Are You Now, or Have You Ever Been, a Secularist?
Frederick Clarkson printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:00:19 PM EST
That might have been a good title for my essay, just out in the new issue of The Public Eye magazine. In it, I discuss how secular baiting, witting or unwitting, has percolated throughout our political culture from Mitt Romney to Michael Lerner via the leaders of several generations of Religious Right thinkers and leaders.  

Some of this is an updated version of the "godless communist" smear mongering so popular in the last century. But in any case, the framing that secularism, secular fundamentalism, militant secularism, secular progressives or the secular left are somehow responsible for a host of woes in America -- drives a surprising amount of our national conversation. One jaw-dropping example popped-up recently on the CBS Evening News:

News anchor Katie Couric led-in to a story on a recent major Pew survey on religious affiliations:

The unprecedented survey of religion answers many concerns about a secular, morally void America. To the surprise of many experts, Americans are still deeply religious, with 84 percent of adults claiming a religious affiliation, CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports.

But there was nothing in the CBS News report that in any way linked secularity with any kind of "moral void."  What's more, there was nothing in the Pew survey about a "moral void" let alone any assignment of blame.  As disgraceful as this episode is, this kind of unexplained and unsubstanitated assertion is astoundingly common in American public life.

My article opens:

One of the most remarkable, and least remarked upon, features of the contemporary discussion of faith in public life is that a defining feature of the religious right worldview has filtered deeply into mainstream and even progressive thought. This defining feature is the idea that somehow God, and/or Christianity, and/or "people of faith" are being driven from "the public square." It is a powerfully animating idea for many Americans; yet it is rarely factually supported and even more rarely challenged.
Interestingly, much of this distortion hinges on a single word. The word is "secular" and such variants as "secular humanists," "secular fundamentalists," and just plain "secularists." While the word has simple and benign definitions, the word is also the touchstone of a powerful and usually subterranean set of meanings that often makes it a term of derision and demonization.

Tracing the word "secular" exposes how an important and dynamic dimension of religious right ideology has drifted to the top of American political discourse as well as elements of the liberal/left. This has, as we shall see, consequences for the mainstream discussion of separation of church and state, while also fomenting unnecessary divisions among progressives, and even raising the specter of old fashioned red baiting with is echoes of the "Godless Communist" smear leveled at generations of American progressives.

Chip Berlet, Senior Analyst at Political Research Associates, writes that for decades, the religious right has promoted a conspiracy theory that Christianity is under attack by "secular humanists."

The idea that a coordinated campaign by "secular humanists" was aimed at displacing Christianity as the moral bedrock of America actually traces back to a group of Catholic ideologues in the 1960s. It was Protestant evangelicals, especially fundamentalists, who brought this concept into the public political arena and developed a plan to mobilize grassroots activists as foot soldiers in what became known as the Culture Wars of the 1980s....

The idea of a conscious and coordinated conspiracy of secular humanists has been propounded in various ways by a variety of national conservative organizations and individuals.

For example, longtime televangelist and religious right leader, the late D. James Kennedy, offers a typical religious right use of the term: "God forbid that we who were born into the blessings of a Christian America should let our patrimony slip like sand through our fingers and leave to our children the bleached bones of a godless secular society. But whatever the outcome, one thing is certain: God has called us to engage the enemy in this culture war."

Perhaps the most infamous example is Reverend Jerry Falwell's explanation to Pat Robertson of the 9/11 attacks on Robertson's 700 Club cable TV show: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say `you helped this happen.'"

By framing these claims as a conspiracy to provoke a "Culture War," Berlet concluded, "conservative Christians transform political disagreements into a battle between the Godly and the Godless, between good and evil, and ultimately between those that side with God and those that wittingly or unwittingly side with Satan."

