For more than a century, the concept of secularism and its boundaries have been widely contested by secularists and non-secularists. English dictionaries define secularism simply as the separation of church and state, or the separation of religion and politics. Michael Walzer, a true secularist, believes that this separation is an essential democratic value and ultimately fosters tolerance of a plurality of religions (Walzer, p. 620). Wæver, an opponent of secularism, defines secularism as “a doctrine of how society should be designed” – that religion and politics should be divided to ensure religious freedom, as well as politics without religion. However, he does not believe that such a principle exists (Wæver, p. 210). On the basis of these different points of view, I have established a unique concept of secularism: the principle that religion and politics are kept separate, that the state remains neutral with respect to religion, and that freedom, equality and fraternity are upheld in the attempt to successfully achieve promote religious tolerance and pluralism. While I don't consider myself a radical secularist, I identify more strongly with Walzer's views. It highlights the importance of the structural, ritual, and political/cultural aspects of society needed to successfully separate religion from politics. I absolutely agree that there must be a clear institutional division between Church and State, in which the Church does not interfere in the affairs of the State and vice versa. I even believe it is vital that countries, such as the United States, have constitutions that state that there will be no official state religion. In this way, religious tolerance and equality will be undeniable. In terms of this institutional division, as Walzer notes, a regime of tolerance is envisaged. What is crucial to note, however, is that Walzer comes to the conclusion that secularism is not necessarily the separation of religion and politics, but rather religion separated from state power and politics separated from state power. The main difference between the two writers is that Wæver focuses on peace and security, while Walzer's focus is tolerance and personal freedom. Overall, secularism has everyone's best interest in mind; however, this separation is an open conflict between people of different faiths who realize that they must coexist. Works Cited Walzer, Michael. “Drawing the Line: Religion and Politics.” Utah Law Review 3 (1999): 619-38. Print.Wæver, Ole. “World Conflict Over Religion: Secularism as an Imperfect Solution.” ConstituteCommunity (2008): 208-35. Press.