The response to many questions which connected/related issues of religious beliefs and adequate/correct behaviour of academia? For instance the recent (Will ISIS attacks hurt my PhD application as a Muslim?) featured many responses that suggest the proper perspective of academia upon religion would be undiscriminatory/unconcerned one.
This being only what I read out of that I wanted to know if there is a by tradition or convention agreed-upon way that academic decisions and actions should approach when interaction with religious beliefs cause either cooperation or conflict.
cooperation: if religious generates a field of relevant interest (like the theologies) conflict: if the methods like peer review, seem to be in some sort of contradiction. Meritocratic review by peers (equality) versus potential ranking of persons according to some religious prejudice (i.e. non-believers being religiously seen as inferiors and not peers).
An answer to this question would either give insight why or why not it is by tradition, convention, methodology, etc. proper to think of a specific perspective upon religions from academia. As a third acceptable response a well substantiated suggestion on the reasons academia would be too complex to device such a repsonse would be appreciated too.
As too recently in many domains of science, mostly the "hard sciences" like natural sciences, seemed to have the notion of objectivity. In else, e.g. some social sciences, and with a post-normal science understanding the issue of normativity has become increasingly challenging. Also in this respect especially the perspective on religious was to my understanding defined as a alternating/competing setting in which both (religion) and academic knowledged may stand complementary. Anyway this is only a initial suggestion what arguments might be developed in an response, as to foster and facilitate the answerability of this question further