The first one is that in the American experience, the separation of church and state, which by and large we acknowledge as a rough-and-ready principle, does not necessarily mean the separation of religion from public life. Another way of saying this is that America has a strong commitment to secularism, but it is secularism of a particular kind, understood in a particular way.
Second, that the United States has achieved in practice what seemed impossible in theory: a reconciliation of religion with modernity, in contrast, as I say, to the Western European pattern.
In the United States religious belief has proven amazingly persistent even as the culture has been more and more willing to embrace enthusiastically all or most of the scientific and technological agenda of modernity. Sometimes the two reinforce one another.
Sometimes they clash with one another, but the American culture has found room for both to be present. The complexity takes a particular form: that politics and culture are designed around an interplay of competitive forces, which is, I think, the key to understanding a lot about the United States.
The Constitution was based on the assumptions that in any dynamic society there would be contending interest groups, and [that] one could best counteract their influence by systematically playing them off against one another.
That was the reasoning behind separation of powers, behind the federal system. There are supposed to be countervailing forces holding one another in check. There is supposed to be common and constant tension. Socially and culturally speaking, the country has evolved in a similar way, not intentionally but with similar effect.
No one at the time of the American founding envisioned the nation as a great bastion of cultural pluralism, in which a wide variety of cultural forms and religions would coexist. They probably would have found the idea unintelligible, but it turned out to be one of the most salient features of American life. Some of this was driven by religion — the desire of Puritans and Quakers and Baptists and other Protestants to worship God as they pleased — but a lot of it was driven by economics.
Hence, the history of American religion and the history of American immigration often track with one another pretty closely. The point is, however, that no one group ever entirely dominates, at least not for long, when the competition of political and social forces becomes as institutionalized as it has in the United States.
Paradoxically, this competition has engendered habits of tolerance. The wars of religion in the 16th century in Europe fostered tolerance simply because of the inability of one religious party to dominate over the others, which meant that religion itself could no longer be a basis for public order and public culture.
Something of the same thing happened in a far less violent way in the United States. This is one of the keys to understanding the relationship of religion and secularism in the United States. American secularism derived from the strength of religion, not from its weakness. There is something very particular about Christianity, a particular virtue it brings to the table in this matter, and that is its emphasis on what is variously called the two spheres or two kingdoms or two cities that have always been taken to divide up reality.
In other words, Christianity had certain theological resources available already at the very beginning for a kind of separation of church and state, although it did not come to pass fully until after those bloody wars of the 16th century had made the principle of religious toleration seem inevitable, and therefore, the need for a secular state.
Another feature that helped to establish the religious tone of early American history was the curious fact that the Europeans settling British North America were not merely Christians but the modernizing rebels within the Christian world. Religious Difference in a Secular Age persuasively highlights the ways in which the modern secular state cultivates religious difference, reinscribes religious inequality, and prioritizes majoritarian values and sensibilities over those of its minorities while claiming to be a neutral arbiter between communities.
The author acknowledges that secularism is not something that can be done away with, any more than modernity can be. She was the co-recipient of the Anna Lindh Mediterranean Journalist Award in the category of new media. On Twitter: SophsC Read More. Subscribe to Our Newsletter. Spring Tags: Saba Mahmood secularism. We need to remove from the Constitution religious oaths for president, judges and taoiseach, and the crime of blasphemy.
We need a parliament that does not start each day with a prayer asking the Christian God to direct every word of our parliamentarians. We need secular State schools that teach children freedom of thought, based on human rights, and without religious segregation or indoctrination.
We need secular State hospitals based on compassion, human rights and the medical needs of patients, and not on religious ethics. International trends are clear. The developed world is relentlessly becoming more secular, with some fundamentalists fighting a rearguard action against it. Ireland will follow that trend, and the sooner we attain a secular State, the better it will be for religious and atheist citizens alike. Rising infection rates in central and eastern Europe suggest a correlation between vaccine scepticism and populist politics.
The plan for the capital looks too much like another aspirational plan, not the inspirational one it should be. Please update your payment details to keep enjoying your Irish Times subscription.
A secular State is best for religious and atheist citizens Political secularism is a force for good: happiest states are secular liberal democracies Tue, Jan 10, , Michael Nugent. Respecting rights But we respect the right of others to believe differently, as long as the State does not assist any group to impose their beliefs on others. A force for good Political secularism is a force for good in three ways. More from The Irish Times Opinion. Home energy upgrades are now more important than ever.
The Dublin start-up making the future better with an appreciation for innovation. Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber. The account details entered are not currently associated with an Irish Times subscription. Please subscribe to sign in to comment. You should receive instructions for resetting your password. When you have reset your password, you can Sign In. Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post.
Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards. Screen Name Selection.
0コメント