This framing is powerful, highly adaptable, and profoundly resonant. And because that is so, we see the frame employed by rightwing propagandists on specific issues and against groups or individuals all the time. For example, nationally syndicated columnist Cal Thomas, a former spokesperson for Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, drew on the power of the frame in a recent effort to discredit concern about global warming, snidely referring to "the secular fundamentalists who believe in Al Gore as a prophet and global warming as a religious doctrine ..."   On Fox News, Bill O'Reilly routinely uses the term "secular progressive" in a way that slyly implies that progressives are inherently non- or even anti-religious. But sometimes, the fullness of his meaning surfaces. During a tirade about the alleged "war on Christmas," he declared: "See, I think it's all part of the secular progressive agenda--to get Christianity and spirituality and Judaism out of the public square. Because if you look at what happened in Western Europe and Canada, if you can get religion out, then you can pass secular progressive programs like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage, because the objection to those things is religious-based, usually."

Coincidentally, Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller recent published a column that covers some of the same ground about the struggle over the definition, uses and misuses of the word secular (while my essay was being published on a slower track. The Public Eye is a quarterly, after all.)

"Secular" does mean "godless," and its neutral meaning has always fought with the more negative one; recently, though, the word has taken on a lot more freight. Like the words "feminist" and "liberal," "secular" and its derivatives have come to mean extreme versions of themselves. They are code in conservative Christian circles for "atheist" or even "God hating"--they conjure, in a fresh way, all the demons Christian conservatives have been fighting for more than 30 years: liberalism, sexual permissiveness and moral lassitude. The Fox News star Bill O'Reilly frequently frames the culture war as "traditionals versus secular-progressives." Ann Coulter accused "the liberals and the secularists and atheists" of using religion as a wedge. In a speech last year, Newt Gingrich decried the "growing culture of radical secularism," and in a new book the diplomat John Bolton critiques "the High Minded elite who worship at the altar of the Secular Pope." In politics, where it is efficacious to unite people against a common enemy, "secularism" has become that enemy's new name.

To be fair, battles in the war against secularism have been fought for about 150 years, dating back to a time when discoveries in science (especially those of Charles Darwin) and a disenchantment with organized religion led a critical mass of mostly European intellectuals to declare that one could lead a moral life independent of God. By the middle of the 20th century, their heirs had coined the term "secular humanism," to mean a concern with values but not with religion, and the Rev. Jerry Falwell took particular aim at them. In 1986, he proclaimed that secular humanists "challenge every principle on which America was founded," including "abortion on demand, recognition of homosexuals, free use of pornography, legalizing of prostitution and gambling, and free use of drugs." Pope Benedict XVI speaks out frequently against the dangers of secularism.

It is very important to keep an open ear to the way that people use and misuse the word "secular." It is a touchstone of contemporary religious right ideology. (Oh, you remember the religious right. You know, those people whose powerful political movement some say is dead/dying/irrelevant and such.)



To discuss this story, sign up for a free account

Display:
Are You Now, or Have You Ever Been, a Secularist? | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 hidden)
Dobson Chimes In (5.00 / 3)
If you'd have been listening to James Dobson yesterday, you would have been led to believe that his show "Focus on the Family" was in imminent  danger of being banned from the airwaves because of the secular progressive forces aligned against them.

They played a clip of Bush at the National Religious Broadcaster's Annual shindig where he rails against attempts by the left to resurrect the "fairness doctrine".  Dobson then goes on to claim that his show could soon be off the air if the "extreme left" gets their way, and urged listeners to call their representatives to back a petition to get Rep. Mike Pence's legislation to ban legislation concerning the fairness doctrine.  (Yes, legislation to ban other future legislation, how ridiculous is that?  Obviously it's just posturing, but Dobson seems to believe that because Pence was successful in attaching an amendment to a finance bill that none of the funds should go towards funding the non-existent fairness doctrine, then somehow some Democrats can be persuaded to support this nonsense).

Anyway, this is all just another incident of demonizing progressive secularists for their own purposes, since even if in the very unlikely case that new fairness doctrine legislation is passed, it's never going to be of the form where Dobson's little show would be in any way threatened.

They know that and yet they're content to play act as Chicken Littles in front of their audience in order to get them just a little bit more scared about all those "godless monsters and bogeymen closing in from all sides".

Oh, and by the way.  Dobson is already bringing up the importance on the next election, and what would happen if the wrong side won.  Funny, I thought he said he couldn't be voting for John McCain, and yet he made it clear that the presidential election was equally as important as the congressional ones.  

