<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Immanent Frame &#187; José Casanova</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/author/casanova/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif</link>
	<description>Secularism, religion, and the public sphere</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:26:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The great separation</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/12/07/the-great-separation/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/12/07/the-great-separation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:38:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>José Casanova</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Stillborn God]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/12/07/the-great-separation/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img title="stillborn11.jpg" src="http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/stillborn11.jpg" border="0" alt="stillborn11.jpg" align="right" />One should be suspicious of any argument that presents the multiple alternatives facing contemporary societies around the world today as a simple binary choice between theocratic political theology (i.e., religious fanaticism) and secular political philosophy (i.e., liberal toleration). To present such a dichotomous alternative, as "the two ways of envisaging the human condition," not only ignores the many other complex ways in which Western and non-Western societies have envisaged the human condition, but it views societies as individual actors facing existential choices, a rhetorically dramatic but rather problematic conception of human history and of the human condition.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/12/07/the-great-separation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Secular, secularizations, secularisms</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/10/25/secular-secularizations-secularisms/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/10/25/secular-secularizations-secularisms/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:23:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>José Casanova</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Rethinking secularism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/10/25/secular-secularizations-secularisms/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In discussions of secularism such as the one emerging here, I think it is important to begin with some basic analytical distinctions between “the secular” as a central modern epistemic category, “secularization” as an analytical conceptualization of modern world-historical processes, and “secularism” as a world-view. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/10/25/secular-secularizations-secularisms/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
