In this sort of environment, the three senses of bad secularism seem to be connected. Although most university departments treat their subjects as discrete (having a political science department, for instance, presumes that politics can be studied as something separate from economics, sociology, etc.), bracketing off students’ personal religious affiliation creates the impression that scholarship in religious studies cannot be performed with reference to or influence from this identity. With affiliation thus excluded from critical engagement, the natural question is why this is. When religion has been taught as a set of ideal beliefs and practices without real reference to and discussion of lived religion, the intuitive answer to the question seems to be because of the second sense of bad secularism: religious beliefs cannot be critically engaged and no one can persuasively argue against them.

If the goal of religious studies is to examine and critically engage with religion as it is lived by its practitioners, I agree that the good sense of secularism should be embraced within the classroom. The bad sense of secularism can be well meaning, but can create a warped impression of religion – many religious people don’t live precisely as doctrine dictates and are willing to critically engage with their faith. While taking care to be inclusive and not privilege them over any other type of speech, allowing discussion of religious beliefs could increase understanding of how religion is lived and experienced outside of the classroom.