Surely he can't already be going back on his word already now, can he?

by tacitus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:00:54 PM EST


Moral Voids Abroad (5.00 / 2)
I really wish fundamentalist Americans (and Katie Couric, it seems) would pay more attention to events outside of the US other than in the Middle East, a la John Hagee et al (how's that for mixing languages!).

They would soon see that this talk of a "moral void" in secular progressives as stuff and nonsense.  Countries like Britain, Sweden, and Denmark have large majority secular populations with practicing Christians a small minority, and fundamentalist Christians a vanishingly small minority, and yet by just about every objective measure of morality--prison populations, teen pregnancies, murder rates, crime rates, divorce rates, school shootings, etc. America is at best equal with, and at worst far behind those countries and their "evil socialist hordes".

But they cannot allow themselves to acknowledge these things (I know, I've tried!) because it reduces their arguments against secularism to nonsense.  If God is punishing America for straying a little from the righteous path then how come Britain, Sweden, and Denmark haven't been wiped off the face of the Earth for their much greater back sliding?

by tacitus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:16:25 PM EST


Good article. (none / 0)
It's funny how much of this stupidity is completely contradicted by history. For instance, communism was by no means the sole province of atheists. It was in fact the economic model of the earliest Christian church as described in the book of Acts. The only group that has ever succeeded or even tried to outlaw Christmas in America was puritanical Christians. Until idiotic laws were passed in the 20th century, all drugs including morphine and cocaine were legal and available without a prescription. And abortion was legal in the US and all the European Christian countries until the middle of the 19th century. Abortion was not legalized by evil secularists in the 1970's, it was re legalized after a century of prohibition. I just don't know how effective logical, factual responses like those of Fred, Tacitus and myself will be against what are ultimately irrational, emotional arguments. While "godless" is an acceptable definition for secular, an equally accurate, less provocative definition would be "pertaining to things of this world and this age".

by Dave on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:37:09 PM EST
Well marshalled facts and good writing do matter (5.00 / 1)
Like on all such matters here, there are those who are not persuadable, and those who are not.

What my Public Eye essay is really about is that at this point in our history, we have thoughtful people who are internalizing the framing of the religious right, and are using it to guide thier mainstream Democratic, Republican and even progressive politics.  Many of those folks are utterly reachable. I say that it is not only possible, but necessary to do so.


by Frederick Clarkson on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:05:20 PM EST
Parent

I believe that Lerner's position (none / 0)
on "secularism" is more complex than Wallis' and that he might be more open to dialogue.  When, as an Evangelical, Wallis uses the term he clearly is using the same frame as the Christian Right.

Lerner, on the other hand, while speaking in an Interfaith context, is drawing largely from the Religious/Secular debate within the American Jewish community as well as his experience of being criticized in other contexts by non-theists who are not Jewish.  The Religious/Secular debate in the American Jewish community is influenced in part by the way that the State of Israel defines "Religious" and "Secular."-- where only various traditions of Orthodox Jews are considered Religious and Reform Jews, defined as Secular, do not have the same rights to practice their religion.  Further, I am not aware of the same sort of dialogue between observant and non-religious members of other ethnic groups as exist within the Jewish community.  In so many other ethnic groups, when tensions arise between its religious and secular members, the secular members often assimilate into the larger culture, especially after the first generation of immigrants.  In the Jewish community, even though surveys show that only about 50% of Jews belong to a synagogue, religious and secular Jews belong to the same local and national organizations and read and write letters to the same local Jewish papers or national magazines.  So I would not be at all surprised if Rabbi Lerner has encountered tension with Jewish atheists, some of whom could be Democrats, within the Jewish community -- in fact, it shouldn't be hard to find some of those tensions in the letters to the editor of his magazine.

I would not be surprised if some of the tensions that Rabbi Lerner has had outside the Jewish community in debates about Israel and Palestine have been framed as religious/secular differences.  Some of the most vocal critics of Israel are atheists -- and they are not shy about deriding Jewish or Christian religious claims about Israel and the Bible as based on mythology.  While I have not always agreed with Rabbi Lerner, I believe that he was treated terribly by ANSWER at the 2003 anti-war rally in San Francisco.

