To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secularization (or secularisation)[1] is the transformation of a society from close identification with religious values and institutions toward nonreligious values and secular institutions. The secularization thesis refers to the belief that as societies progress, particularly through modernization and rationalization, religion loses its authority in all aspects of social life and governance.[2] The term secularization is also used in the context of the lifting of the monastic restrictions from a member of the clergy.[3]

Secularization refers to the historical process in which religion loses social and cultural significance. As a result of secularization the role of religion in modern societies becomes restricted. In secularized societies faith lacks cultural authority, and religious organizations have little social power.

Secularization has many levels of meaning, both as a theory and a historical process. Social theorists such as Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Max Weber, and Émile Durkheim, postulated that the modernization of society would include a decline in levels of religiosity. Study of this process seeks to determine the manner in which, or extent to which religious creeds, practices and institutions are losing social significance. Some theorists argue that the secularization of modern civilization partly results from our inability to adapt broad ethical and spiritual needs of mankind to the increasingly fast advance of the physical sciences.[4]

In contrast to the “modernization” thesis, Christian Smith and others argue that secularization is promoted by intellectual and cultural elites to enhance their own status and influence. Smith believes intellectuals have an inherent tendency to be hostile to their native cultures, causing them to embrace secularism.[5]

The term also has additional meanings, primarily historical and religious.[6] Applied to church property, historically it refers to the seizure of monastic lands and buildings, such as Henry VIII's Dissolution of the Monasteries in England and the later acts during the French Revolution as well as by various anti-clerical enlightened absolutist European governments during the 18th and 19th centuries, which resulted in the expulsion and suppression of the religious communities which occupied them. The 19th-century Kulturkampf in Germany and Switzerland and similar events in many other countries also were expressions of secularization.[7]

Still another form of Secularization refers to the act of Prince-Bishops or holders of a position in a Monastic or Military Order - holding a combined religious and secular authority under the Catholic Church - who broke away and made themselves into completely secular (typically, Protestant) hereditary rulers. For example, Gotthard Kettler, the last Master of the Livonian Order, converted to Lutheranism, secularised (and took to himself) the lands of Semigallia and Courland which he had held on behalf of the order - which enabled him to marry and leave to his descendants the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia.

In the 1960s there was a shift toward secularization in Western Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand. This transformation was intertwined with major social factors: economic prosperity, youth rebelling against the rules and conventions of society, women's liberation, radical theology, and radical politics.[8]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    126 346
    1 085
    7 226
    114 463
    21 043
  • ✪ Religion: Crash Course Sociology #39
  • ✪ Secularization Meaning
  • ✪ Peter Berger on the failure of the secularization hypothesis
  • ✪ Social institutions - education, family, and religion | Society and Culture | MCAT | Khan Academy
  • ✪ Charles Taylor Lecture: Disenchantment and Secularity


