Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
The Secular Taboo: Response to Panelists
Over the past three years I have been making a variety of arguments about American secularism, nearly all of which were greeted with either apathy or derision. These arguments were made in scholarly articles and on this blog, but mostly in two books, Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics and The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously.
The “On Faith” editors have asked their distinguished panelists to consider one of these ideas: the contention that secularism has become a taboo subject in the current presidential race. Before getting to their comments--most of which enlightened me, some of which induced a bout of tachycardia--let me briefly outline some of the once-unpopular positions that I advanced.
The first argument was readily visible to those who studied the results of the 2006 mid-term elections. Namely, that the Democrats were starting to “get” religion. Doing so, of course, necessitated getting rid of excessive entanglement with secular policy positions, ideas, and candidates. Accordingly, I argued that the 2008 Democrats were going to abandon their traditional emphasis on issues pertaining to separation of Church and State (at least in their rhetoric). This they have done. As we will see below, the question remains as to whether this is just a ploy.
It was a second set of observations which got me into all sorts of hot water—especially with my atheist brethren. My claim was that since the 1970s secularism as a political project in the United States had stagnated woefully. It had been out-hustled, out-organized, and even outsmarted by a renascent movement of Evangelical Christians. The latter methodically (and legally, might I add) set about using the nation’s political and judicial structures in an effort to de-secularize the public square.
Nor did my co-irreligionists appreciate my contention that American secularism was composed of two, asymmetrical parts. The large, and inexplicably placid, part consisted of religious folks (e.g., Mainline Protestants, liberal Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and many others) who wanted to keep the Wall strong and sturdy.
The smaller (and ear-splittingly brash) part consisted of nonbelievers who were beholden to a debilitating misconception. Heading into this election year, many atheists and agnostics convinced themselves that they were a mass social movement with tens of millions adherents who were primed to make themselves heard. I countered--and here again I failed to ingratiate myself to nonbelievers--that few would listen to a minority group lacking political organization and clout.
The two parts of the coalition, I maintained, were not really conversing with one another. And the lines of communication were not enhanced by the tendency of the so-called “New Atheists” to speak of all religious people as perfect imbeciles.
To sum up, I predicted that the Democrats in 2008 were going to: 1) ignore the unpopular and disorganized nonbelievers in their ranks, 2) downplay Church/State themes, 3) develop Faith and Values strategies geared at making inroads among Conservative Christian constituencies, and, 4) cross their fingers and hope that the religious secularists in their base would not abandon them.
*****
I will leave it to the reader to decide if these predictions were correct (or if I actually predicted them). For now I want to get to as many panelists comments as space will permit.
I tend to agree with Leith Anderson of the National Association of Evangelicals that secularism is “facing serious competition from religious ideas in our free market of beliefs.” Indeed, the coming task for secularists consists of making a new and convincing case to the American people--in particular their Evangelical compatriots--as to why strict separation is in everyone’s best interests.
The Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite is on-message, as usual. “One way,” she writes, “for the hyper-pious politician to prove his or her piety is to demean or dismiss concerns of secularism.” This observation meshes nicely with Rev. C. Welton Gaddy’s lament that “I have witnessed more abuses of religion in this primary season than in any other election in recent memory.” Whereas Thistlethwaite looks to Barack Obama as a politician who can “articulate the proper relationship between faith and the public square,” Gaddy points out that the good Senator has also crossed a few lines of late.
Many of our panelists see the Faith and Values talk of the Democrats as a sort of theatrical performance. But let me raise the possibility that Obama might not be putting on a show; his conception of secularism, I have always sensed, might leave nonbelievers scratching their heads.
Sharing the theatrical perspective is Professor Daniel Dennett who wisely counsels secularists to not “goad any candidate into acknowledging their sympathy for a secular world view if that could cost them the election.” He pragmatically observes: “I don't want my candidates to lie, but I also don't want them to lose.” I don’t know who his candidate is--and I’m guessing it’s not Mike Huckabee--but this strikes me as good advice. It is also an indication that nonbelievers or “Brights” are nowhere near a numerous or powerful as they sometimes claimed to be.
The powerlessness felt by many secularists is on display in Susan Jacoby’s article. “No Democrat,” she comments, “feels that he or she has anything to lose by offending secularists in the Democratic Party, because we have nowhere else to turn.” I concur and insofar as my call for an atheist to run for president in 2008 went unheeded, let me urge nonbelievers to start planning for 2012.
J. Brent Walker raises an inconvenient fact for me, one that I have been thinking a lot about lately. He comments that Separation of Church and State does not “mean that candidates for office cannot discuss their religious beliefs and other values and, specifically, how these would inform the candidates’ leadership style and policy positions.” I agree. It pains me to say that, but I agree. The Constitution, as I understand it, does not forbid this behavior by an individual (as opposed to Congress). In coming weeks I hope to revisit this issue.
As for accelerated heartbeat, let me just say that Professor Stevens-Arroyo ascribes to me an opinion about secularism (i.e., that it is synonymous with atheism) that I have never held and have gone to great pains to criticize. Further, his contention that the secularism which advocates tolerance for all organized religion was born in the United States is problematic. One can see hints of this idea in the writings of Luther and Calvin and a full-blown expression of precisely this sentiment in John Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration. Born in the USA, no. First implemented in the USA, yes.
