Political religion threatens modernity only when it undermines liberal institutions.

Evidence

The argument is that whether religious deprivatization threatens modernity or not depends on how religion becomes public. If it furthers the construction of civil society (as in Poland) or promotes public debate around liberal values (as in the United States), then political religion is entirely consistent with modernity. If, on the other hand, it seeks to undermine civil society (as in Egypt) or individual liberties (as in Iran) then political religion is indeed a rebellion against modernity and the universal values of Enlightenment. — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 888

Categorization

Category: Factual Claims

Related

• Only religion conforming to liberal civil-society values is deemed truly modern (similarity 0.91)
• Religious deprivatization can be modern if it respects democratic institutions. (similarity 0.86)
• Religious politics can be fully modern without secularization (similarity 0.82)
• Deprivatized religion cannot differ from secular vote-seeking politics (similarity 0.82)
• Deprivatized religion in liberal society must behave like secular politicians (similarity 0.81)
• Secularization predictions have failed; religion remains politically potent (similarity 0.81)
• Theologians’ claims mislead text-driven scholars about actual religion-politics separation (similarity 0.79)
• Religious claims anchor constitutional inequality and block democratic equality. (similarity 0.79)
• The secular cannot be conceived without the category of religion. (similarity 0.79)
• Secularism’s public presence of religion varies across modern nation-states. (similarity 0.79)
• Religion as political legitimation functions regardless of actors’ actual religiosity (similarity 0.78)
• The secular is conceptually dependent on the idea of religion. (similarity 0.78)
• Religion’s resurgence reflects political instrumentalization, not personal piety (similarity 0.78)
• Secularism is not a mask for religion. (similarity 0.78)