So, while I can believe that Rabbi Lerner has experienced tension, even been discriminated against as a devout Jew by "secularists" within the context of the Progressive Jewish community and within some segments of the larger progressive community, I do not think that that experience translates directly into the dynamics of American society as a whole.  It certainly does not describe the position of the Democratic Party or its elected officials.

by Rusty Pipes on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:30:49 PM EST
Parent

the problem with Lerner (5.00 / 1)
is that he does not bother to support any of his asserstions in his book, or anywhere else to my knowledge. And he smears whole classes of people as part of a justification for his own views and activities.

Check out my Public Eye article where I detail this.

While your speculations about his experience may be correct; they just as easily may not be, because he makes no mention of any such experiences in his book.

by Frederick Clarkson on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:50:34 PM EST
Parent

A good article on Lerner... (none / 0)
(and Jim Wallis) was posted on MRZine by Bob Fitch a while back.  It's called Vetting God's Politics.  Enjoy...

-------------
"I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair" - JFK, Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
by hardindr on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:48:42 PM EST
Parent

I did read (none / 0)
and appreciate your article.  I also have read books by Lerner and heard him speak.  I agree that he makes some sweeping assertions that he does not back up.

Unlike Wallis, whom I believe has bought into the secular/religious frame of the Christian Right, I believe Lerner comes to the terms from a more complex background.   Unfortunately, in trying to forge an interfaith coalition, he can paint too broadly (and adopt some conservative frames uncritically).  

I would be interested to hear whether he is open to dialogue about your critiques.

by Rusty Pipes on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:58:03 PM EST
Parent

I guess we'll soon find out... (none / 0)
but frankly, I am not so sure that Lerner's view is any more complex than Wallis'.  My point is that both base a significant part of their argument on utterly unsupported assertions to advance their method, which I describe as "secular baiting."

These are conversation stoppers, not starters. These are also thought stoppers, not mind openers.

My challenge to them, or anyone else who finds themselves saying such things is to support their claims so that they can be evaluated -- that is where dialog and discussion begins. And if they cannot support their charges, to stop engaging in such divisive rhetoric and apologize to those they have smeared.

by Frederick Clarkson on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:00:32 PM EST
Parent

In your article, (none / 0)
you say:

Lerner then asserts that "what underlies the secular Left's deep skepticism about religion is their strong faith in another kind of belief system"--yet another religion that unnamed secularists are said to ascribe to--claiming that it derives from "scientism," which he accurately describes as a "reliance on the value of empirical observation to determine truth and guide observations." 14 Once again, he names not a single person or organization who subscribes to this idea, or a single relevant action resulting from such beliefs. Nevertheless, he declares "It has become the religion of the secular consciousness."15

 However apocryphal Lerner's claims may be, they form the backdrop to one of the four guiding principles of his national Network of Spiritual Progressives: "Challenge the misuse of God & religion by the Religious Right and religio-phobia on the Left." Suffice to say, the Network's web site fails to offer a single example of "religio-phobia on the Left;" explain its significance; or provide any examples of how it has been "challenged."

Some of those assertions are expanded upon on other parts of the NSP site, like the Spiritual Covenant with America:

8. We will seek separation of Church, State and Science.
We will protect our society from fundamentalist attempts to impose a particular religion on everyone, but will not fall into a first-amendment fundamentalism which attempts to keep all values out of the public sphere. We will protect science from invasion by the state, religion or corporate priorities, but reject "scientism"-- the worldview that claims that everything capable of being known or worthy of our attention can be fully described in scientific terms.

CONTRAST: TLIBERAL AGENDA

They mistakenly confuse the separation of Church and State with the separation of spiritual values from the state. They claim to be defending the neutrality of public space, and fail to realize that there is already a religion operating in the public space, the religion of the dollar, of materialism and selfishness, the religion whose highest belief is that all that is real or at least all that can be known is that which cane be verified through sense datum or measured (which, for the public realm, usually means: money, the one thing most easily validated and measurable). So their defense of the first amendment is based on the false assumption that we actually have a neutral public space and that it must be protected from all values.