Religion might not seem like something a sociologist can study. After all, religion is about personal beliefs, right? So, sociology won’t give you any answers about the existence of God, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But sociology can help you think about religion as a social institution. In the same way that we might study the family or the government, we can ask questions about religion’s role in society. Like, how do different religions influence social norms in a society? What’s the function of religion in a society? Does it improve social cohesiveness or entrench inequalities? Before we try to answer those big questions, let’s start with a simpler one: What is religion? [Theme Music] To understand how sociologists think about religion, we need to go back to the work of our old friend, French sociologist Emile Durkheim. Durkheim defined religion not in terms of gods or supernatural phenomena, but in terms of the sacred – things that are set apart from society as extraordinary, inspiring awe, and deserving of reverence. He claimed that in all societies, there’s a difference between the sacred and the profane, or the mundane, everyday parts of life. Religion, then, is a social institution that involves a unified system of beliefs and practices that recognizes the sacred. But this isn’t a set-up between good and evil. Sacred doesn’t mean good and profane doesn’t mean bad. Instead, recognizing something as sacred is about seeing a certain place, object, or experience as special and creating markers that separate it from your day to day life. It’s natural, then, to think about religion from the perspective of Symbolic-Interactionism, which thinks about society in terms of the symbols that humans construct. And all religions rely on the use of symbols to create the Sacred. Rituals, for example, are a form of symbolic practice that highlight faith. Many religions use certain actions during prayer that symbolize deference to God, such as Catholics making the sign of the cross before prayer, or Muslims supplicating themselves and facing Mecca, the birthplace of the prophet Mohammed. Many religions also practice ritual ablution, or washing certain parts of the body during a religious ceremony. For example, in the religious practice of baptism, water is a symbol of people’s belief that faith cleanses the soul. Objects can also take on Sacred meaning. Symbols like the Cross or the Star of David are considered totems, objects that we have collectively defined as Sacred. Types of dress or grooming practices, such as men’s beards in Islam or Orthodox Judaism, also become sacred indicators of faith because they’re visible symbols of religious belief. In this way, Totems confer in-group membership to those who wear or use these symbols, because they provide a way for people to demonstrate their faith and recognize that faith in others. But the role of religion in society goes beyond influencing our symbolic practices. In addition to defining the Sacred and the profane, Emile Durkheim also looked at religion through the lens of structural functionalism. And he identified three major functions of religion that contribute to the operation of society. First, religion helps establish social cohesion, by uniting people around shared symbols, norms, and values. Durkheim argued that religious thought promotes norms like morality, fairness, charity, and justice. Churches act as gathering places, forming the backbone of social life for many people. In fact, membership in a church is the most common community association for Americans. Second, Durkheim said, societies use religion as a form of social control. People behave well, not only out of fear of their friends and families disapproving, but also out of a desire to remain in their god’s good graces. Christianity and Judaism, for example, have the Ten Commandments, a set of rules for behavior that they believe were sent directly from God. But these commandments aren’t just rules about how to worship – many of them match up with societal norms, like respecting your parents or not committing adultery, or with secular laws, which prohibit murder and theft. Third, in a functionalist perspective, religion provides people with a sense of purpose in life. Sometimes it can feel like our lives are such tiny blips in the grand scheme of the universe, it can be hard to imagine why your actions matter. Religion gives people a reason to see their lives as meaningful, by framing them within the greater purpose of their god’s grand plan. But while Durkheim’s framing demonstrates the many ways religions promote social unity, religion can, of course, also be a force of division. Social Conflict Theory perspectives understand religion in terms of how it entrenches existing inequalities. Karl Marx saw religion as an agent of social stratification, which served those in power by legitimizing the status quo and framing existing inequality as part of a divine plan. Rulers in many societies were believed to be given their right to rule by divine right. Chinese emperors were believed to have a mandate from heaven, and were given the title Son of Heaven to indicate their divine authority to rule. In Europe, heads of state were often also the head of the Church – in fact, to this day, the British monarchs are the formal heads of the Church of England. And some Christian religions, such as Calvinism, espouse predestination, or the belief that God pre-ordains everything that comes to pass, including whether you get into heaven. So, by this logic, having wealth and power was seen as an indication of God’s favor. So, for these reasons, Marx saw religion as a huge barrier to revolutionary change, referring to it as the ‘opiate of the masses.’ After all, it’s hard to convince people to rise up against the elites if they believe that the elites have the power of God behind them! In addition to entrenching political and economic inequalities, Conflict Theory perspectives also explore how religion contributes to gender and racial inequalities. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble to look at how feminist theory and race conflict theory help us understand religion’s effects on these kinds of inequality. If you walk around any major museum in the Western world, you’re pretty much guaranteed to find some art depicting religious figures from Judaism or Christianity. And in these paintings, God is pretty much exclusively an old white man with a beard. And in fact, divine figures and their prophets in most religions are male. Virtually all of the world’s major religions are patriarchal, with religious texts often explicitly describing men in the image of God and women in subordinate roles to men. For example, in Christianity, the first man, Adam, was created in God’s image whereas the first woman, Eve, was created from Adam’s rib to serve and obey Adam. Many religions also position women as immoral beings in need of male constraint. In the Bible, Eve committed the original sin by tempting Adam to eat the forbidden fruit and got both of them booted from paradise. Many religions ban women from positions with the clergy, including Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, and Islam. Religion has also been used as a way to control women’s behaviors, requiring them to dress modestly or not allowing women to speak in church or be alone with men outside their family. Religion has also been used to uphold another type of social inequality: racial inequality. Slavery in the United States, for example, was framed as morally justifiable based on various texts from the Bible, most prominently the story of Cain and Abel, in which God ‘marked’ Cain for murdering his brother, which was interpreted to mean marking him as sinful with darker skin. But that’s not to say that religion is always on the side of oppression. Quakers, a sect of Christianity, were leaders in the abolition movement and in the women’s suffrage movement of the 19th century. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s was led by many with ties to the Black religious community. Most notably the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a civil rights organization headed up by a Baptist minister that you might have heard of named Martin Luther King, Jr. Thanks Thought Bubble! So, we’ve talked a lot so far about religion in theory – but how does religion work in a practical sense? Understanding how different religions are organized and how they integrate with the rest of society helps us understand which of these theories make sense in different religious contexts. We only have to look at the US to see why understanding the practical importance of religion might be of interest to sociologists: In the United States, more than 70% of American adults claim that religion is important in their lives, which is more than double the rate of adults in other high income countries like Norway or Japan. National surveys show that about 50% of Americans identify as Protestants, 20% identify as Catholics, 6% identify with a non-Christian faith, and 23% do not identify with a religion at all. Within the Protestant faith, there are a large number of denominations, or subgroups of religious practice, including both mainstream denominations, such as Presbyterians and Lutherans, and Evangelical churches, such as Methodists and Baptists. Evangelical denominations are characterized by more active attempts to proselytize, or spread the faith to others outside the faith. But who identifies as what religion depends a lot on who you are – in terms of where you live, in terms of class, and in terms of race and ethnicity. More well-established religious faiths that are well-integrated into society are what sociologists call Churches. Most major religions are what we would call a Church – for example, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are all ‘Churches’. Religious sects, meanwhile, are faiths with belief systems that are less formal and less integrated into society. And they tend to attract followers who are more disadvantaged. Some examples include Jehovah’s Witnesses, Pentecostals, or Unitarians. Not only does class matter when it comes to your religion – where you live might, too. Catholicism is more common in Northeastern and Southwestern states, whereas the South has high concentrations of Evangelical Protestants, such as Baptists, and the Midwest has higher concentrations of other Protestant faiths, such as Methodists and Lutherans. Many of these regional differences stem from which racial ethnic groups settled in these regions. The Midwest, for example, had high numbers of German and Scandinavian immigrants settle there, and these ethnic groups are often Lutherans. Irish and Italian Americans, who were more likely to be Catholic, settled in New England and the Mid-Atlantic. Black Americans – who are heavily concentrated in Southern states – are somewhat more likely to be religious than the US population as a whole, with 87% claiming an affiliation with some faith. And the vast majority of Black Americans identify with a Protestant faith, with evangelical churches being the most common affiliation. There’s also a growing number of Black Americans who identify as Muslim, with about 40% of all native-born Muslims in the US identifying themselves as African American. Overall, however, the importance of religion in the United States has been on the decline in recent decades – a process known as secularization. Younger Americans are much more likely now to report that they do not believe in any religion compared to past generations. Nonetheless, the influence of religion on society isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. As we learned today – no matter which school of sociological thought you subscribe to – religion has ties to the very rules and norms that shape what our society and culture look like. Today, we looked at how symbolic interactionism helps us understand religion’s dichotomy of the Sacred vs. the Profane. Then, we compared the perspectives of Structural Functionalists and Social Conflict Theorists on whether religion improves social cohesiveness or increases social stratification. And we ended with a discussion of how religious practice in the US differs across race and class lines. Crash Course Sociology is filmed in the Dr. Cheryl C. Kinney Studio in Missoula, MT, and it’s made with the help of all of these nice people. Our animation team is Thought Cafe and Crash Course is made with Adobe Creative Cloud. If you'd like to keep Crash Course free for everyone, forever, you can support the series at Patreon, a crowdfunding platform that allows you to support the content you love. Thank you to all of our patrons for making Crash Course possible with their continued support.



