Secularism or religious freedom

Sociološka istraživanja posvećena odnosima između države i crkve tijekom posljednja tri desetljeća pokazuju zapravo snaž-no suglasje u pogledu povratka utjecaja vjere na politiku, čak i u “naprednim zapadnim društvima”. Općenito se govori o krizi oblika radikalne odvojenosti u korist manje radikalne odvojenosti te veće suradnje između političkih i vjerskih vlasti. U članku se ne raspravlja o biti te konstrukcije, nego se analiziraju i kritiziraju kategorije kojima se ona koristi. Autor sugerira potrebu razlikovanja raznih oblika radikalne odvojenosti, osobito razliku između američkog oblika (religious freedom) te francuskog oblika (laïcité). Na taj način postaje također lakše razlikovati različite oblike umjerene odvojenosti. Tim rješenjem omogućuje se bolje uočavanje važnosti razine autonomije prava i sudbene vlasti s obzirom na određenje odnosa između vjere i politike kao i shvaćanje važnosti engleskog oblika odvojenosti (koji nije obilježen ni svjetovnom ni laičkom odvojenošću), a posljedično se prepoznaje i nemogućnost da se laičnost predstavi kao jedini vid europskog identiteta, budući da je taj model vlastit samo dijelu kontinentalne Europe.Sociological literature devoted to church/state relationship and its evolution which has appeared during the last three decades shows a clear convergence. The religious influence on politics is increasing. Such a new trend is also experienced within the western advanced societies. In the majority of cases it is argued the crisis of the radical separatist regimes and the spread of the moderate separatist regimes. Also cooperation between political powers and religious powers is growing. The aim of this paper is not to discuss such a trend, rather to analyze and criticize some categories by which the trend itself is understood. First of all, the proposal here advanced is of distinguishing between different regimes of radical separatism, particularly between US religious freedom and french laïcité. On this basis it could become easier to distinguish also between diverse regimes of moderate separatism. Among the expected results of such a theoretical strategy there is that of better focusing on the critical relevance of the degree of autonomy of the judiciary and its influence on the church/state relationships. Secondly, we also expect to argue in favor of the importance of the British case (characterized by a non secularist – or non laïque – separatism) and consequently to stress the impossibility to consider laïcité – or secularism – element of the European identity. In fact, this latter regime and its culture influence only (some regions of) the continental subarea of the Europe