Two Modes of Secularism

Charles Taylor has suggested that secularism was an “exit strategy” from religious conflict. There were two exit strategies. In the summary by RA Markus, “The first, ‘the common ground strategy,’ assumes a certain range of beliefs shared by all Christians (or all theists) and minimises or eliminates confessional differences that lie outside the boundaries of this shared ground. Ths econd tries to define ‘an independent political ethic,’ a strategy he associated with Hugo Grotius. This abstracts ‘from our religious beliefs altogether’ and establishes norms, including norms of how human beings should behave towards one another in society, on which to found a public morality independent on grounds based on religious belief. It is to provide an area ‘immune from all these warring beliefs’ . . . , excluding these by confining them to a private sphere.”

Markus notes that these two forms of secularism shade into one another, depending on the degree of religious consensus in a political community. When the society is largely Christian, denominational differences are eliminated from the public sphere, but the “residual common ground between them will include some Christian (or religious) elements.” Yet, if the community includes Christian and non-Christian groups, then “all that can be shared is a reduced, nonreligious, common ground; and that will be in effect equivalent to the ‘independent political ethic.’ Given sufficient diversity, at the limit, the highest common factor shared by virtually all within the society, whatever their religious affiliations, will coincide with what can be established without reference to religion.”

As a sociological dynamic, this rings true. But it’s odd that Markus should come to this conclusion after he has pointed out that modern secularism “would insist on its [the public realm’s] complete openness to and inclusiveness of diversity.” Given sufficient religious diversity, the public realm comes to a point where there is no diversity at all – the common shared ground of the society excludes diverse religious expression.