Secularization is sometimes credited both to the cultural shifts in society following the emergence of rationality and the development of science as a substitute for superstitionMax Weber called this process the "disenchantment of the world"—and to the changes made by religious institutions to compensate. At the most basic stages, this begins with a slow transition from oral traditions to a writing culture that diffuses knowledge. This first reduces the authority of clerics as the custodians of revealed knowledge. As the responsibility for education has moved from the family and community to the state, two consequences have arisen:

  • Collective conscience as defined by Durkheim is diminished
  • Fragmentation of communal activities leads to religion becoming more a matter of individual choice rather than an observed social obligation.

A major issue in the study of secularization is the extent to which certain trends such as decreased attendance at places of worship indicate a decrease in religiosity or simply a privatization of religious belief, where religious beliefs no longer play a dominant role in public life or in other aspects of decision making.

The issue of secularization is discussed in various religious traditions. The government of Turkey is an often cited[by whom?] example, following the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate and foundation of the Turkish republic in 1923. This established popular sovereignty in a secular republican framework, in opposition to a system whose authority is based on religion. As one of many examples of state modernization, this shows secularization and democratization as mutually reinforcing processes[citation needed], relying on a separation of religion and state. In expressly secular states like India, it has been argued[by whom?] that the need was to legislate for toleration and respect between quite different religions, and likewise, the secularization of the West was a response to drastically violent intra-Christian feuds between Catholicism and Protestantism. Some[who?] have therefore argued that Western and Indian secularization is radically different in that it deals with autonomy from religious regulation and control. Considerations of both tolerance and autonomy are relevant to any secular state.[citation needed]


C. John Sommerville (1998) outlined six uses of the term secularization in the scientific literature. The first five are more along the lines of 'definitions' while the sixth is more of a 'clarification of use':[9]

  1. When discussing macro social structures, secularization can refer to differentiation: a process in which the various aspects of society, economic, political, legal, and moral, become increasingly specialized and distinct from one another.
  2. When discussing individual institutions, secularization can denote the transformation of a religious into a secular institution. Examples would be the evolution of institutions such as Harvard University from a predominantly religious institution into a secular institution (with a divinity school now housing the religious element illustrating differentiation).
  3. When discussing activities, secularization refers to the transfer of activities from religious to secular institutions, such as a shift in provision of social services from churches to the government.
  4. When discussing mentalities, secularization refers to the transition from ultimate concerns to proximate concerns. E.g., individuals in the West are now more likely to moderate their behavior in response to more immediately applicable consequences rather than out of concern for post-mortem consequences. This is a personal religious decline or movement toward a secular lifestyle.
  5. When discussing populations, secularization refers to broad patterns of societal decline in levels of religiosity as opposed to the individual-level secularization of (4) above. This understanding of secularization is also distinct from (1) above in that it refers specifically to religious decline rather than societal differentiation.
  6. When discussing religion, secularization can only be used unambiguously to refer to religion in a generic sense. For example, a reference to Christianity is not clear unless one specifies exactly which denominations of Christianity are being discussed.

Abdel Wahab Elmessiri (2002) outlined two meanings of the term secularization:

  1. Partial Secularization: which is the common meaning of the word, and expresses "The separation between religion and state".
  2. Complete Secularization: this definition is not limited to the partial definition, but exceeds it to "The separation between all (religion, moral, and human) values, and (not just the state) but also to (the human nature in its public and private sides), so that the holiness is removed from the world, and this world is transformed into a usable matter that can be employed for the sake of the strong".

