Search

Debates and controversies over the governance of religious diversity are important features of the social and political landscape in all five regions covered in this collection. All have historical as well as contemporary forms of these debates that have had a significant impact on not just the structures and forms of governance but also on the very identity of each state as it has grappled, and continues to grapple, with religious diversity and the issues it raises. This final contribution presents an inter-regional comparative analysis and findings of different modes of state-religion connections between our different regions, following on from the discussions in the individual contributions of the collection focused on intra-regional analyses. Moreover, central to state-religion relations is the idea of political secularism and so we offer a definition of political secularism from which we can compare countries and regions. We assess the idea of political secularism against our typology of modes of governance of religious diversity and explore convergences and divergences between our regions along three conceptual lines: the idea of secularism, the idea of freedom of religion, and the relationship between national identity and religion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between and within different world regions today religious diversity remains a significant challenge and researchers have identified a wide variety of church-state relations as well as of legal, institutional, and political arrangements related to state-religion connections. These variations in type and degree owe something to distinctive political, institutional, theological, and historical inheritances and have led to different normative conceptions of secularism and of state-religion relations and connections. This first contribution begins by mapping the ground of existing conceptions of secularism and state-religion connections. Our discussion first assesses normative approaches that emanate from 'the West' as well as from perspectives outside of 'the West' (such as India), and which might directly challenge the former. It then turns to outline a new framework of five modes of governance of religious diversity, presenting each in relation to a series of constitutive features or norms that characterise it and which distinguish it from other modes. This typology of modes forms the basis of the intra- and inter-regional comparative analyses presented in the regionally focused contributions to this collection. We finally provide an overview of these contributions and their application of the typology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Newly established religious minorities in Western European countries and Australia have sparked fresh questions about the public place of religion. The current situation in the region reflects a certain agonism over the place of public religion and its relation to liberal secular order. This has especially been the case for the region's Muslims in a context marked by fears of radicalisation and extremism. This contribution considers these responses in relation to Belgium, France, Germany, and the UK; and Australia. The contribution explores the norm of freedom of religion that forms the region's core similarity but also the ground on which divergences in norms of state-religion connections can be found. It identifies key norms that operate in the region in order to draw out similarities as well as important differences between the countries. Exploring how the governance of religious diversity comes to reflect diversity-enhancing or diversity-limiting features, it assesses the ways and extent to which the region can be characterised under 'moderate secularism'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In November 2019, a conference was held at the University of Bristol to mark the twentieth anniversary of the Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship. This special issue of Ethnicities brings together a set of articles by a number of the keynote speakers at that conference. By doing so, it celebrates the Centre's achievements over these two decades, reveals how the field has changed over the last twenty years, gives a good indication of the range of the Centre's current activities and also hints at some of the directions which it may take in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the relationship between religion and the state, focusing on cases of establishment in which one religion is formally recognized. Arguing that religious establishment is wrong if it causes some citizens to feel alienated, we reject the criticism that feelings of alienation are too subjective a foundation for a robust normative case about establishment. We base our argument on an account of collective identities, which may have an 'inside' but are also subject to a process of othering in which a dominant group imposes an identity on a subordinate group. The establishment of a religion may contribute to othering, and the othered group may consequently be alienated from the state. However, since establishment does not always cause alienation, it is necessary to seek evidence and engage in a dialogue in order to understand a group's own account of its experience of its situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There may be various reasons to rethink political secularism but, in my view, the most significant today, certainly in Western Europe, is what I understand as the multicultural challenge. It is clear West European states are now highly challenged by the issues posed by post-immigration ethno-religious diversity, and that the new Muslim settlements of the last fifty years or so are at the centre of it. This has forced new thinking, not only about questions of social integration but also about the role of religion in relation to the state and citizenship. Accordingly, a fundamental issue that many thought had long been settled has re-emerged with new vitality and controversy, namely political secularism, especially as it articulates with questions of tolerance, recognition, and governance. My own contribution to the climate of 're-thinking secularism' has been to argue that what is sometimes talked about as the 'post-secular' or a 'crisis of secularism' is, in Western Europe, quite crucially to do with the reality of multiculturalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Bristol School of Multiculturalism is a political theory/sociology interdisciplinary approach to its subject matter, which has been described as a form of normative sociology. It is normative in the way that a lot of critical social theory (e.g., Foucauldian) is not and is not merely "deconstructive" but also a constructive engagement with