CONTRAST: CONSERVATIVE AGENDA

They often seek to privilege Christian values in the public sphere and get lots of support from many Americans who know that when their children come home from school drunk with the disease of "making it" in the larger society (either by grades to get the best career, or by physical prowess and active domination over others) and "making it in their peer group" either by conforming to the standards of the group or, increasingly for young girls, by responding to the sexual pressure championed by a growing sector of the media even for pre-teens, these children are responding to a public sphere drenched in corrupt values which loving parents want to resist. Using this perfectly legitimate desire for alternative sets of values, the conservatives rush in with a repressive agenda that will do little to solve the problems, or seek to eliminate or dramatically weaken the actual functioning of the separation clause of the Bill of Rights.

Neither liberals nor conservatives understand how much "science" today is driven in its choice of research topics by the requisites of the marketplace, so neither has seriously addressed how to protect science from the pressures of the economic marketplace. And those same pressures exist, though in somewhat different form, in many religious communities who have become dependent on the support of the wealthy or those who have bought into the assumptions of the marketplace to keep their doors open. Too often this has resulted in a clergy more subordinate to the fund-raisers than to their own highest moral and spiritual values.

TALKING POINTS WHEN MEETING WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS

A. CHURCH, STATE AND VALUES: Our Founding Fathers were sensitized to the folly of religious sectarian disputes and their adverse effects on the public welfare evidenced by several hundred years of violence in Europe. Thus, they crafted an institutional structure, safeguarded by the Constitution, to prevent government intrusion into matters of religious conscience and to prevent religious ideology from distorting public debate on the general welfare. They sought to promote universal civic values which can be consistent with religious and spiritual pursuits and which could ensure an enabling environment where each individual could pursue their sense of awe in the Creator's majesty according to their own dictates of conscience.

1. CHURCH AND STATE: The wall of separation between church and state is a bedrock of the constitutional system of the United States of America. It has effectively prevented government intrusion into matters of conscience, reverence for God, and the spiritual pursuits of communities and individuals. It has enhanced rational debate in which diverse views have found mutual respect in matters of public governance. It has prevented the overreaching capacity of those who would abuse religious rhetoric in the pursuit of personal power. It serves the United States well. Serious, credible, politically powerful assaults on this principle must be explicitly identified and defeated.* Political candidates who would attack this bedrock principle of the republic must be called to account. This crisis can be denied no longer. The principle of limited government is challenged by no doctrine as dangerous as breaking down the separation of church and state.

B. VALUES AND PUBLIC DISCOURSE: The overbearing dominance of market values in our culture has left a vacuum in our public discourse regarding our collective civic purposes. Beyond defense, jobs, and social/economic stability, our political purposes remain uncertain. Extreme sectarian religious exclusivists exploit this vacuum by claiming to provide higher purposes but actually mask an anti-labor, environmentally irresponsible, and jingoistic set of policies garbed in religious language. We propose that universally recognized civic values concordant with all religious traditions must be explicitly expressed as part of the foundation for promoting the general welfare. These values include love, caring, compassion, tolerance, justice, a sense of care and respect for the natural world, a reverence for life, and the importance of the sanctity of conscience and personal liberty. These values find ethical expression in universally recognized principles such as the Golden Rule which we believe should be promoted at all levels of decision making, including international affairs. We must overtly challenge the proposition that only right-wing policies are value based. Caring for the poor, the disenfranchised, stewarding and protecting the environment, and pursuing peace and justice are resonant with all people of faith and good will.

C. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Religious doctrine, not subject to the criteria of measurable and disprovable propositions, is not an appropriate criterion to give direction to science and technology. However, values concordant with religious doctrine are important to bring balance and give more meaning to a reasoned debate. Science and technology address measurable and disprovable propositions. The pursuit of these two disciplines is never value-neutral, for choosing to investigate and apply derived knowledge to particular areas is always a decision, an expression of values. Too often the choice now is garnered disproportionately by funding arising from military concerns and market interests. Clearly these are important but need to be balanced by endeavors directed to improving the quality of life and the general welfare.

