Explain secularism is a basic element of a constitution important characteristics of democracy
RIGHT ANSWER WILL MARK AS BRAINLIEST
Answer not related to question will get report
Answers
Answer:
There are mainly two approaches to tracing the history of secularism which are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. The first can be called a ‘historically contingent’
approach to secularism which basically assumes that it emerged out of specific
historical conditions, namely religious wars and the rise of absolutism in early modern
Europe. According to this approach, secularism serves as a modus vivendi in European
societies which were torn by centuries of religious conflict, followed by the rise of
absolutism that established the authority of the state throughout its territory, followed by
the emergence of the nation-state. Since this approach is based on specific historical
events, taking one element out of the equation, such as the French Revolution or
Reformation would mean that there would not be a principle of secularism as we know it
today.
The second approach can be named the ‘Enlightenment approach’, and it is concerned
more with the normative basis of the modern state and traces it to the Enlightenment,
which, in very simple terms, is based on the supremacy of reason. The supremacy of
reason implies that human beings have the capacity to reason and decide for
themselves, which is called autonomy. The modern state is only legitimate in so far as it
respects the autonomy of its citizens. In this regard, the principle of secularism can be
explained as a tool for the modern state to respect and protect this autonomy.
As it is argued above, these two approaches are not mutually exclusive. While the
proponents of these two approaches may disagree and engage in debate about their
understandings of secularism, the approaches essentially focus on different aspects of it.
While the historically contingent approach aims to explain how secularism emerged in a
specific context, the Enlightenment approach seeks to establish the criteria of its
legitimacy. A proponent of the historically contingent approach may argue that due to
the contingent nature of secularism, it is not universally valid, or a proponent of the
Enlightenment approach may reject certain aspects of historical explanations or its
particularism, it is also possible that these two approaches may be adopted
simultaneously
Explanation:
The implications of the study on secularism has some concrete implications for
policymaking. As long as the priority of the policymakers is the long-term legitimacy of
the political system, keeping the rationale behind the principle of secularism in mind
would contribute to positive outcomes.
Most generally, this research advises against accommodationist policies which aim to
meet the demands of religious citizens by going against the principle of separation
between religion and state and by giving the state more power to interfere in religion by
funding, or actively supporting religious organizations or practices. Such policies can
find support for various reasons. Policymakers usually argue for religious
accommodationism in order to find support from a religious majority. Though they can
also be suggested in favor of minority religions with hopes to encourage the integration of concerned minorities. While some accommodationist policies may be residues of an
earlier period where a more religiously homogenous majority existed (such as a state
church, funding of religious schools), others can be introduced as a response to more
recent demands (such as religious arbitration courts, teaching of ‘creationism’ in public
schools, etc.).
It is recommended here that accommodationist policies should be abandoned since
they are prone to create more injustices than they aim to eliminate and they can result
in ‘excessive entanglement’ of religion and state. At the same time, such policies
undermine the principle of secularism, which, as this research shows, is an
indispensable aspect of modern constitutional democratic state. Accommodationist
policies, whether they are in favor of the majority religion or a minority religion, always
create outsiders. Accommodationist policies in favor of majority religions create
outsiders for obvious reasons: those who do not believe in the majority religion (or its
official interpretation) would be effectively discriminated against by the said policy. An
accommodationist policy which aims to eliminate such discrimination by supporting a
minority religion, on the other hand, can very easily create outsiders within that religion,
especially already marginalized groups such as women, children, LGBTI people, or
those who adopt a more heterodox understanding of that religion.
It should be kept in mind that the understanding of secularism proposed here does not
advocate banning or suppressing a religion or its exercise. Secularism by definition
includes freedom of conscience and all exercise of religion is free within the bounds of
the law, as with any exercise.