Sociological use and differentiation

As studied by sociologists, one of the major themes of secularization is that of "differentiation"—i.e., the tendency for areas of life to become more distinct and specialized as a society becomes modernized. European sociology, influenced by anthropology, was interested in the process of change from the so-called primitive societies to increasingly advanced societies. In the United States, the emphasis was initially on change as an aspect of progress, but Talcott Parsons refocused on society as a system immersed in a constant process of increased differentiation, which he saw as a process in which new institutions take over the tasks necessary in a society to guarantee its survival as the original monolithic institutions break up. This is a devolution from single, less differentiated institutions to an increasingly differentiated subset of institutions.[10]

Following Parsons, this concept of differentiation has been widely applied. As phrased by José Casanova, this "core and the central thesis of the theory of secularization is the conceptualization of the process of societal modernization as a process of functional differentiation and emancipation of the secular spheres—primarily the state, the economy, and science—from the religious sphere and the concomitant differentiation and specialization of religion within its own newly found religious sphere". Casanova also describes this as the theory of "privatization" of religion, which he partially criticizes.[11] While criticizing certain aspects of the traditional sociological theory of secularization, however, David Martin argues that the concept of social differentiation has been its "most useful element".[12]

Current issues in secularization

At present, secularization as understood in the West is being debated in the sociology of religion. In his works Legitimacy of the Modern Age (1966) and The Genesis of the Copernican World (1975), Hans Blumenberg has rejected the idea of a historical continuity – fundamental the so-called 'theorem of secularization'; the Modern age in his view represents an independent epoch opposed to Antiquity and the Middle Ages by a rehabilitation of human curiosity in reaction to theological absolutism. "Blumenberg targets Löwith's argument that progress is the secularization of Hebrew and Christian beliefs and argues to the contrary that the modern age, including its belief in progress, grew out of a new secular self-affirmation of culture against the Christian tradition."[13] Wolfhart Pannenberg, a student of Löwith, has continued the debate against Blumenberg.[14]

Charles Taylor in "A Secular Age" challenges what he calls 'the subtraction thesis' – that science leads to religion being subtracted from more and more areas of life.

Proponents of "secularization theory" demonstrate widespread declines in the prevalence of religious belief throughout the West, particularly in Europe.[2][15] Some scholars (e.g., Rodney Stark, Peter Berger) have argued that levels of religiosity are not declining, while other scholars (e.g., Mark Chaves, N. J. Demerath) have countered by introducing the idea of neo-secularization, which broadens the definition of secularization to include the decline of religious authority and its ability to influence society.

In other words, rather than using the proportion of irreligious apostates as the sole measure of secularity, neo-secularization argues that individuals increasingly look outside of religion for authoritative positions. Neo-secularizationists would argue that religion has diminishing authority on issues such as birth control, and argue that religion's authority is declining and secularization is taking place even if religious affiliation may not be declining in the United States (a debate still taking place).[citation needed]

Finally, some claim that demographic forces offset the process of secularization, and may do so to such an extent that individuals can consistently drift away from religion even as society becomes more religious. This is especially the case in societies like Israel (with the ultra-Orthodox and religious Zionists) where committed religious groups have several times the birth rate of seculars. The religious fertility effect operates to a greater or lesser extent in all countries, and is amplified in the West by religious immigration. For instance, even as native whites became more secular, London, England, has become more religious in the past 25 years as religious immigrants and their descendants have increased their share of the population.[16] Across the board, the question of secularization has generated considerable (and occasionally heated) debates in the social sciences[17].

Regional developments

United States

1870-1930. Christian Smith examined the secularization of American public life between 1870 and 1930. He noted that in 1870 a Protestant establishment thoroughly dominated American culture and its public institutions. By the turn of the 20th century, however, positivism had displaced the Baconian method (which had hitherto bolstered natural theology) and higher education had been thoroughly secularized. In the 1910s "legal realism" gained prominence, de-emphasizing the religious basis for law. That same decade publishing houses emerged that were independent of the Protestant establishment. During the 1920s secularization extended into popular culture and mass public education ceased to be under Protestant cultural influence. Although the general public was still highly religious during this time period, by 1930 the old Protestant establishment was in "shambles".[18]

Key to understanding the secularization, Smith argues, was the rise of an elite intellectual class skeptical of religious orthodoxies and influenced by the European Enlightenment tradition. They consciously sought to displace a Protestant establishment they saw as standing in their way.[19]

