Religious dynamics (e.g. actors, worldviews, and cultures) infused numerous conflagrations in the 1990s including Bosnia, Rwanda, Afghanistan, and Sudan. Without giving credence to the notion that religion is the “problem” causing all today’s conflicts, how best can we understand the role that religious dynamics play in contemporary war and peace?

Warnings against the political construction of the Self through opposition to a negative-valued, dangerous or threatening Other are common at a time when the discourses of the clash of civilisations have acquired a worryingly prominent place in the public spheres of many different countries. But do we actually need ‘more’ religious and cultural traditions rather than less in order to oppose religiously-inspired political violence?

In recent years, there have been a number of challenges to international order emanating from various entities, including ‘Islamic extremists’ and, more generally, those ‘excluded’ from the benefits of globalisation; sometimes they are the same people.

It has been suggested that the rise of religion confronts IR theory with a theoretical challenge comparable to that of the end of the Cold War or the emergence of globalization. I agree. To understand why we need to turn to the politics of secularism. How might we think about secularisms, in the plural, as forms of political authority in contemporary international relations? What does this mean for IR theory and the resurgence of religion? What kinds of politics follow from different forms of secular commitments, traditions, habits, and beliefs?