TABLE 2: CURRENT STATE POLICIES ON RELIGION IN SCHOOLS IN THE US,
FRANCE, AND TURKEY
Ban on
Students’
Religious
Symbols in
Public
Schools
Ban on
Student-
led Prayer
in Public
Schools
Ban on
Private
Religious
Education
Religious
Instruction
in Public
Schools
State
Funding of
Religious
Private
Schools
TOTAL
STATE-
RELIGION
ENTANG-
LEMENTS
The US
No
Yes
No
No
No
1
France
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
3
Turkey
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
4
These differences point to my central question: Why do these three avowedly secular states
pursue such dramatically different policies towards religion, particularly in schools? Stated
differently, the dependent variable of this dissertation is variation of policies on religion in
schools in three constitutionally secular states. To answer this question, I will first examine the
conception of secularism in the following section.
Passive and Assertive Secularisms
Secularism is not a monolithic concept with one standard meaning; rather, there are multiple
understandings of secularism with distinct normative backgrounds and policy implications. In
this study, I develop two meanings of secularism—passive secularism and assertive secularism.
Passive secularism implies state neutrality towards various religions and allows their public
visibility. In this regard, the state plays a “passive” role to protect individuals’ religious freedom.
Assertive secularism, on the other hand, means that the state favors a secular worldview and
aims to exclude religion from the public sphere.
The state plays an “assertive” role as the agent
7
I follow Charles Taylor’s definition of the public sphere: “The public sphere is a common space in which the
members of society are deemed to meet through a variety of media: print, electronic, and also face-to-face
encounters; to discuss matters of common interest; and thus to be able to form a common mind about these.” Taylor
2004, 83. See also Habermas 1999 and Habermas 1989.
4
Convention