemporary affairs. The endeavour of this exploration is to find a solution to challenges in the dominance of secularism in the modern prevalent and political sphere which engenders resistance and and portends violent conflict. Secularisms piths, level and renderings, its dominant varieties, as well as its strengths and limitations ar focused upon in following sections.History of secularismSecularism is a political tradition which has continued to adopt over eight centuries sharing important relationships with religious traditions such(prenominal) as Judeo-Christianity with which it sustains complex ties, and Islam, its primary alter-ego with which it maintains a long-standing relationship (Philpott, 2000). The secular notion has through with(predicate) time taken on a range of meanings with the earliest reference, saeculum, traced to the thirteenth century referring to a dualistic opposition in spite of appearance Christianity. Often with damaging connotations, this term was used to distinguish worldly clergy from those living in privateness in monasteries (Taylor, 2010). The term gradually shed off its Godless and misuse connotation by the 16th century acquiring a new description of a transforming world. To secularize in the latter instance referred to the modulation from religious/priestly to civil self-control or use. This process is draw 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 current linguistic communication which describes a movement expressly intended to provide a trusted theory of life and conduct with come out of the closet 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 be in a continued historical compete, in which the world is gaining an amphetamine hand irreversibly. Two characteristics of secularism argon 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, usually by state actors, meaned massive annexation and expropriation and often instigated religious wars (Asad, 2003). Despite secularizations contemporary reference to the separation of the church and the state predominant in Western circles, its meaning and connotation in the above context (now overshadowed), is st afflicted retained in many non-Western contexts (Taylor, 1998). For instance, with particular regard to the Middle East, the principle of secularism has served to legitimize the inhibition of local practices and political establishments. This has contri saveed to the hegemonic attempt to transform or to take possession of the region in pursuit of contemporary Western ideals (Hurd, 2008). In the mho instance, an important characteristic derived is secularisms presumption to clearly distinguish between cabalistic and temporal matters. In its definition of what is considered ordinary, or mundane, it by failure assigns a place for religion with the secular notion only make sense relative to its religious counterpart (Hurd, 2004). As Asad (2003 192) argues, secularism defines itself as the al-Qaida upon which the religious is fashioned the point at which dialogue on divinity fudge is hatched in the discourse of modernity. It indeed assumes itself to be above the strife holding alternative approaches particularly those associated with religion in condescension and as scourgeening. These characteristics present distinct sets of problems first, is its potential to jeopardize egalitarian politics effrontery that groups or individuals dissenting to the secular approach argon considered threatening to stability and are shut out of public deliberations. Secularists, for example, generally shun non-theistic public philosophies and are notably extreme pointly 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 consequent to this makes Western powers, regardless of their actua l policies, to be perceived as backing 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 unjust, 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 lay is thus questionable. An indiscriminate secularism in an increasingly interdependent, pluralist and globalized world in which individuals and groups derive morality from different sources is prone to risks. These risks include potential uprisings from adherents and supporters of alternative non-secular/non-Western approaches shut out from negotiations between religion and politics and in pursuit of public target (Banchoff, 2007 Davie, et al, 2003). Given secularisms dominance in successful Western democracies, there is in addition a risk of blindness to its limitations. The following section describes both varieties of secularism and explores their implications for international politics and affairs in the public sphere which redeem been shown to be significant (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 space where it cannot threaten the liberties of free thinking citizens and political stability (Taylor, 1998). This belief forms the essence of present-day political thought. Through a complex and oppose process, this approach attempts to limit and to regulate religious disputes thus provide an definitive and self-reliant public space (Philpott, 2000). The consequent separation of the church and state was intended to serve as a understructure for provide the basis for cohesive politics and efficiency in the face of diversity and religious pluralism. Laicism relegates relig ion and associated beliefs to things to be studied or an inferior culture unconnected with the ideals of modern living, politics and development (Hurd, 2008). Consequently, secularism has been exposit 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 invariable de argumentationation of this boundary poses challenges especially when society diversifies to contain substantial meter of adherents of non-Judeo-Christian religions often suspicious of such endeavours (Hurd, 2008 Casanova, 1994). There are therefore calls for a more vibrant pluralist approach in the public