The modern world, in its self-awareness, is the product of the disengagement of the secular from the religious, which makes the discussion of this issue particularly fraught. The religious overshadowed the secular at one point in the history of the Western world. The secular realm then emerged from under the shadow of the religious, by liberating the political, the legal, and the educational dimensions of public life from religious dominance. We have now reached a point, when the secular overshadows the religious to such an extent, that it is the secular constitutions which guarantee religious freedom. In the heyday of secularism, right after the Second World War, the progressive secularization of the rest of the world, along the lines it had occurred in the West, especially Europe, was considered axiomatic. This belief was shared by the otherwise rival economic systems of capitalism and communism, and also by the rival political systems of liberal democracy and totalitarianism. Liberal democracy saw religion as ultimately turning into a purely private affair, like one's appreciation of art and music; Marxism foresaw not merely its retreat from public life but from life itself. Thus the general intellectual climate, in the middle of the last century, saw religion as on its way out of the public square, if not out of life altogether.
The Iranian Revolution of 1979, however, upset this eschatological apple cart, and, since then, the role of religion in public life the world over has been gaining in salience. Thus the question of the relationship of the religious and the secular, once taken as settled, is back on the table, with a new sense of relevance, in our modern world.
We might begin by looking at some lessons provided by history on the nature of their relationship, in order to assess their relationship in the modern world. And as soon as we cast such a didactic glance at history, it becomes apparent that we have enough historical evidence to indicate what happens when either of the two elements in the dyad gain virtual ascendancy over the other. The medieval times bear witness to what happens when religion comes to prevail over the secular, and the modern times, until very recently, bear witness to what happens when the secular comes to prevail over the religious.
The antithetical variation in the equation may contain many lessons, depending on the lens used to view them. Let us choose to look at them through the lens of human rights, as embodying the human aspiration for political and religious freedom.
A survey of the history of the Western world yields a curious coincidence of opposites, when viewed through this lens. In the medieval period, the religious supervened over the secular, so that the rights, even of kings in the political realm, were abridged, to say nothing of the common person. One might expect this to be the case but another consequence was unexpected -- that the religious freedom of the faithful was also abridged. Orthodoxy reigned supreme during this period and heresy-hunting remained the flavour of the times. In other words, the collapse of the two realms ironically resulted in the diminution of both political and religious freedoms. Modern times saw a role-reversal in this respect and the secular came to supervene over to the religious. The extreme example of this is provided by the communist countries. The collapse of the two realms in these countries, which came about with the dominance of the secular over the religious, also ironically resulted in the curtailment of both religious and political freedom in these countries. One would have expected the curtailment of religious freedom in a situation in which the secular realm supervened over the religious, but what ensued in the communist countries was the loss not only of religious but also political freedoms. It is important to recognize this point (namely, that in the event of one of the two realms -- the religious and the secular -- being overwhelmed by the other, a contraction of freedom in both the realms follows), as it is counter-intuitive. The parts of the world where such a development did not occur were those characterized by liberal democracies, which clearly provided for religious freedom as part of the secular dispensation. They were able to preserve both their political and religious freedoms.
The lesson from history then is clear. When the relationship between the religious and the secular is such as involves the complete dominance of one over the other, then it results in the curtailment of both religious and political freedoms. As noted earlier, this conclusion contains an element of expectation-dissonance, as one would expect religious freedom to flourish in the case of the dominance of the religious over the secular, and expect political freedom to flourish in the case of the dominance of the secular over the religious.
Any vision of utopia then must recognize that it will not be achieved by one of the two obliterating, or dominating over, the other. Attractive as such options might appear in the thoroughness of the erasure of the other, the obliteration or domination of one by the other is a recipe for dystopia. The sobering lesson which one derives from a study of history in respect to the relationship between the two is that both the realms must enjoy relative freedom; that if one of the two dyads prevails over the other, both lose their freedoms.
But how does this lesson apply to our times?
We need to revert now to the belief in the inevitability of the long-term secularization of the globe, to which such eminent thinkers as Peter Berger once subscribed along with many others. We must now recognize that this belief -- that the secular realm was destined to overwhelm the religious -- was entertained by both capitalist and communist countries, although encountered in its more virulent form in the communist countries. In other words, the state of affairs, which the communist countries were seeking to bring about by the use of drastic measures, was expected to come about on its own, through the operation of impersonal and also invisible forces, in the liberal capitalist democracies. The liberal capitalist democracies did not have to take recourse to such measures adopted by communist countries, as the churches would close down on their own, when people stopped attending them, as religion became a purely personal matter and retreated into the private square.
The events of the past few decades in the modern world have demonstrated that this covert triumphalism of the secular world view is as dangerous as the overt triumphalism of secular totalitarianism. And further, that each of the two realms -- the secular and the religious -- should recognize the inevitable presence of the other as an empirical fact, and the further recognize the historical fact that the complete dominance of one realm by the other ends up in the diminution of freedoms in both.
Martin Long: Evangelicals' Lock on the GOP Cracks
Secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Secular religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religious-Secular Distinctions - For discussion of how people ...
Religion and the Secular - Equinox Publishing
Religious vs. Secular Christmas - Is Christmas a Religious or ...