2008-2017. Annual Gallup polls from 2008 through 2015 showed that the fraction of American who did not identify with any particular religion steadily rose from 14.6% in 2008 to 19.6% in 2015. At the same time, the fraction of Americans identifying as Christians sank from 80.1% to 75% during the same time.[20] This trend continued until 2017 when 21.3% of Americans declared no religious identity.[21] Given that non-Christian religions stayed roughly the same (at about 5% from 2008 to 2015) secularization seems to have affected primarily Christians.[20]



In Britain, secularization came much later than in most of Western Europe. It began in the 1960s as part of a much larger social and cultural revolution. Until then the postwar years had seen a revival of religiosity in Britain.[22] Sociologists and historians have engaged in vigorous debates over when it started, how fast it happened, and what caused it.[23]

Sponsorship by royalty, aristocracy, and influential local gentry provided an important support-system for organized religion. The sponsorship faded away in the 20th century, as the local élites were no longer so powerful or so financially able to subsidize their favourite activities. In coal-mining districts, local collieries typically funded local chapels, but that ended[when?] as the industry grew distressed and the unionized miners rejected élite interference in their local affairs. This allowed secularizing forces to gain strength.[24]

Recent developments

Data from the annual British Social Attitudes survey and the biennial European Social Survey suggest that the proportion of Britons who identify as Christian fell from 55% (in 1983) to 43% (in 2015). While members of non-Christian religions – principally Muslims and Hindus – quadrupled, the non-religious ("nones") now make up 53% of the British population.[25] More than six in 10 “nones” were brought up as Christians, mainly Anglican or Catholic. Only 2% of “nones” were raised in religions other than Christian.[26]

People who were brought up to practise a religion, but who now identifies as having no religion, so-called "non-verts", had different "non-version" rates, namely 14% for Jews, 10% for Muslims and Sikhs and 6% for Hindus. The proportions of the non-religious who convert to a faith are small: 3% now identify as Anglicans, less than 0.5% convert to Catholicism, 2% join other Christian denominations and 2% convert to non-Christian faiths.[26]


Hinduism, which is the dominant way of life in India, has been described as a 'culture and civilisation of ancient origin' that is 'intrinsically secular'.[27] India, post-independence, has seen the emergence of an assertive secular state.[28]


One traditional view of Chinese culture sees the teachings of Confucianism - influential over many centuries - as basically secular.[29]

Chang Pao-min summarises perceived historical consequences of very early secularization in China:

The early secularization of Chinese society, which must be recognized as a sign of modernity [...] has ironically left China for centuries without a powerful and stable source of morality and law. All this simply means that the pursuit of wealth or power or simply the competition for survival can be and often has been ruthless without any sense of restraint. [...] Along with the early secularization of Chinese society which was equally early, the concomitant demise of feudalism and hereditary aristocracy, another remarkable development, transformed China earlier than any other country into a unitary system politically, with one single power centre. It also rendered Chinese society much more egalitarian than Western Europe and Japan.[30]

In this arguably secular setting, the Chinese Communist Party régime of the People's Republic of China (in power on the Chinese mainland from 1949) promoted deliberate secularization.[31]

Arab world

Many countries in the Arab world show signs of increasing secularization. For instance, in Egypt, support for imposing sharia (Islamic law) fell from 84% in 2011 to 34% in 2016. Egyptians also pray less: among older Egyptians (55+) 90% prayed daily in 2011. Among the younger generation (age 18-24) that fraction was only 70%. By contrast, in 2016 these numbers had fallen to <80% (55+) and <40% (18-24).[32] The other age groups were in between these values. In Lebanon and Morocco, the number of people listening to daily recitals of the quran fell by half from 2011 to 2016.[32] Some of these developments seem to be driven by need, e.g. by stagnating incomes which force women to contribute to household income and therefore to work. High living costs delay marriage and, as a consequence, seem to encourage pre-marital sex.[32] However, in other countries, such as Algeria, Jordan, and Palestine, support for sharia and islamist ideas seems to grow. Even in countries in which secularization is growing, there are backlashes. For instance, the president of Egypt, Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi, has banned hundreds of newspapers and websites who may provoke opposition.[32]