the concerns of co-citizens. It, however, eschews the abstract, top-down universalism of Rawlsian liberal egalitarianism in favour of a context of national citizenship and pays particular attention to bottom-up political struggle. However, unlike some other activist-oriented perspectives or standpoints, it is neither antistate nor antinational but is guided by a sense of inclusive unity or the common good. Essential to this unity is "recognition" and institutional, not merely symbolic, accommodation of minorities and a perspective on the "multi" which goes beyond the black-white binary and a secularist exclusion of political claims-making by religious and ethnoreligious groups such as Muslims in western Europe. Critically, the Bristol School of Multiculturalism is not just normative in that it does normative sociology, but most importantly, it engages in political theory to justify its normative perspective against objections and rival normative positions. So, the Bristol School of Multiculturalism is perhaps not just a normative sociology but also a form of normative sociological theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modood's normative nationalism (or patriotism) is well articulated in the concluding essay of the book in which he reflects on his role as a public intellectual: 'What I have been concerned about ... has not been the well-being of Muslims per se, but the well-being of Muslims who are part of British society and whose future is part of British society' (Modood [15], p. 228). The focus of most essays in Modood's book is on his rejection of state neutrality and the separation between religion and state in the US-American and French ideologies of secularism. Bhikhu Parekh's I Ethnocentric Political Theory: The Pursuit of Flawed Universals i (Macmillan) and Tariq Modood's I Essays on Secularism and Multiculturalism i (ECPR and Rowman & Littlefield International) were published in the same month, May 2019, and each had the form of a collection of essays published over one or two decades. Turning to Modood's book, I do not think that the moderate secularism he defends, which allows for weak religious establishment and other state-religion-connections, is at odds with rights to free exercise of religion. This suggests that it is contextual considerations along the lines of the type of contextualist political theory sketched in the introduction (Modood [15], pp. 19-21) that drive Modood's claim that Muslim religious beliefs should be protected. [Extracted from the article]

The four articles that make up this symposium on Tariq Modood's recent collection, Essays on Secularism and Multiculturalism (2019), are based on a public conversation and research colloquium held at Utrecht University on 18 February 2020. In the first article, Modood introduces the conversation with a statement of his thinking over two decades on the subjects of secularism and multiculturalism. This is followed by responses by Pooyan Tamimi Arab and Ernst van den Hemel and, in the fourth and final article, Modood has the last word. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The four articles that make up this symposium on Tariq Modood's recent collection, Essays on Secularism and Multiculturalism (2019), are based on a public conversation and research colloquium held at Utrecht University on 18 February 2020. In the first article, Modood introduces the conversation with a statement of his thinking over two decades on the subjects of secularism and multiculturalism. This is followed by responses by Pooyan Tamimi Arab and Ernst van den Hemel and, in the fourth and final article, Modood has the last word. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is often described today as neo‐nationalism or nationalist populism today arguably looks like the old nationalism. What is emerging as genuinely new are the identity‐based nationalisms of the centre left, sometimes called "liberal nationalism" or "progressive patriotism." I offer my own contribution to the latter, which may be called "multicultural nationalism." I argue that multiculturalism is a mode of integration that does not just emphasise the centrality of minority group identities but argues that integration is incomplete without remaking national identity so that all can have a sense of belonging to it. This multiculturalist approach to national belonging has some relation to liberal nationalism. It, however, makes not just individual rights but minority accommodation a feature of acceptable nationalism. Moreover, accommodation here particularly includes ethno‐religious groups in ways that are difficult for radical regimes of secularism. For these reasons, multicultural nationalism unites the concerns of some of those currently sympathetic to majoritarian nationalism and those who are prodiversity and minority accommodationist in the way that liberal nationalism (with its emphasis on individualism and majoritarianism) does not. It therefore represents the political idea and tendency most likely to offer a feasible alternative rallying point to monocultural nationalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This extended commentary engages in debate about the place of religion within multicultural social structures and the perceived risks and benefits of the incorporation of this within state and social policy. If social policy has indeed been extended from ethnicity to include religion, what are the implications of this? Key issues within the debate include the relationship between secular and religious identities and the kind of secularism that should inform the way in which the state is seeking to accommodate religious demands and identities in its engagement with particular communities, particularly ethnic minority communities. The commentary takes as its starting point an article published in 2011 in Critical Social Policy 31(3) by Singh and Cowden on ‘Multiculturalism’s New Fault Lines’ and a response to this by Tariq Modood. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses political secularism as an institutional arrangement where religious authority and religious reasons for action and political authority and political reasons for action are distinguished. It cites the author's focus in Western Europe which is currently witnessing a transition from a secular to a postsecular society where secular citizens must express a previously denied respect for religious citizens. It notes how religion is again being recognized as a legitimate basis of public engagement and political action which results in a contemporary crisis of secularism globally. It suggests for political secularists to thing on how to multiculturalize moderate secularism and avoid provoking the crisis by pressing for radical secularism.