Civil liberty is based on the idea, first, that people have inherent rights to make responsible decisions for themselves while pursuing their goals through life; and, second, that their freedom to act on these is, in fact, the heart/basis of civil liberty.
Religious liberty is based on he idea that people may practice one's faith and act in accord with their conscience.
Civil liberty enjoins and protects this religious liberty to a limit. That limit is reached when the claim to religious liberty places at risk the abilities of other people to make responsible decisions for themselves in accord with their goals through life.
Liberal democracies also deny religion any role in political power, yet are able to safeguard personal freedoms. I don't see where their tolerance of religion as a personal choice is important to their ability to do this, except as a manifestation of their general tolerance for all personal freedoms.
We need a more clear-cut, causual link between tolerance of religion and political freedom before we might agree that religion, specifically, needs to be supported.
No, not "at one point", Always.
"In the heyday of secularism, right after the Second World War..."
Not in America, in america that when religion found solid foot hole in planting God in our Pledge, God on our money, and even God into a national model, despite it's unconstitutionality.
I disagree with the author on the secualism, religious divide. There is no such thing as secular totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is associated either with religions (of the Christian or Islamic kind) insisting on blind belief or Communism insisting on blind belief. I would say that any official insistence on "right belief" leads to tyranny. Liberal democracy with its indifference to any right belief is superior to theocracies, whether God, Allah, Jesus based or Marx, Lenin, Mao, history .. based "belief-cracies".
Communism, is a Political Ideology, it's an entire system of political beliefs, just like Capitalism.
When Political Ideology is clung to in the same way religion is, it truly becomes a religion. Look at the political divide in the country, how is it not a complete mirror to religious divide.
[ It is not as if the secular and the religious worldviews were competing in the pre-modern world. There was only the religious world, and the secular outlook emerged along with modernity. Whatever we set as the starting date, we should expect a centuries long transient phase in which the religious and the secular worldviews will ebb and flow in relative strength. As Berger has observed, the asymptotic behavior favors the secular worldview. ]
"The events of the past few decades in the modern world have demonstrated that this covert triumphalism of the secular world view is as dangerous as the overt triumphalism of secular totalitarianism."
[ What recent events are being referred to? How is the secular world, in the context of liberal democracies, suppressing the religious? By just being itself and asserting its own preferences? Isn't the danger of secularism precisely the fact that it brought the options of choice (believing or not believing) and tolerance into the world? In this sense, the very presence of secularism is considered a threat to religion. Nonbelievers do not even need to argue the existence of god to get on the believers' nerves, just doing their own thing is sufficient to drive the latter up the wall. ]
I see no evidence showing bad effects when religion peacefully atrophies. Northern Europe, Japan, or South Korea seem to show the opposite.
Western Civilization its Science Philosophy, Politics, US Constitution is mostly Greco-Roman
Enlightenment Deism led to Liberal Democracy and advances in Western Civilization. THAT is secularization-etc etc etc
see also Treaty of Tripoli 1797 re status of religion in US. Keepin mind the Creator of the declaration is NATURAL and PHILOSOPHICAL and NOT Biblical and Supernatural-also perfectly ethical systems before any Biblical influence-see Aristotle.
This is an out-dated concept of "church." The concept of "church" is evolving, as Alain de Botton's "athiest temple" concept in London exemplifies. Most religious folks view "church" as a place to propagate religious beliefs. And the quote above seems to echo the same sentiment. But as an athiest who embraces not only traditional religious churches, but also de Botton's "athiest temple", I should point out all the good aspects of most churches, regardless of their underlying religious dogma: most churches are a congregation of folks who strive to be good people and who collectively strive to do good in their communities. I wish more people would view churches in this way...based on the good they do in their communities, instead of focusing primarily on the religious dogma propagated by each individual church.
First, there is not secular "rule" over religious rule in the world by any means. Considering how recent the separation of "law" from religion, it has only been very recently. Our democratic republic was far more novel and progressive because it separated the law as secular from religious creeds. We have a nation of secular laws by design in America, but it protects all the personal religious beliefs of each citizen. It has taken hundreds of years to clean out the religious laws in our country that have existed "locally" although less on the federal level. My ancestors have been in this country since before the revolution and I can tell you that religious rule on regional communities was very high for a long long time. We are very fortunate for the brilliant design by our founders. Only now are we getting a country that is closer to the vision of a true nation of secular laws. As a country with over 75% of our people are self-described Christains, I find your statement of dominance by the "secular" absurd. Only recently have people that don't believe in gods were able without huge social prejudice been able to speek openly in our public commons, at work, and with our friends. We still cannot elect a President to office without that person being a Christian. In most areas of our country, higher office demands belief in Christianity and in some areas, evangelical versions of it.
The rest of your post is absurd.
of an enlightened Secular Republic-America
Far as I'm concerned, any country that promotes thought crimes is evil. That is what a theocracy is by definition, holding one set of beliefs over another. Some secular governments have also promoted thought crimes, and I see absolutely no difference between them and theocracies.
Give me secularism WITH freedom of thought, and it will never be comparable to a religiously dictated government system. Period.
I think all that is needed is sufficient freedom of expression -- I think many people are kidding themselves about how free we are now -- and religion will finally start to head off into the past along with things like human sacrifice and public burnings.