What I'm finding missing from the site is the sense of Spiritual Progressives being part of a coalition with agnostic/atheist Progressives -- which would involve the willingness not just to challenge others' misperceptions about you (religio-phobia, etc.), but to be challenged about your misperceptions about them.  It's one thing for Spiritual Progressives to assert that they/we bring something of value to the table, it's another to claim that they/we should take over the agenda because our partners don't know their own best interests.

by Rusty Pipes on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:52:21 PM EST
Parent

I agree (5.00 / 1)
and thanks. Note how various views are ascribed to an unnamed "They."

That said, I think its fine for spiritual progressives or any other self-identified sector, including self described secularists to caucus, organize or anything else they like. What is objectionable in this instance is as you say, the failure to fairly acknowledge non-spiritual (if we may use that term) progressives, and most importantly, to perpetuate the straw man argument to the point of demonization of the other. Sadly, many of these others are natural allies -- and that is one of the main points of my article.

by Frederick Clarkson on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:19:30 AM EST
Parent








Personal Experience (none / 0)
I just don't know how effective logical, factual responses like those of Fred, Tacitus and myself will be against what are ultimately irrational, emotional arguments.

For the vast majority, not at all, I'm afraid.  It does sometimes seem truly remarkable that rational arguments have so little effect, but I have one experience that put me on the other side and gave me some insight into how difficult it is to persuade such people.

In my case, I managed to convince myself that I was dying from ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease).  I did have (and still do, many years later) some benign neurological symptoms that people sometimes mistake for symptoms of ALS, so I had reason to be concerned, but I managed to work myself into such a state that no family member, no friend, and no neurologist (and I saw several) could convince me that I wasn't going to die a horrible death within a few years.

Looking back, it was a truly remarkable thing.  I knew I was right, and there was no argument, no matter how reasoned and reasonable could dissuade me from what I (thought I) knew to be the truth.  The only thing that brought me out of it was I knew that if I really had ALS, the symptoms would get progressively worse, and I eventually had to accept that that was not happening.

So I understand how powerful delusions can be, and while it's hard to remember that in the face of such foolish beliefs and arguments, it helps one realize how difficult it can be to change minds.

That is why I think the most important game changing fact to remember is that young people are increasing rejecting fundamentalism for a more secular lifestyle.  Whether that is a more moderate or liberal Christianity, or agnosticism or atheism doesn't matter much to me.  Added together, that may well be the one thing that most helps deprive the religious right of its power base in the decades to come.  If you break a generation of the habit, then perhaps they will be more open to reason.

by tacitus on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:03:28 AM EST
Parent

Well, we're all kind of illogical, (none / 0)
The only difference is to what extent and on what subjects. I don't remember where, but I read a great quote to the effect that, all decisions are made in the unconscious mind, the conscious mind mainly existing  to justify those decisions. We should of course continue with rational argument, but we need a more whole-brain approach if we're to be successful. Katherine Yurica, a great Christian fighter against fundamentalism, believes that artistic expression will be an important tool in our struggle. By combining art and intellect, we can reach the entire person. Remember, we have to change both hearts and minds or we will ultimately fail. I disagree with you about young people though. They seem to be getting more, not less religious. And the religion they're embracing is more radical than moderate. As one example, look at the success of "Battlecry". When I was a kid, you could never have gotten tens of thousands of teens to go hear Christian hate speech and buy all kinds of Christian fundamentalist entertainment. And in the Arab world, things seem even worse. It is the older generation that is more secular. Many Muslim parents are quite concerned about the increasingly fanatical religious beliefs of their children.

by Dave on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:18:57 AM EST
Parent
Pew Research (none / 0)
I would respectfully disagree.  Take a look at the Pew Research web site and you will find that over the past 30 years, their surveys have been showing a distinct move away from the religious that is almost all a generational thing.  As each generation ages, the number on non-religious people in each generation remains remarkably static.  But as each new generation reaches adulthood it is significantly less religious (from 4% of over 65s, through 8% of boomers, to 15% of gen-Y, and I think the latest findings is that 20% of young people are not religious).  While this is still a minority, young people's attitudes to things like gay marriage are also more liberal than their parent's generation.  

