Debate over secularism strengthens, rather than divides, ethnic boundaries

Evidence

In Israel, being an Arab and being secular are considered to be mutually exclusive categories. This construction of the debate prevents the very possibility of secularity – that is to say, a space that includes all citizens and inhabitants. … The issue, therefore, is not “secularism” as such, but rather Jewish nationalism. In the Israeli context, the term “secular” does not refer to a civil vision (i.e., one that is inclusive of Jews, Arabs, and all other citizens) but explicitly and inexorably a Jewish one, and the debate is between two visions of a Jewish homogeneous collectivity. Rather than dividing the nation, as it is often assumed to do, this debate in fact creates and defines its boundaries through implicit inclusions and exclusions. By accepting that framework of discussion, the secular participants even strengthen and emphasize the ethnic boundaries. The exclusion of Palestinians is not done by “religion” but actually by the fundamental parameters of the secular. — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized, 321

Categorization

• XREF: Contradicts the common assumption that secularization is an ethnic-inclusivity vector — relevant to boundary-maintenance and enemy-construction theme. — connects to: Secularization reifies in-group division more stubbornly than religion did — Theodor W. Adorno, The Culture Industry: Selected Essays…, 196; Israel’s religious-secular binary functions as a self-purifying rhetoric that masks racial exclusion — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized:…, 708
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source

Broader Connections

• Secularization reifies in-group division more stubbornly than religion did #corroborates (0.78) — Theodor W. Adorno, The Culture Industry, 196