Introduction

Abstract

Although the talk about the rise of religion has become an academic cliché, its meaning remains largely unclear. The three main interpretations focus on three different elements of the “rise”: the first, and most modest, merely claims that while religion has always been there, students of international relations have only recently realized how important religion is for (international) politics and have started to produce studies on religion in world politics; hence in this case we should rather talk about the rise of academic interest in religion, and not about a growth of religious influence per se. The advocates of the second interpretation contend that religiosity as such is not rising, but that religion has finally and loudly refused to be confined to the narrowly defined private sphere, a delimitation which it has, in any case, never fully respected. The end of the West-centric world view, together with the, at least partial, refutation of the contentious secularization thesis, contributes to the acknowledgement that all religions have political implications and that the religious and political practices of the believers are often difficult to tell apart. While the most common view would see the growing tension between religion and politics as a result of the growing assertiveness of religion, others would argue that it is the modern state that infringes on the domain which was traditionally seen as the area of (religious) morality. Hence, for these authors, religion should not be viewed as aggressive; its more vocal presence in the public sphere is a consequence of the expansion of the secularly defined public oversight and disciplination of an ever growing range of issues.