sphere.Judeo-Christian secularism and international relationsThrough its lie withment of a place for religion in politics, this approach avoids the pitfalls that befall laicism. In its greens ground strategy, codes of political fellowship and peaceful co-existence are agreed upon by members of a politica l society based on joint doctrines (Taylor, 2010). However, these common set of values has its root in Christianity which is a significant feature defining Western finish (Philpott, 2000). It should be noted that many other religions around the world have got 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). Such a common ground exclusively dependent upon Western religious traditions is thus ill equipped to meet the demands of contemporary societies in and away(p) 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, i t is necessary in the interest of foregoing international relations and contemporary affairs to rethink the secular brotherly reality. There world power be need to approach secularism as among possible solutions to modern challenges associated with religion and public order. The secularization paradigm has served well as a set 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 jilted 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. Also included are those who feel closed in(p) out of public debate and discourse (Haynes, 1998 Casanova, 1994 Bruce, 2003). Secular ism belittles non-Western alternatives in the negotiation of religion and politics, expressing contempt for religion in public life, particularly with regard to Islam, and legitimizes repression of negotiations of such alternative approaches. Through its insistence of neutrality and identification with rationality, freedom and the elected, secularism engenders what is described by Honig (Hurd, 2008 Casanova, 1994) as resistances and remainders. The latter constitute those within secularism who seek to distract conventional assumptions about morality, rationality and good. Secularism strives to silence these by shifting them onto the menage 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 secularist s to be perceived as desire to privatize and to define the political domain (Banchoff, 2007 Bruce, 2003). 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 ascribable to extremist religious belief as commonly perceived (Thomas, 2005), and as shown can be in response to secularisms torrid 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 mark to restrict political space (Taylor, 1998 Myers and Brodeur, 2006). It is widely agreed that secularism, including its clearly anti-religious variants, require 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 which 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 vehement struggle against religious intolerance 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 emotional 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). religious belief is an ingrained marker of collective indistinguishability and entails the submersion of ultimate meaning in peoples beliefs and practices, includi ng hearty and institutional practices (Banchoff, 2007). There are social and political challenges posed by emergent religious pluralism inherent in the interaction among religious groups in society and politics. A clash of religious communities in the political field of operation may cause core pillars of democracy to falter nonage rights and majority rule (Banchoff, 2007 Bruce, 2003). unearthly tensions may undermine effective government by the majority and, as well, dominant traditions may seek to constrain minority groups. However, a multiplicity of faith 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 lands cape (Haynes, 1998). In foregoing discourse, this paper does not propose the thong of secularism or the reinstatement of religion in the public sphere. In its stead, the secular ideas of democratic politics should be broadened to acknowledge positive contributions of other approaches such as the non-secular and the non-Western to pubic life and religion. There mustiness 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 change the same closures that bring about their exclusion. It is therefore imperative for the international familiarity to consider the support of pluralistic democracy wh ich inevitably might entail support for religious parties rather than propping up secularist political solutions. Minority voices in the new dispensation need to be heard. Remedy through the reconsideration of execution 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).Conclusion steering on the concept of secularism affords us the opportunity to observe that the current floor of international politics is far from being neutral or universal given its religious heritages and character to w hich it seems oblivious. Secularisms self-confidence in its objectivity and neutrality which then 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 outstrip 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 grapple with varied traditions such as Islam which moderate different views of social obligation and personal responsibility some w hich are at odds with dominant secular views. Therefore, the secular foundation must be exchanged 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 mashBanchoff, T. (ed.) 2007. Democracy and the saucy Religious Pluralism, Oxford Oxford University Press.Bruce, S. 2003. government activity and Religion, Cambridge PolityCasanova, J. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World, Chicago and capital of the United Kingdom The University of Chicago PressDavie, G. 2003. The Evolution 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 &038 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. Freedom of religion UN and European human rights impartiality 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