The example you cite is certainly true and worrying, but anecdotal evidence can't refute the trend the surveys have reported.  That's not to say the trend can't be reversed in the future, but I doubt that will happen (unless a major catastrophe radicalizes the population as a whole).

The USA is very much an outlier in the Western World, where the European Union and other western powers have a much less conservative and much more secular outlook on life and morality.  I believe it is much more likely that in the long run the US will move more into line with the rest of the democratic nations.  That's not to say that it won't be a fight, and there won't be trouble along the way!

by tacitus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:10:45 PM EST
Parent





"Are you now..." at DKos (none / 0)

Sure enjoyed the banter with you and all the others yesterday at DKos, Fred. Especially all the "zombie" threads.

I suppose I should be alarmed or offended by all the anti-secularist rants your essay documents and analyzes, but I'm essentially not. It's what I've come to expect from the RR, and since I'm personally little affected by it I'm not inclined to react too strongly to it.

My experience here in my small mountain community of being known as an atheist/secularist/humanist has been moot for the most part. There are few, if any, outspoken religiously fundamentist folks around here. The churchgoers in my town are, to the best of my observation, quite moderate. Some of them are close acquaintances of mine. They know I'm atheist, and we've had some good, dare I say productive, conservations on religion and politics. They know me as a hard-working, honest person, and respect me for that. They also know my vices, and recognize them for what they are: human vices, nothing intrinsically evil. Sure, they wish I'd "come back into the fold" someday, but they know that's just not going to happen. We disagree, civily, and go our own ways. I like that.

I read your entire essay, and enjoyed it, although it got a little long for me, but you made great points, and I'm the better for having read it.

So I remain an unrepentant secularist, and proud of it, and am not afraid to do my little part in helping to keep religion out of government, and vice-versa. Thanks for your help, Fred.

--f.p. ("cn4st4datrees")

by Forrest Prince on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:02:54 AM EST


Are You Now, or Have You Ever Been, a Secularist? | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 hidden)

WWW Talk To Action


Cognitive Dissonance & Dominionism Denial
There is new research on why people are averse to hearing or learning about the views of ideological opponents. Based on evaluation of five......
By Frederick Clarkson (375 comments)
Will the Air Force Do Anything To Rein In Its Dynamic Duo of Gay-Bashing, Misogynistic Bloggers?
"I always get nervous when I see female pastors/chaplains. Here is why everyone should as well: "First, women are not called to be pastors,......
By Chris Rodda (203 comments)
The Legacy of Big Oil
The media is ablaze with the upcoming publication of David Grann's book, Killers of the Flower Moon. The shocking non fiction account of the......
By wilkyjr (111 comments)
Gimme That Old Time Dominionism Denial
Over the years, I have written a great deal here and in other venues about the explicitly theocratic movement called dominionism -- which has......
By Frederick Clarkson (101 comments)
History Advisor to Members of Congress Completely Twists Jefferson's Words to Support Muslim Ban
Pseudo-historian David Barton, best known for his misquoting of our country's founders to promote the notion that America was founded as a Christian nation,......
By Chris Rodda (113 comments)
"Christian Fighter Pilot" Calls First Lesbian Air Force Academy Commandant a Liar
In a new post on his "Christian Fighter Pilot" blog titled "BGen Kristin Goodwin and the USAFA Honor Code," Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan......
By Chris Rodda (144 comments)
Catholic Right Leader Unapologetic about Call for 'Death to Liberal Professors' -- UPDATED
Today, Donald Trump appointed C-FAM Executive Vice President Lisa Correnti to the US Delegation To UN Commission On Status Of Women. (C-FAM is a......
By Frederick Clarkson (126 comments)
Controlling Information
     Yesterday I listened to Russ Limbaugh.  Rush advised listeners it would be best that they not listen to CNN,MSNBC, ABC, CBS and......
By wilkyjr (118 comments)
Is Bannon Fifth-Columning the Pope?
In December 2016 I wrote about how White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who likes to flash his Catholic credentials when it comes to......
By Frank Cocozzelli (251 comments)
Ross Douthat's Hackery on the Seemingly Incongruous Alliance of Bannon & Burke
Conservative Catholic writer Ross Douthat has dissembled again. This time, in a February 15, 2017 New York Times op-ed titled The Trump Era's Catholic......
By Frank Cocozzelli (65 comments)
`So-Called Patriots' Attack The Rule Of Law
Every so often, right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan lurches out of the far-right fever swamp where he has resided for the past 50 years to......
By Rob Boston (161 comments)
Bad Faith from Focus on the Family
Here is one from the archives, Feb 12, 2011, that serves as a reminder of how deeply disingenuous people can be. Appeals to seek......
By Frederick Clarkson (177 comments)
The Legacy of George Wallace
"One need not accept any of those views to agree that they had appealed to real concerns of real people, not to mindless, unreasoning......
By wilkyjr (70 comments)
Betsy DeVos's Mudsill View of Public Education
My Talk to Action colleague Rachel Tabachnick has been doing yeoman's work in explaining Betsy DeVos's long-term strategy for decimating universal public education. If......
By Frank Cocozzelli (80 comments)
Prince and DeVos Families at Intersection of Radical Free Market Privatizers and Religious Right
This post from 2011 surfaces important information about President-Elect Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. -- FC Erik Prince, Brother of Betsy......
By Rachel Tabachnick (218 comments)