Political secularism takes many forms but a fundamental distinction is between radical and moderate kinds. The latter is a genuine secularism and not just a failure to take secularism to its logical conclusion. The failure to appreciate this obscures the secularism that exists in western Europe. Namely, an accommodation of organised religion which sees it as a potential public good or national resource (not just a private benefit), which the state can in some circumstances assist to realise—even through an ‘established’ church. I adumbrate five types of reasons the state might be interested in religion: truth, danger, utility, identity and respect. The challenge facing such secularism today is whether it can be pluralised or multiculturalised, in particular whether it can accommodate Muslims. A ground for optimism is the respect that some people, especially some Muslims, have for religions other than their own. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on criticisms that have been raised regarding his beliefs on multicultural equality and moderate secularism. The relation in which the author's views on secularism has in regards to politics is discussed. Comments that the author has made regarding equality and its justification are discussed.

We explore aspects of what it means to be a ‘moderate’ Muslim in Britain. Based on interviews with 21 Muslim intellectuals or those active in public or community debates (not all of whom were happy with the term ‘moderate Muslims’), we examine what these Muslims think about multiculturalism. While there is a variety of views, the respondents are pro-multiculturalism as long as it includes faith as a dimension of ‘difference’, something they believe has only belatedly, tentatively and slowly happened in Britain. Most of the other aspects of the multicultural ideal and criticisms of contemporary British practice, such as the distinction between mutual respect and tolerance, the importance of non-separateness and dialogue, the need for transformative change on the part of the minorities as well as the majority, seem to be similar to the views held by non-Muslim British multiculturalists. Yet some believe that the Qur'an, Islam and Muslim history are powerful sources of multi- culturalism and represent a form superior to any that has been developed elsewhere or is on offer in the contemporary West. This view was held by those who are experts in using and engaging with contemporary Western discourses rather than those who are authorities in interpreting Islamic texts, and so they, like most others in the group could be said to be a relatively new kind of Muslim public figure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The classical liberal concern for freedom of religion today intersects with concerns of equality and respect for minorities, of what might be loosely termed 'multiculturalism'. When these minorities were primarily understood in terms of ethno-racial identities, multiculturalism and freedom of religion were seen at that time as quite separate policy and legal fields. As ethno-religious identities have become central to multiculturalism (and to rejections of multiculturalism), specifically in Western Europe in relation to its growing Muslim settlements, not only have the two fields intersected, new approaches to religion and equality have emerged. We consider the relationship between freedom of religion and ethno-religious equality, or alternatively, religion as faith or conscience and religion as group identity. We argue that the normative challenges raised by multicultural equality and integration cannot be met by individualist understandings of religion and freedom, by the idea of state neutrality, nor by laicist understandings of citizenship and equality. Hence, a re-thinking of the place of religion in public life and of religion as a public good and a re-configuring of political secularism in the context of religious diversity is necessary. We explore a number of pro-diversity approaches that suggest what a respectful and inclusive egalitarian governance of religious diversity might look like, and consider what might be usefully learnt from other countries, as Europe struggles with a deeper diversity than it has known for a long time. The moderate secularism that has historically evolved in Western Europe is potentially accommodative of religious diversity, just as it came to be of Christian churches, but it has to be 'multiculturalised'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]