The secular is a contingent doctrine, not an emancipation from religion

Evidence

I am arguing that “the secular” should not be thought of as the space in which real human life gradually emancipates itself from the controlling power of “religion” and thus achieves the latter’s relocation. It is this assumption that allows us to think of religion as “infecting” the secular domain or as replicating within it the structure of theological concepts. The concept of “the secular” today is part of a doctrine called secularism. Secularism doesn’t simply insist that religious practice and belief be confined to a space where they cannot threaten political stability or the liberties of “free-thinking” citizens. — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 931

Categorization

• DEFINE: Redefines secularism as a positive worldview-doctrine rather than a neutral container or mere restraint on religion.
• XREF: Directly bridges to Cooper: secularism, like the American civil religion Cooper dissects, is itself a constructive doctrine carrying specific normative content that gets coded as neutral. — connects to: Secular ideology itself enables racial exclusion, not the religion it blames. — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized:…, 690
• QUESTION: If secularism is a positive worldview rather than the absence of one, how does this reframe Islam being read as ‘religion’ illegitimately intruding into politics?