See also


  1. ^ See occurrences on Google Books.
  2. ^ a b "The Secularization Debate", chapter 1 (pp. 3-32) of Norris, Pippa; Inglehart, Ronald (2004). Sacred and Secular. Religion and Politics Worldwide. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83984-6. ;.
  3. ^ "secularization". Retrieved 2 May 2018 – via The Free Dictionary.
  4. ^ See text Archived 2010-06-15 at the Wayback Machine
  5. ^ Smith, Christian. The Secular Revolution: Powers, Interests, and Conflicts in the Secularization of American Public Life (2012)
  6. ^ Casanova, Jose (1994). Public Religions in the Modern World. University of Chicago Press, pg. 13. ISBN 0-226-09535-5
  7. ^ Gould, Andrew in: Origins of Liberal Dominance: State, Church, and Party in Nineteenth-century Europe, University of Michigan Press, 1999, p. 82, ISBN 978-0-472-11015-5
  8. ^ Jeffrey Cox, "Secularization and other master narratives of religion in modern Europe." Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte (2001): 24-35.
  9. ^ Somerville, C. J. "Secular Society Religious Population: Our Tacit Rules for Using the Term Secularization. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 37 (2):249-53. (1998)
  10. ^ Martin, David (2005). On Secularization: Toward a Revised General Theory. Ashgate Publishing Company, p. 20. ("Parsons saw differentiation as the separating out of each social sphere from ecclesiastical control: the state, science, and the market, but also law, welfare, and education etc.")
  11. ^ Casanova, Jose (1994). Public Religions in the Modern World. University of Chicago Press, p. 19. ISBN 0-226-09535-5 ("Only in the 1980s, after the sudden eruption of religion into the public sphere, did it become obvious that differentiation and the loss of societal functions do not necessarily entail 'privatization.'")
  12. ^ Martin, p. 20.
  13. ^ Buller, Cornelius A. (1996). The Unity of Nature and History in Pannenberg's Theology. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-822-63055-5. ;.
  14. ^ Pannenberg, Wolfhart (1973). "Christianity as the Legitimacy of the Modern Age (1968)". The Idea of God and Human Freedom, Volume 3. London: Westminster Press. pp. 178–191. ISBN 978-0-664-20971-1. ;.
  15. ^ Bruce, Steve. God is Dead: Secularization in the West. (2002)
  16. ^ Kaufmann, Eric. 2011. Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century. London: Profile Books. Also see Archived 2012-01-17 at the Wayback Machine.
  17. ^ Dromi, Shai M.; Stabler, Samuel D. (2019). "Good on paper: sociological critique, pragmatism, and secularization theory". Theory & Society. Online First. doi:10.1007/s11186-019-09341-9.
  18. ^ Smith, Christian. The Secular Revolution: Powers, Interests, and Conflicts in the Secularization of American Public Life (2012) pp.25-28
  19. ^ Smith, Christian. The Secular Revolution: Powers, Interests, and Conflicts in the Secularization of American Public Life (2012) pp.32-43
  20. ^ a b Inc., Gallup,. "Percentage of Christians in U.S. Drifting Down, but Still High". Retrieved 2018-09-03.
  21. ^ Inc., Gallup,. "2017 Update on Americans and Religion". Retrieved 2018-09-03.
  22. ^ Callum G. Brown, The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation, 1800-2000 (2009) pp 170-92.
  23. ^ Jeremy Morris, "Secularization and religious experience: arguments in the historiography of modern British religion." Historical Journal 55#1 (2012): 195-219.
  24. ^ Steve Bruce, "Patronage and secularization: social obligation and church support Patronage and secularization: social obligation and church support," British Journal of Sociology (2012) 63#3 pp 533-552.
  25. ^ "A majority of Britons now follow no religion". The Economist. 9 Sep 2017. Archived from the original on 2017-10-13.
  26. ^ a b Sherwood, Harriet; correspondent, religion (2017-05-13). "Nearly 50% are of no religion – but has UK hit 'peak secular'?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 2017-08-31. Retrieved 2017-09-01.
  27. ^ "Hinduism is intrinsically secular". Archived from the original on 2014-01-13. Retrieved 2018-02-14.
  28. ^ Galanter, Marc. "Hinduism, Secularism, and the Indian Judiciary". Philosophy East and West. 21.
  29. ^ Berger, Peter (2012-02-15). "Is Confucianism a Religion?". The American Interest. The American Interest LLC. ISSN 1556-5777. Archived from the original on 2015-08-17. Retrieved 2016-03-03. There can be no doubt that Confucianism has been a powerful cultural influence throughout East Asia, providing social and political values not only in China, but in Japan, South Korea and Vietnam. [...] [T]here has been the view of Confucianism as nothing but a secular, perhaps even a secularizing morality.
  30. ^ Chang, Pao-min (1999). "Corruption and Crime in China: Old Problems and New trends". The Journal of East Asian Affairs. Institute for National Security Strategy. 13 (1, Spring/Summer): 223. ISSN 1010-1608. JSTOR 23257220. quoted in: Bao-Er (2007). China's Child Contracts: A philosophy of child rights in twenty-first century China. Blaxland, New South Wales: The Blue Mountains Legal Research Centre. p. 43. ISBN 9781921300561. Retrieved 2016-03-03.
  31. ^ See for example: Marsh, Christopher (2011). "Introduction: From Forced Secularization to Desecularization". Religion and the State in Russia and China: Suppression, Survival, and Revival. A&C Black. p. 10. ISBN 9781441112477. Retrieved 2016-03-03. [...] forced secularization is not so easily achieved, and [...] the lengths to which the Soviet and PRC regimes went was insufficient to completely - or even thoroughly - expunge religion from society. [...] [T]hese regimes were willing to go to great lengths to eliminate religion in the name of science and progress, and the outcome at every stage was uncertain.
  32. ^ a b c d "The new Arab Cosmopolitans". The Economist. 4 Nov 2017.

