The Challenge of Defining the Secular

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This was an interesting paper and I enjoyed reading it.  You have done an excellent job looking at a broad, international range of materials on the meaning of the term "secular".  I think your discussion of common connotations of "secular" vs "secularism" vs "secularisation" was accurate and matches my understanding. 

I am sceptical of the statement that there has been little judicial exploration of the term "secular" given how often the term is used in a wide range of constitutional, legislative, and policy implements.  It would be useful to take a "deep dive" into a few jurisdictions, especially the United States (at both Federal and State levels) to get more insight.  In other words, the literature review is very broad but could be deeper. 

One of the things I struggle with is that the initial premise of the paper (providing a definition of "secular" to aid courts in interpreting the term) seems doomed from the beginning; as the conclusion acknowledges, the term can only be interpreted in a contextual way with reference to the particular history, structure, and purpose of its inclusion within a particular document (or legal system).  Since a universal definition can't be "plugged-in" what is the value of the present exercise?  (Perhaps that's the real conclusion: defining "secular", just like defining "religion", is effectively impossible, so scholars should stop trying)  More discussion along these lines could be useful.

Author Response

Please see attached 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The draft was very well written and informative. It deserves to be published as it addresses an important but understudied concept in the legal and social scientific literature. I will make a few comments that the author(s) might want to consider for this or other publications.

1.      The article does a good job of reviewing major theorists in sociology on the meaning of secular and related terms. I was a bit surprised that James Beckford's treatment of those terms was not included.
2.      I was pleased to see some discussion of how the ECtHR has dealt with the topic but would note that the coverage seems a bit dated in terms of more recent jurisprudential patterns of the Court. The Court seems to have moved from a strongly secular posture to one that allows some states (original members of the Council of Europe) to promote traditional religious values.
3.      I thought there might be a mention of the Court of Justice of the European Union since the jurisprudential pattern being developed by that court varies somewhat from what the ECtHR has being doing with religion cases, particularly religious dress in the workplace. A footnote would suffice since the CJEU has only recently been dealing with religion cases.
4.      There could be some acknowledgement of a number of states (particularly Muslim majority ones) that are quite opposite those the author is discussing, with total domination by some particular version of Islam that has been transformed into a  political ideology.
5.      I found it ironic that the author in the conclusions section chose to use both France and India as examples of  successful, diverse societies that promote secularism. As most scholars would know, India has moved quite rapidly in the direction of less tolerance for Muslims under Modi, and is not a good example at present. And France is notorious for attempting to stamp our minority faiths of various kinds and has lost some important cases in the ECtHR concerning such religions. It would behoove the author to acknowledge that neither society is a perfect example of a secular state which fosters religious diversity.

I hope these comments are helpful and that this effort to address an important topic can be published soon.

P.S. At the beginning of the draft the word exiting should exist I think.

Author Response

Please see attacthed 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Revisions accepted.

Author Response

see atatched 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I read the new draft and have one substantive suggestion or query, one minor suggestion, and would note that there are several typos in the changes made in the ms.

Substantive comment: The author disagreed with one point I made about apparent changes in the philosophy of the Court on the issue of secularism. You as editor can decide, but I think he needs to address the implications of the Lautsi v. Italy decision in 2011 which saw a Grand Chamber decision overturning a decision concerning whether having a crucifix on the wall of a school room was allowed. This case was hugely controversial, not the least reason being that it and some following cases show a bifurcation in how such cases are handled, depending on the country of origin, with original members of the CoE being granted more leeway in handling religious matters (and thus allowing more deference to the dominate religious values of the society) than is the case with newer members from the former Soviet Union.

A second more minor suggestion is that the author could list a reference or two in the conclusion section where he/she states that France has been criticized for its treatment of minority religions. There are many such references available.

Aside from these concerns, I think the article deserves to be published, but would look forward to the authors' efforts to deal with the Lautsi decision.

Author Response

see attatched 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf