This   level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have approached the Wikification process with some trepidation, aware that netrality will be an issue. I have recast the opening into a more explanation of the issues before addressing the more technical definitional problems. This is still all in flux so, feel free to pitch in. -- David91 17:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have completed the Wikification and hope that I have made the content more accessible. I acknowledge that this topic, being so closely related to secularism, may be considered controversial and I therefore wait with interest to see whether the world thinks I have managed to maintain an appropriate level of neutrality. -- David91 06:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The intro does so much semantic dancing that I don't have a clear idea of what secularization is after reading it. Surely there's a generic enough definition to put in the first sentence? - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 18:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The concept of secularisation consists of: o differentiation = development of religion as a specialised institution with its own sphere of competence religion retreats from fields like law, education and medicine

o privatisation = religion becomes something private = also called “internal secularisation

o desacralisation = tendency to explain everyday world in terms of material reality rather than with the help of supernatural forces - f.e. spreading of AIDS because condoms are not used enough – not because God punishes us

o liberalisation = lowering of barriers between religious groups and relaxation of orthodoxy

-->none of processes removes religion from political universe

While the content is relevant, the format does not match the rest of the page and is not linked into the page in any constructive way. This looks like simple notes which capture some of what precedes and succeeds. So the content should either be subsumed into the rest of the text or there should be a stand-alone bullet-pointed introduction which summarises all that is to follow. David91 18:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply

"==Secularisation in Australia== An increasing number of Australians no longer align themselves with institutional religion. Surveys like the Australian values survey indicate that many of these people believe in a personal God or higher power and have a spiritual experience. They simply do not want their spirituality institutionalised. On the other hand, some in a conscious and organised way find non-relgious responses to their search for meaning. Some of these may belong to various humanist organisations and work for a better and less divided world gained through human means. There has also been an increase in various New Age self-fulfulment philosophies and semi-religious activities like astrology and the occult, although this may not be amount the "no religion" group alone. According to Ausralian Beuro of Statistics data, in 2001, 26% of the Australian population identified themselves as "No Religion" or "Not Stated" in a census question.

References==

• Terence Lovat New Studies in Religion. Social Science Press pg 148 (2002)'

This is a factual report of a trend in one country and, as such, it does not really fit into the format of this page which is seeking to be more conceptual and not give country-specific examples of how people may or may not respond when asked to give census information. The information would be better posted in pages on "religion in Australia" or how people who value their privacy respond to serveys. David91 02:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

hi,anyone help me out..have an assignment on secularisation and i dont understand it at all

its "if religion be the opium of of the people then irish were addicts" discuss this statement in relatoin to secularisation in contemporary irish society...

can anybody help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.101.104.137 ( talk) 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC). reply

It might be good to add a note explaining the differences between laïcisation and secularization. I'm not really clear on what those differences are. Does anyone know more about this?-- WadeMcR 01:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I strongly oppose the suggested merge since Secularization is a concept referring to a social process while Secularism refers to an ideology. Please see ongoing discussions on Talk:Secularity and Talk:Secularism for more on this issue. PelleSmith 12:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I propose adding the category category:sociology of religion I am aware that it is already contained in this category via category:disengagement from religion, but I think that this subject is very important in the sociology of religion where it is treated quite extensively but linked to. Andries 20:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

A copyedit to improve concision in this section which is still rather poor: overly US focussed and birth control is a poor example since it is only the Catholic hierarchy that gets worked up about this.

Removed the following section as it doesn't seem to make sense - at least not in the context of this article. Perhaps someone can turn it in Brilliant Prose:

More research on secularization in the Middle East and the remaking of the Islamist states is being undertaken not only for its theoretical implications, but also to counter the stereotypical portrayal used to scapegoat the Islamist movements (see Edward Said and other authors on the use of the discourse to encourage unity in one community by focusing on other groups, alleging a threat in behavior characterized as irrational, undemocratic and violent).

Pdch 20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

This wiki article is very theoretical. The definition of secularization is given, and with
it different interpetations and principles of the concept.

What I miss in this article is the relationship between secularization and the modern world.
Think about things as How is secularization chenging the world,
secularization through history, secularization in different parts of the
world and some predicted future trends on secularization
with statistics of countries and some graphs to
illustrate secularization through history including the 

predicted future. As well as how poeple think it is caused, the reactions of religious and secular poeple, etc, etc.

• With reading both this article on secularization and the textbook Socologly of Religion, i have found that the concept itself it not an easy one to understand or explain. The actual defination is one that has evolved and changle over time. Ive found to understand the term best in its simplest form being secularization means a life or lifestyle that is at odds with God. This article as compared to the text book give me a better understanding of the secularization thesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blivethnkopen ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I gather those are two alternative names for the phenomena discussed here? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The sentence that starts "'secular' has.." is problematic. Secular is an adjective, not a noun. Moreover it states that Christianity "had" secular clergy in the Middle Ages. "Secular clergy" just means clergy that are not members of religious orders. They have not gone away. See secular clergy. 2600:4040:7844:3A00:686B:977D:714D:DC4B ( talk) 05:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply