Modernism and Secularization: Towards a Reconciliation of Religious Freedom and National Security in the Realization of Peace in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines religious violence in some Northern parts of Nigeria and its effects on national security. It argues that Modern religiously motivated violence has affected the balance between individual religious liberty and national security in this country. The paper attributes this to modernism and its feature of secularization particularly as it displaces some religious values such as love, peace, concern for others, the fear of God and so on. The paper underscores the need for peace in Nigeria and for government to address the conflicting duties of allowing people to exercise their religious freedom and maintaining national security. It draws on W.D Ross’s prima facie and actual duties to argue that when duties conflict, there is need to arrive at a substantive duty after a fully considered deliberation. Unfortunately, one cannot be allowed without it having a negative effect on the other. In order to avoid a situation whereby attempts at resolving conflicting duties on the part of government degenerates into a more intense violent conflict, there is need to reconcile religious freedom and national security. The paper concludes by stressing that since religious freedom and national security are crucial elements in the functioning of the society, there is need for Nigerian government to reconcile both without one necessarily affecting the other in a negative sense; this will give room for peaceful co-existence in this country. Key words: Violence; Peace; Security; Secularization; Modernism; Religion
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".