Quote Originally Posted by mamouth View Post
Sorry it took so long for me to reply. I am in small villages at the moment and internet connection is no good. Electricity fail out. I made the bloq and testing it and the draft paper is write. I really think I can use the Write board for discussion. The discussion can go more international once the posters and student from the bloq come here. I see that all the comments here is about 'concepts' and their meaning. This is a very good way to approach the topic. But it is the first time I do this and must learn much still. I too think I have discovered a new concept and that have think much about it. I give the first paragraph of the draft copy - you can see from it which direction the workshop go.

[Draft modified]

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

I think there's a lack of distinction here between a secular state and a state without an established religion.

A fully secular state would accord no status or recognition to religion at all, treating them as no more than private clubs.

A state without an established religion might still recognize that each religion is important to its people and accord them a special status over other organizations (which the United States does for example in its First Amendment). In this case, each religion while lacking direct power still maintains a strong voice and a presence in the councils of the country.

In the latter case gives to the religions avenues to exercise indirect power. In the former case, religions can influence individuals who may then choose to exercise that influence on behalf of the religions.

The strongest force for religions in either such state is the respect or lack thereof the religion is given by the people of the society. The fact that respect is the needful element rather than direct exercise of power does create a strong distinction between a theocracy or either of the above two non-theocratic states.