Further reading

  • Berger, Peter. The Sacred Canopy. (1967)
  • Berger, Peter. The Desecularization of the World. (1999)
  • Brown, Callum G. The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation, 1800-2000 (2009).
  • Bruce, Steve, and Tony Glendinning, "When was secularization? Dating the decline of the British churches and locating its cause" British journal of sociology 61#1 (2010): 107-126.
  • Bruce, Steve. Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults
  • Bruce, Steve. God is Dead: Secularization in the West. (2002)
  • Casanova, Jose. Public Religions in the Modern World. (1994)
  • Chaves, M. Secularization As Declining Religious Authority. Social Forces 72(3):749–74. (1994)
  • Ellul, Jacques. The New Demons. (1973/tr. 1975)
  • Gauchet, Marcel. The Disenchantment of the World. (1985/tr. 1997)
  • Gilbert, Alan D. The making of post-Christian Britain: a history of the secularization of modern society (Longman, 1980).
  • Martin, David. A General Theory of Secularization. (New York: Harper & Row, 1979).
  • Sommerville, C. J. "Secular Society Religious Population: Our Tacit Rules for Using the Term Secularization. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 37#2 :249–53. (1998)
  • Said, E. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. London: Penguin. (1978).
  • Skolnik, Jonathan and Peter Eli Gordon, eds., New German Critique 94 (2005) Special Issue on Secularization and Disenchantment
  • Stark, Rodney, Laurence R. Iannaccone, Monica Turci, and Marco Zecchi. "How Much Has Europe Been Secularized?" Inchiesta 32 #136 pp:99–112. (2002)
  • Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. (Harvard University Press, 2007)
  • Warrier, Maya. "Processes of Secularisation in Contemporary India: Guru Faith in the Mata Amritanandamayi Mission," Modern Asian Studies (2003)

External links

This page was last edited on 19 May 2019, at 20:43
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.