So, it's pretty much what I said.

In what follows, an attempt is made to raise certain logical
difficulty involved in the ways of formulating the idea of secularism
as a principle of disjunction between the affairs of spiritual and
natural world.


There are problems with secularism as a philosophy that encourages separating church and state.

Drawing insights from the historical conditions in
which the conceptual formulation and reformulation of idea of
secularism have become a theoretical imperative for the modern
civilizations, an argument is advanced here to show that secularism
serves to provide a different logic of religion itself.


We will look at how history lead most developed nations to be secular, and how this changed the way people think about religion.

Contrary to
the understanding of religionist, anti-religionist, or agnost
(irreligionist), secularism seems to be a disguised logic of
theologiocracy which has been substituted for theocracy with the
emergence of liberal democracy.


We think that these secular states aren't as free from religion as they seem.

Theocracy is a system of governance
where political decisions are made to fulfill the divine will
represented by a particular religious head. Whereas, theologiocracy is
a process of governance in a society with no declared state-religion,
one or many theologies exert political power in their favor.


Because religious entities still have political power.

The
intangible means of power-holds of theologiocracy seems felt more
apparent in controlling the social affairs and civil politics of faith
community than in organizing policy decisions of the state.


This part is incomprehensible to me.

I think the author mistakes being verbose for being original. I see nothing new beyond some unnecessary neologisms. But that's just me, I guess.