Over the last few years, the debate on what a secularized state is, and should be have been increasing in both spread and aggression. One of the many topics triggering this debate is the question if call to prayer should be allowed or not. The Islamic call to prayer is a phenomenon that awakes strong emotions and reactions in western society, and it has been well debated in media. The aim of this thesis is thus to investigate this debate and what ideological standpoints the arguments are based upon. sing the theories of Jürgen Habermas and José Casanova, on the theories of secularization, the debate on the permission of call to prayer in Växjö have been analysed. To give a fair representation of the debate, articles from four different, well established Swedish newspapers have been used.    It has been found that one of the most frequently used arguments against a permission is the fear that the allowance of one call to prayer a day will lead to more extreme, and eventually radical, Islamic elements in the Swedish society.  The study shows that the view of what a secularized state is, is diverse but can generally be divided into two categories, the view that proclaims positive or negative freedom of religion.  Among the arguments against the permission, most part are solely emotional, whereas the arguments supporting the permission often are more rational.     The conclusion is that main part of the arguments is based on liberal and democratic values but how they are interpreted varies. On the side supporting the permission, the arguments are based on equality, the importance of the freedom of speech and the belief that multicultural is enriching. On the opposite side, the arguments are based on the conservation of the Swedish heritage, the Christian faith and effective integration. Many arguments against a permission are problematic since they are constructed on an emotional basis. In a secular state, this type of questions should be handled rational, based on the law of freedom of religion.