The demarcation of church and state (i.e. the spheres of secularization and religion) is a grasping concept that invokes much debate: academically, personally, and intellectually. However, there are several pressing questions that have yet to be explored in-depth such as: Why the boundary of Church and State? Is there a clear-cut distinction among both? Why are they known to be opposing forces? To contextualize this debate, it is necessary to conceptualize this nexus.

Defining Religion:

Religion is a term that is derived from religio a term derived from Latin’s relegae. The premise is thus that one is bound to a higher being through objects of faith (i.e. prayer and piety) and concern themselves with the metaphysical (other than this lifetime). Religion is not a subjective attitude towards this higher being, but refers to specific doctrines and rituals shared and preformed by human collectivities (e.g. Hindus, Christian, Muslims) and such rituals can be “objectively” observed. For example, I can measure a group’s religiosity by examining their piousness in performing prayer etc…

Defining Secularism:

Secularism is derived from the Latin Saeculum, which has a dual meaning involving both time and location. Time referencing the now or present and location designating the world of the worldly sense of it. Secularization can therefore be seen as a process by which one disengages from the metaphysical to focus on this world and time.

Misconception:

The problem is that people falsely assume that secularism is the opposing value of religion. In most cases it is misconstrued with the concept of Atheism, or the loss of faith in any higher being. Secularism, however, is binding oneself to the need to engage in the affairs of this time and this world and Religion asserts the need to use this lifetime to gain rewards for the next (not necessarily eternal, many religions believe in rebirth).

Church vs. State?

In setting the aforementioned concepts it is clearly noticeable that secularism is a value, or a prism through which to view things. It is therefore very different from secularization, a notion that argues for the separation of law and religion each to have it’s own domain.

In many cases, however, such a divide is virtually impossible given the fact that religion, as a matter of doctrine, involves itself in the public sphere. Secular states therefore, use the law to demarcate the boundaries of religion in public sphere. This is a significant problem.

Secular states contest that it is conforming to the rule of law and therefore is within its right to limit religion. While that is not the matter of debate, what is of question is whether a state’s interest in religion is kept to a minimal. In allowing itself the right to regulate religion’s role in the public sphere, and for religion as well to advocate for it’s increase in public life is the causation of a ‘blur’ that is convoluted far more than what people would expect.

In defining religion I have asserted that it is, as a general rule, a matter of bounding to a higher being that is concerned with the metaphysical. In using this propagation we can easily assume that religion therefore, is not interested in matters of temporal affairs. Or rather, it should not be. However, that leads us to the formation of religious doctrines. Contrary to what people assume, it is not stagnant, but rather an active agent that has continued to evolve throughout history, leading to it’s extreme interest in temporal affairs.

For example: Most religions assert their moral superiority, their moral behavioral system as the binding factor of its followers. Most religions (I would argue all) are not concerned with matters of the state. God has not ordained that we be involved in public sphere, and therefore we find yet another problem, one of orientation rather than faith. Believers are for the most part, controlled and influenced by those claiming higher authority by virtue of being versed in the religious doctrines. And therefore, the collective takes it for granted that this is the way of God.

But when did God inform us that it was possible for us to participate in parliamentary elections? Make policy decisions? In Islam many assume that God has sanctioned this through his Sharia. A law that many believe is God’s law. Negating the fact that a mere 80 verses in the Qu’ran only deal with issues of secular matters. Scholars, such as Baber Johansen have found through the review of primary historical texts that Sharia law is indeed man-made law.

Seculars on the other hand, exquisitely advocate that politics is no place for religion. Yet they still advocate for equal opportunity within in a democratic state. How democratic is it to openly call for the exclusion of a group that is widely represented, and in recent years has overtaken secular forms of life? World renowned political philosophers such as Robert Nozick, argues in his renowned book, Anarchy, State and Utopia that if religious doctrine is presented in public spheres and has found a large and receptive audience, then it should be entertained. Is this not the case in the Arab world today?

Let us examine Lebanon, which is considered “the most secular state in the Arab World”. In the 1970’s the number of people that attended churches, and mosques were so limited that many places of worship were almost always, empty. Today, people are standing on the streets to perform their religious duties. Is this not an indication to the loss of secularization?

This article, which concludes my faith series, does not bias one group over another. But rather it hopes to expand horizons on this issue that people seem to entertain much discussion on, but know very little about. My objective was to be informative and not opinionated.

source:
Link

Posted By:
MHG