Secularism

Answer 1

The most effective way for Western Non-Muslims to promote secularism in the Middle East is to embrace democracy.

Answer 2

There are a number of key things that Westerners can do to promote secularism in the Middle East and, unlike the view put forward in Answer 1, blindly supporting "democracy" wherever it shows up is not one of them. In fact, the increased blind support of democracies has lead to a surge of Islamism in the Middle East, which is the exact opposite of secularism.

1) Carrots and Sticks: Money and economic success are difficult to come by in the Middle East. If you petition your governments to reward countries like Morocco and Tunisia that have embraced secularism by improving their abilities to trade (by removing tariffs or providing subsidies) or increasing cultural exchanges, you can show that secularizing the country leads to clear economic benefits. Conversely, strongly Islamist regimes, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia should be economically ostracized to weaken them and push their populations to support a more economically viable model.

2) Support Arab Liberals: Many human rights advocates in the Middle East note with sadness that most Westerners hear the words "oppression" or "imperialist" and immediately assume that the speaker is some beleaguered minority who should be allowed to have power. Of course, many of these individuals will turn right around and repress everyone else if they had the chance. Instead, listen closely to the message advocated by these people and only support those like Moncef Marzouki or Sheikh Ayad Jamal ad-Din who honestly wish to combat human rights abuses. Additionally, support Arab writers and artists, especially those who challenge the status quo and invigorate Arab culture with vitality instead of decrying their works as "culturally offensive".

3) Argue the Merits of Secularism: When you meet Middle Easterners, via the Internet or face to face, making compelling arguments as to how people benefit when religion is not forced on people by autocratic rulers.

Answer 1: There need be no real difference between secular and religious universities, depending on the subject areas your proposed degree should cover, as long as the religious universities are well funded and meet national standards in their curricula and facilities.

The largest religious universities undertake valuable research, but smaller universities may be limited in their research programmes. University research is considered valuable not only in its own right, but because professors and teaching staff are kept informed of the very latest thoughts in their area of expertise and can pass "state of the art" knowledge on to undergraduate students. Students may have the opportunity to observe or participate in research.

In favour of religious universities, they are often the best institutions in which to undertake theological and related studies.

It is important that the religious views of a religious university do not intrude into the teaching of science. Allowing creationism or other religious concepts to colour the teaching of science, may affect the students' understanding of some science material and ultimately his or her ability to practise in a science-related field.

Some religious institutions that teach the health professions may not provide full information to students on, or may proselytise against, birth control or termination procedures.

Answer 2: Liberty University, which is religious -- specifically, Christian -- allows its conservative, biblically-literal form of Christianity to inform how it teaches the sciences; which teaching has, for example, resulted in a small museum on the Liberty University campus which portrays the earth as being only a few thousand years old (when hard science says it's closer to 6 billion years old); and, also, said museum portrays humans and dinosaurs as having co-existed (when hard science says dinosaurs lives from about 245 million years ago, for about 180 million years, until about 65 million years ago).

To include those arguments, though, either directly or indirectly, does not actually answer this question; and, in fact, veers off into areas unnecessary to a complete understanding of the actual answer. That said, such arguments can help to make the point of, and illustrate, the answer, as the previous paragraph about Liberty University just did. However, including these arguments, even as illustration, could mislead the reader into believing that the only kind of religious schools are Christian schools. More on that in a moment.

"Secular" means not in any way related to, or having anything to do with, religion... of any kind... Christianity being only one of many religions which cannot, by definition, be secular.

"Non-secular" means decidedly religious... things having to do with religion... any kind of religion... Christianity being only one of many religions which are all, by definition, non-secular.

The difference between a secular university, and a religious one, then, has at least something to do with whether or not the university's owner/operator is either secular (non-religious) or religious (non-secular); but likely as far more to do with how the university is run, and whether or not any sort of religious belief informs or influences same.

A secular university is run by some entity -- be it government, or a public or private for-profit or non-profit corporation -- which is in no way religious, nor has anthing whatsoever to do with religion. The entity, though, could be religious in nature, but it could quite intentionally run the university in a completely non-religious/secular manner; and so that, too, would qualify as a secular university.

A non-secular university is run by a religious entity -- usually a church, or some organization that's decidedly religious in nature, charter and/or operation; and such a university is usually run in a completely religious manner, pursuant to whatever are the tenets of the religion in question. Said religion could be Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or any of a number of other religions.

As with universities which could, technically, be owned and operated by religious (non-secular) entities, but which are nevertheless strictly operated secularly (non-religiously)...

...it is technically possible for the opposite to be the case; for a secular (non-religious) entity to own and operate a completely religious (non-secular) university.

