Moderate Secularism, Difference Sensitivity and Contextualism

A Rejoinder to Modood

Datos Bibliográficos

ID6352876
AutoresSune Laegaard (0000-0002-2554-1132)
Año2009
Volumen29
Número1
Páginas77-81
Fecha de publicación2009-02-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaPolitics (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0032-3268 • E-ISSN: 1467-9256
EditorialSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1111/j.1467-9256.2008.01341.x
OpenAlexW2088101163
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas4
Referencias citadas8

I also have no quarrel with Modood’s claim that the fact of moderate secularism is important for political theory discussions of secularism. It is less clear, however, precisely what the import of the fact of moderate secularism is, and it is certainly not obvious that moderate secularism is ‘superior’ to other forms of secularism in normative terms (Modood, 2009, p. 72). This normative claim goes beyond the empirical observation and has to be argued, which is why the debate is really about principles – the question is what the best normative account of secularism is. I do not want to deny that there are positive features and consequences of actual moderate secularism. My question was more specific than whether moderate secularism has good effects, namely whether it is preferable on the basis of a political ideal of equality, and, if so, how one determines in a given context which particular kind of moderate secularism to prefer

Context (archaeology · Epistemology · Normative · Political science · Politics · Secularism · Sociology · History · Law · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics · Religion and Society Interactions · Religious Freedom and Discrimination

Herramientas

Abrir DOISci-Hub