What really really constitutes secularism.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I use the term "secularism" as a word that is used for the word that we use in Turkish, "laiklik", a word derived from the French Laïcité, which has a different application in Turkey, but revolves around the same ideal.
Here, we were taught that secularism meant the seperation of church and state.
Of course, in terms of state politics, this is true, but here, we were also taught that "individuals cannot be secular, but only governments can", by people that are shallow, and did not read anything beyond a school book that vaguely describes this ideal.
I call it an ideal, for it is an ideal. The seperation of church and state is only a step to the realization of that ideal.
However, the goal is this: the individualisation of religion, faith and belief in God or the supernatural. Meaning, abandoning the concept of public religion, in favor of personal religion.

It means that religions stay either in the conscience of the individuals, or the collective places or buildings where like-minded individuals come to fraternatize.
Under this context, I profess that individuals too, can be secular.
Does this mean that a secular individual should shun religion?
Absolutely not. A secular individual can very well practice his own religion, but as I said, in a "personalized" way. Meaning, his religion is only between him and his God.
This is what secularism tries to archive in the minds of men and women.

How about state politics? How should secularism find it's way there?
Obviously, the first would be to respect people's religious beliefs at first. Second would be to declare a neutrality towards different religious beliefs. However, this should not mean that the state should be "atheistic", shunning religions, Gods or belief systems. It should only maintain a certain equal distance towards it.
Third, should be the ousting of theocratic policies from state policies.
This can come in form of eliminating overtly religious references in laws, or cutting off ties with any certain religious organisations that the government might have been involved in the past.

Obviously, this works in two ways: religion should not be involved in government politics, all the while, the government should not be involved in religion. This could include either preventing the exercising of a religion, or promoting one.
Due to this, anything related to the state, including property, schools, and public areas, should be free from any form of religious or irreligious influence.
Say, prayer in school, a commonly discussed topic in this forum.
Prayer in school, might be done individually, or even collectively by school students, as long as it does not interfere with the school schedule. Students and parents who think that school schedules interfere with their daily religious routines, may think that this is infringes their religious freedom. However, the school is not just prohibiting the distruption of class discipline for a student of a certain religion, it does so for everyone.
Under that context, the wearing of religious or irreligious themed clothing, jewelry or other things should or could be prohibited by schools in favor of a more egalitarian way of dressing in school, the one of the uniform.
In this way, religious differences begin to mold, and students are able to archive a more secular way of thinking with the help of the school.

Could staff members of the school, such as teachers, participate in such religious activities? As long as they are agents of the state, no. Their obligations reflect those of the state. They too must maintain an equal distance towards people of different faiths, and must not wear any clothing, jewelry and etc. to give out any religious overtones.
They may, however wear such things in their personal lives.

I'd like to hear your opinions, friends.