Respect for Others? or Political Correctness?
The term "political correctness" as used by Conservatives and Republicans has often puzzled me: what exactly do they mean by it? After reading Chip Berlin's piece here-- http://www.talk2action.org/story/2016/7/21/04356/9417 I thought about what he explained......
MTOLincoln (253 comments)
Fear
What I'm feeling now is fear.  I swear that it seems my nightmares are coming true with this new "president".  I'm also frustrated because so many people are not connecting all the dots! I've......
ArchaeoBob (107 comments)
"America - love it or LEAVE!"
I've been hearing that and similar sentiments fairly frequently in the last few days - far FAR more often than ever before.  Hearing about "consequences for burning the flag (actions) from Trump is chilling!......
ArchaeoBob (214 comments)
"Faked!" Meme
Keep your eyes and ears open for a possible move to try to discredit the people openly opposing Trump and the bigots, especially people who have experienced terrorism from the "Right"  (Christian Terrorism is......
ArchaeoBob (165 comments)
More aggressive proselytizing
My wife told me today of an experience she had this last week, where she was proselytized by a McDonald's employee while in the store. ......
ArchaeoBob (163 comments)
See if you recognize names on this list
This comes from the local newspaper, which was conservative before and took a hard right turn after it was sold. Hint: Sarah Palin's name is on it!  (It's also connected to Trump.) ......
ArchaeoBob (169 comments)
Unions: A Labor Day Discussion
This is a revision of an article which I posted on my personal board and also on Dailykos. I had an interesting discussion on a discussion board concerning Unions. I tried to piece it......
Xulon (180 comments)
Extremely obnoxious protesters at WitchsFest NYC: connected to NAR?
In July of this year, some extremely loud, obnoxious Christian-identified protesters showed up at WitchsFest, an annual Pagan street fair here in NYC.  Here's an account of the protest by Pagan writer Heather Greene......
Diane Vera (130 comments)
Capitalism and the Attack on the Imago Dei
I joined this site today, having been linked here by Crooksandliars' Blog Roundup. I thought I'd put up something I put up previously on my Wordpress blog and also at the DailyKos. As will......
Xulon (331 comments)
History of attitudes towards poverty and the churches.
Jesus is said to have stated that "The Poor will always be with you" and some Christians have used that to refuse to try to help the poor, because "they will always be with......
ArchaeoBob (149 comments)
Alternate economy medical treatment
Dogemperor wrote several times about the alternate economy structure that dominionists have built.  Well, it's actually made the news.  Pretty good article, although it doesn't get into how bad people could be (have been)......
ArchaeoBob (90 comments)
Evidence violence is more common than believed
Think I've been making things up about experiencing Christian Terrorism or exaggerating, or that it was an isolated incident?  I suggest you read this article (linked below in body), which is about our great......
ArchaeoBob (214 comments)

More Diaries...




All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments, posts, stories, and all other content are owned by the authors. Everything else © 2005 Talk to Action, LLC.