Secularism is a question regarding assessing the modern world but also one more specifically for the originary hypothesis which, you could say, brings secularization to its conclusion and thereby cancels it.
Just a quick smartass comment before i digest this further. I am going to have to go read up on the trial of Charles I to see if his murder (outside the banqueting hall of Westminster!) after the civil war was presumably won, was ultimately necessary to sustain the secularising, if Puritanical-Gnostic, logic of a blood libel. And was the medieval invention of the blood libel against the Jews something significantly different than that against tyrant or emperor? and is the present-day saturation of the leftist and Islamic world with blood libels likely to be seen as Christian gamesmanship to get those sacralities to secularise to a point where only a fully anthropological cross can presume to rule…? Or, is Center Study, even future Christian or Islamic Center Studies, always already Jewish in a way that will always already upset your proposal that the universalizing faiths might possibly find the best mode of deferral in their name?
I would be interested in answers to the more strictly historical questions you raise but regarding the contemporary ones, first, I doubt very much that there is any Christian gamesmanship going on anywhere, at any level; second, I don't think that whatever Jewish or Judaic "signature" might be inscribed in Center Study would be immune to very altered reinscriptions in future iterations.
I was thinking of gamesmanship at a civilizational level where one can’t be fully aware of what one is doing. At this level, e.g., the “atheistic” BBC is unknowingly Christian and Muslim playing with blood libels.
Just a quick smartass comment before i digest this further. I am going to have to go read up on the trial of Charles I to see if his murder (outside the banqueting hall of Westminster!) after the civil war was presumably won, was ultimately necessary to sustain the secularising, if Puritanical-Gnostic, logic of a blood libel. And was the medieval invention of the blood libel against the Jews something significantly different than that against tyrant or emperor? and is the present-day saturation of the leftist and Islamic world with blood libels likely to be seen as Christian gamesmanship to get those sacralities to secularise to a point where only a fully anthropological cross can presume to rule…? Or, is Center Study, even future Christian or Islamic Center Studies, always already Jewish in a way that will always already upset your proposal that the universalizing faiths might possibly find the best mode of deferral in their name?
I would be interested in answers to the more strictly historical questions you raise but regarding the contemporary ones, first, I doubt very much that there is any Christian gamesmanship going on anywhere, at any level; second, I don't think that whatever Jewish or Judaic "signature" might be inscribed in Center Study would be immune to very altered reinscriptions in future iterations.
I was thinking of gamesmanship at a civilizational level where one can’t be fully aware of what one is doing. At this level, e.g., the “atheistic” BBC is unknowingly Christian and Muslim playing with blood libels.
Maybe something like that--such agencies must be extending one sacred project or another.