<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Immanent Frame &#187; Rethinking secularism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/category/secularism/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame</link>
	<description>Secularism, religion, and the public sphere</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>What we talk about when we talk about shari‘a</title>
		<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/04/01/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-sharia/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/04/01/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-sharia/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 03:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Noah Feldman</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Rethinking secularism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/04/01/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-shari%e2%80%98a/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8598.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/feldman.gif" border="0" alt="" width="100" align="right" /></a>A few clarifying points are in order regarding <a title="Why Shariah?" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?ex=1364270400&#38;en=11546f69451cc9b3&#38;ei=5124&#38;partner=permalink&#38;exprod=permalink" target="_blank">an essay of mine</a> in <em>The New York Times Magazine</em> that drew on <a title="The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State" href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8598.html" target="_blank">a new book</a>, <em>The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State</em>, out this past month from Princeton University Press.  I began the essay with the recent lecture of the Archbishop of Canterbury to frame an irrefutable and I think interesting contrast: in the West, the word shari‘a is treated as radioactive, while in many places in the Muslim world (I quoted statistics from Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan) substantial majorities say they favor making the shari‘a into the source of law.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/04/01/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-sharia/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is critique secular?</title>
		<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/30/is-critique-secular-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/30/is-critique-secular-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:23:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Saba Mahmood</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Is critique secular?]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Rethinking secularism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/30/is-critique-secular-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the most cherished definitions of critique is the incessant subjection of all norms to unyielding critique. Or is it?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/30/is-critique-secular-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Shariah?</title>
		<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/28/why-shariah/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/28/why-shariah/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:42:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Saïd Amir Arjomand</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Rethinking secularism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/28/why-shariah/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Noah Feldman prefaces his plea for the Shariah in his recent article for <em>The New York Times Magazine</em> ("<a title="Why Shariah?" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?_r=1&#38;ref=asia&#38;pagewanted=all&#38;oref=slogin" target="_blank">Why Shariah?</a>") with a reference to the proposal recently made by the Archbishop of Canterbury to allow the Shariah and  Jewish law to be considered in voluntary family and arbitration courts. The Archbishop and the Professor are addressing very different issues, however. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/28/why-shariah/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who speaks for Islam?</title>
		<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/02/who-speaks-for-islam/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/02/who-speaks-for-islam/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:04:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Esposito</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Rethinking secularism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/02/who-speaks-for-islam/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The politicization of scholars, experts and media commentators post 9/11 has created a minefield for policymakers and the general public. Many are caught between the contending positions of seemingly qualified experts as well as a new cadre of Islamophobic authors and their revisionist readings of Islam and Islamic history.  Today, we now have a new empirically grounded tool that enables us to go beyond the limited interpretations and opinions of experts when asking: What do Muslims think, what do they care about, and what do they want? [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/03/02/who-speaks-for-islam/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>De-transcendentalizing the secular</title>
		<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/01/31/de-transcendentalizing-the-secular/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/01/31/de-transcendentalizing-the-secular/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stathis Gourgouris</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Is critique secular?]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Rethinking secularism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/01/31/de-transcendentalizing-the-secular/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How one answers the question “<a title="Is critique secular?" href="http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/category/is-critique-secular/">Is critique secular?</a>” determines substantially how one engages with secularism, how one comes to defend it, repudiate it, or reconceptualize it. My answer to this question is unequivocal: Yes, critique is secular, and to go even further, if the secular imagination ceases to seek and to enact critique, it ceases to be secular. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/01/31/de-transcendentalizing-the-secular/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Anti-secularism</title>
		<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/01/17/anti-secularism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/01/17/anti-secularism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Hans Joas</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Religion in the public sphere]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Rethinking secularism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/01/17/anti-secularism/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img title="zwischen-naturalismus-und-religion.jpg" src="http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/zwischen-naturalismus-und-religion.jpg" border="0" alt="zwischen-naturalismus-und-religion.jpg" align="right" />More than most other great systematic thinkers of our time, Jürgen Habermas has for decades consistently expressed his views on the burning issues of the day, finding inspiration for his philosophical work in contemporary realities. There is still no sign of any let-up in his tremendous capacity to produce analyses of the contemporary world. With his new volume of essays, <a title="Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion" href="http://www.amazon.de/Zwischen-Naturalismus-Religion-Philosophische-Aufs%C3%A4tze/dp/3518584472" target="_blank"><em>Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion</em></a>,<em> </em>the philosopher now presents us with a collection of writings from the 2001-2004 period [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/01/17/anti-secularism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Varieties of Religion Today</title>
		<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/20/varieties-of-religion-today/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/20/varieties-of-religion-today/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:00:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Hans Joas</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[A Secular Age]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Rethinking secularism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/20/varieties-of-religion-today/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img title="varieties.jpg" src="http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/varieties.jpg" border="0" alt="varieties.jpg" align="right" />In my <a title="http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/14/a-catholic-modernity/" href="http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/14/a-catholic-modernity/">first post</a>, I discussed Charles Taylor’s book, <em>A Catholic Modernity</em>. I would now like to discuss a <a title="Varieties of Religion Today" href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/TAYVAR.html" target="_blank">second book</a>, which consists of lectures Taylor gave at the Vienna Institute for Human Sciences (<em>Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen</em>) in 2000; these grew out of his Gifford Lectures in Edinburgh in 1999. Surely the most renowned lecture series on the topic of religion, for more than one hundred years, leading thinkers have used this opportunity to share their ideas in the philosophy of religion. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/20/varieties-of-religion-today/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Catholic Modernity?</title>
		<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/14/a-catholic-modernity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/14/a-catholic-modernity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:33:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Hans Joas</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[A Secular Age]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Rethinking secularism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/14/a-catholic-modernity/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img title="catholic-modernity.jpg" src="http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/catholic-modernity.jpg" border="0" alt="catholic-modernity.jpg" align="right" />Some readers of <em>Sources of the Self</em>, particularly its last few chapters, might have wondered how exactly Taylor’s indirect plea for theism, which he makes there, might be related to his personal religious conviction. But the book itself and Taylor’s publications in general make it rather difficult to answer this emerging question. As George Marsden remarks, “Only the most acute readers might surmise that the author is Catholic, if they did not know that already.”]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/14/a-catholic-modernity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Religion, reconciliation, and transitional justice</title>
		<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/11/28/religion-reconciliation-and-transitional-justice/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/11/28/religion-reconciliation-and-transitional-justice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:31:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Philpott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Rethinking secularism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/11/28/religion-reconciliation-and-transitional-justice/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[God is not retreating from public life: this has to be one of the most interesting claims to come out of Charles Taylor’s book and the conversation that it has begotten.  For religion’s public resurgence is one of the most interesting global trends of our time.  One of the most colorful and dramatic sites of this resurgence are the efforts of so many countries to address genocide, the atrocities of civil war, and the injustices of dictatorship – as a common phrase in Northern Ireland puts it, to “deal with their past.” [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/11/28/religion-reconciliation-and-transitional-justice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>We are all religious now</title>
		<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/11/27/we-are-all-religious-now/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/11/27/we-are-all-religious-now/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:52:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Winnifred Fallers Sullivan</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Rethinking secularism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/11/27/we-are-all-religious-now/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“Favoritism for religion,” says Justice Souter, “‘sends the . . . message to . . . nonadherents’ that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.” Souter’s is increasingly a minority voice. We are all religious now. As a leading architect of integrating spirituality into medicine says, “our belief [is] that there is a spiritual dimension in every person’s life, even in those who deny that there is.” [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/11/27/we-are-all-religious-now/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