Such cross-purposed ownership-versus-operational situations would tend to be extremely rare, however. So, then, it is usually true that secular (non-religious) schools tend to be operated by secular entities, and non-secular (religious) schools tend to be operated by non-secular entities.

More commonly observed, secular (non-religious) schools tend to be run by either government or private -- usually for-profit -- corporations; and religious (non-secular) schools tend to be run by religious groups... usually national churches, or religious church, para-church or non-groups (but still religious) groups.

In order to illustrate examples, though, of how the differences could materially affect the school's ethos and teching, we need to circle back to the whole evolution versus either or both of creationism and/or intelligent design issues.

Secular schools would be more likely to teach hard sciences such as chemistry, physics, biology, etc., as real and true (and provable) science; and said scientific studies would include "evolution." Such things as "creationism" and/or "intelligent design, on the other hand, would tend not be taught in secular schools as hard science... or maybe not even as science, at all. Rather, such non-scientific subjects would tend to be covered, at most secular schools, in said school's religious studies department.

A religious (non-secular) school, on the other hand, might or might not be inclined to teach those very same subjects any differently than how a secular (non-religious) school would teach them. Just because the school is religious (non-secular) does not necessarily mean that it will try to teach relgious tenets as though they were factual science. It all just depends on what kind of religious school it is... how theologically and socio-politically conservative versus liberal/progressive is the religious (non-secular) school.

Indeed, some of the more theologically and socio-politically conservative, and/or fundamentalist/evangelical religious (non-secular) Christian schools might teach such as "creationism" and/or "intelligent design" as if their were scientifically provable, and so were validly scientific, right alongside the provable and unambiguously scientific actual science of "evolution." But more foward-thinking, less-conservative, more theologically and socio-politically liberal/progressive religious (non-secular) schools would likely teach such subjects (evolution, versus creationism and/or intelligent design) exactly the same way as secular (non-religious) schools would tend to teach them: With evolution as a hard and provable actual science, and things like creationism and/or intelligent design as mere religious beliefs.

So, then, the difference between secular universities and religious universities has nothing, really, to do with how such things as creationism and/or intelligent design are taught. Rather, the differences have to do with whether the owner/operator of the university is secular (religious) versus religious (non-secular), and how that, then, factor's into how said owner/operator runs his/her school.

If a school -- regardless who owns/operates it, or whether said owner/operator is or isn't religious -- is run in a secular (non-religious) manner, wherein religious tenets don't factor-in to how it operates or what it teaches, then said school is decidely secular (non-religious) in nature. Even if religion is taught in such a school, it tends to be taught from an "arm's length" sort of perspective, wherein the teacher simply explains what the various religions believe and do, but without suggesting that what any religion believes is inherently true, or what anyone else should believe.

If a school -- regardless who owns/operates it, or whether said owner/operator is or isn't religious -- is run in a religious (non-secular) manner, wherein religious tenets do factor-in to how it operates or what it teaches, then said school is decidedly religious (non-secular) in nature. Even when religion is taught in such a school, though, it may or may not necessarily be taught as though it were true, or what anyone should believe. The more theologically and socio-politically conservative religious schools might, indeed, teach religion that way; but the more theologically and socio-politically liberal/progressive schools will likely teach religion in much the same manner as a secular (non-religious) school would teach it. And in the case of the latter, typically even the school's particular kind of religion might not necessarily be taught as truth, or that in which anyone should believe. The more progressive/liberal schools tend to take the "here's what the religion believes, now make up your own mind" sort of approach.

One salient difference between a secular (non-religious) and religious (non-secular) school is, though, that the latter will tend to clearly and unambiguously declare that it's religious (non-secular), what is its religion, and what are its (and its religion's) religious beliefs. Secular (non-religious) schools don't do such things.

How much of what the religious (non-secular) school teaches of its beliefs as though they were fact which should be believed by all will tend to depend on how theologically and socio-politically conservative versus liberal/progressive is the school in question.

More conservative religious (non-secular) schools will tend to teach their religious (non-secular) tenets as though there were universally true for all people in all situations... including even secular (non-religious) ones; and more liberal/progressive religious (non-secular) schools will tend to teach their religious (non-secular) tenets as simply what those who run the school believe, but not as what anyone else needs to necessarily believe.

Both, though, are considered "religious" (non-secular) schools, even though the latter tends to teach religion much the same as secular (non-religious) schools teach it.

Sweeping generalizations, then, cannot reliably be made about how the two types of schools (secular versus religious) will do things. Rather, what differentiates them is how they're run, and what they clearly state are their beliefs about religion (or the lack, thereof).