Strangely enough, I also find myself recommending the writings of Luther, Calvin and Locke to the Anglican Bishop of Durham. The concept of separation of Church and State is, as Bishop N.T. Wright, surely knows, a concept that some consider the most sublime accomplishment of Christian, and specifically Protestant, political philosophy. Secularism is not born of high modernity. Its lineage extends back into classical antiquity and according to some theologians and sociologists even into a Bible which established the presence of “Two Kingdoms.” For these reasons I find it odd that he sets secularism in parallel with fundamentalism.
That’s enough for now. I thank all of the respondents and editors of the “On Faith” page and all those who have read my columns over the past half year.
(For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs).
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
February 11, 2008; 12:23 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: New Baptists are Politicians, Too |
Next: Islam, Dreams and Old Clothes
Posted by: Neal Obstat | February 18, 2008 7:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
In your comment about J. Brent Walker's observation that Separation of Church and State does not “mean that candidates for office cannot discuss their religious beliefs and other values and, specifically, how these would inform the candidates’ leadership style and policy positions,” you stated painful agreement, but then went on to opine "The Constitution, as I understand it, does not forbid this behavior by an individual (as opposed to Congress)." You states that "in coming weeks I hope to revisit this issue."
I hope you do. I look forward to your analysis of how the Constitution forbids candidates for Congress from speaking about their religious believes and values, if that is what you meant.
Posted by: Sherman L. Cohn | February 14, 2008 2:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Running as a secular is absurd, and will continue so. Kucinich and Paul both are Constitutional spotters, as close to seculars as we can expect to run for President. While viable on a local level they both have little credibility on a national level.
As a secular I am less concerned with a candidate using religion to get elected than I am for his/her policies and actions that respect the separation of church and state ... and are progressive.
Posted by: bruce | February 11, 2008 12:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"I listened to what Bush said to the Christian Coalition during his campaign. Unfortunately, he was careful not to say the same things to the rest of the country and we got a president who believes God directs his actions."
Some liberal Christians suggest that Bush used "dog whistles" in his campaign speeches for general audiences. Phrases that sounded somewhat neutral to non-Christians and to non-evangelical Christians, but that signaled to the evangelicals that Bush was one of them.
"When there is debate on the subject of belief the first thing most religious persons do is tell us we don't have proper morals."
I wouldn't say "most," but you have an excellent point. The ones who say things like that aren't even talking about morality in terms of consequences of actions. They're talking simply about rules allegedly handed down from a supreme being. Huckabee's wish to amend the Constitution is derived from the latter. He implies that to to disagree with him is to disagree with God. He's not even bothering to make secular arguments against abortion and gay marriage.
Posted by: Tonio | February 11, 2008 10:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It difficult to work with religious persons when it comes to separation of church and state. When there is debate on the subject of belief the first thing most religious persons do is tell us we don't have proper morals. So how can a politician to admit to a secular world view in the US?
Organized religions provide a block of voters while secular persons do not. So of course the politicians will pander to them. I want to hear what the candidates have to say on the subject so I make an informed decision when I vote.
For instance I listened to what Bush said to the Christian Coalition during his campaign. Unfortunately, he was careful not to say the same things to the rest of the country and we got a president who believes God directs his actions. Huckabees belief that the constitution should be changed in accordance with his God view is scary to me. However, at least he said it in public for all to hear and that is a good thing.
I much doubt you will see anyone coming out as secular in an election anytime soon.
Posted by: datdamwuf | February 11, 2008 9:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The vast majority of the New Atheists do NOT "speak of all religious people as perfect imbeciles." The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne makes the same error as Berlinerblau. Their false claim sounds exactly like the straw man created by some fundamentalist commentators intent on bashing all atheists, almost as if Berlinerblau and Dionne hadn't read the New Atheist books at all.
I absolutely agree with Berlinerblau that the majority of American secularists are placid religious people who reject Mike Huckabee's theocratic stance. I urged these secularists to end their placidity and make their voices heard. Regardless of Huckabee's chances of getting elected, his stance represents a danger to both freedom and democracy. Romney's bashing of secularists represents the same general danger, but in a different specific way since it could lead to witch-hunts against non-Christians.
Posted by: Tonio | February 11, 2008 9:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Believers, please leave me some air. If you want to believe that your beliefs are not beliefs but rather are Truths that is just fine with me. But please restrain your desire to put me on The Path of righteousness.
Posted by: Steven Warfel | February 11, 2008 9:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Part of the problem might stem from the kind of "ethical shorthand" that is invoked when a candidate espouses a particular (or no) religious view. While most major religions have a kind of moral compass that can be inferred from their primary writings and mapped onto a candidate (for good or ill, accurate or inaccurate as it might be), there is no such well-known, generally agreed-upon (or even enforced!) set of morals that will be applied when a candidate espouses their belief in a secular world.
An agnostic/atheist candidate is better off making the ethical and moral statements directly. So, probably, should the religious candidate, but they don't have to. They might actually prefer the nebulous information gained from their looser affiliation with a religious sect, as it can imply different things to different people, making it politically wise (if, perhaps, ironically unethical by those same sets of beliefs).
Posted by: Tom Weaver | February 11, 2008 9:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
To Sherman L. Cohn:
I think it is pretty obvious that Berlinerblau was referring to Congress as a whole, as opposed to individual candidates (for Congress, the presidency, etc.). He did not mean that candidates for Congress cannot discuss their religious beliefs. Any individual can express such beliefs. But Congress cannot pass laws that privilege one religious view over others.