The Future of Secularism in American Politics

This may seem a strange time to discuss the future of secularism, since we have just concluded a faith-saturated presidential election campaign. From the start, from Barack Obama's 2006 Keynote Address to the Sojourners Call to Renewal Conference to the over-the-top faith confessions by Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, the Democrats were determined to run as a faith-friendly Party. On the Republican side, though John McCain was pretty easy-going about religion, the religious right finally got to celebrate with the vice-presidential nomination of the ostentatiously religious Sarah Palin. You would not have known there was a secularist in America.

At the same time, however, recent polls have been showing an enormous and rapid growth in various forms of the unchurched. Perhaps the most startling statistic for such a famously religious country as America was a February 2008 PEW Forum finding that 25% of Americans 18-29 are unaffiliated with organized religion. Similar trends have been noted in other groups as well.

The growing power of the nonreligious can be seen in the publishing success of the group often referred to as the New Atheists. Christopher Hitchens' runaway best-seller, God is Not Great, joined Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, and many similar books as a militant secularism found its voice.

You might predict that these two opposing trends -- a more religious politics and a more secular society -- would eventually clash, particularly in the Democratic Party, where most secularists reside. The Democrats wore their new-found religiosity a little awkwardly, as Obama's uncharacteristically oafish comment about small-town America clinging to religion and guns demonstrated. (The Democrats also got religion about guns this year). At some point, secularists may chafe under all the religious pandering.

But that may not happen. Along with its overall growth, new forms of secularism are emerging that are more religion friendly than the New Atheists would have you believe. This has been particularly true in science, where the idea of God has begun to be reinterpreted. In his recent book, Reinventing the Sacred, the theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman writes that God "is our chosen name for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe, biosphere and human cultures." And the British paleontologist Simon Conway Morris in Life's Solution is even willing to look at the religious tradition directly: "[G]iven that evolution has produced sentient species with a sense of purpose, it is reasonable to take the claims of theology seriously."

As far as I know, these thinkers are not religious believers. They are secular scientists who are sensitive to mystery and meaning. They would not accept a personal God who could set aside the laws of nature. But they are not mere materialists either.

There are various other indicators of a new permeability between religion and secularism. In philosophy, Jurgen Habermas (Between Naturalism and Religion), Susan Neiman (Moral Clarity) and James C. Edwards (The Plain Sense of Things) are describing a secularism open to religious insights. In theology, a kind of secularist religion is emerging in the work of Michael Hampson (God Without God) and John Shelby Spong (Jesus for the Non-Religious). Even Austin Dacey, passionately opposed to organized religion, calls on his fellow secularists to reject relativism and accept belief in public debate in The Secular Conscience. I myself try to describe a religiously oriented secularism in the book Hallowed Secularism, which will be published in March.

The political implications of any movement away from the us-them divide between religion and secularism would be profound. The success of the Republican Party in winning large numbers of religiously oriented voters is based on two quite different foundations. One is policy. Religiously oriented voters oppose abortion and gay rights to a greater extent than the public at large. Secularists tend to support both. That is not going to change. The Democrats this year wooed religious voters, but not by offering much compromise on those fronts.

But there is another foundation for this Republican Party electoral success, one that is cultural rather than policy-oriented. The Democratic Party has just not seemed at home with religion. That suspicion was inflamed by the Obama comment about religion.

If secularism were to rediscover the language, symbols and images of traditional religion, now reinterpreted along naturalistic lines, this cultural divide could be bridged. Women and men of good faith could think once again of a broad progressive coalition among religious believers and nonbelievers, which, though it could not agree on all issues, would undoubtedly find a lot of political common ground. Indeed, such a coalition might renew the American radical tradition that has languished since Marxism was discredited.

All that is needed is an appreciation by secularists that religious concerns are the concerns of all human beings with perennial questions that can never go away: who are we, why are we here and what can we hope for? We who do not believe in God have a great deal to learn from traditional religion about how to approach those questions. We can become sufficiently self-confident that we no longer fear words like God and faith, but can look to shared realities behind them.

Comments

[retest]

"This has been particularly true in science, where the idea of God has begun to be reinterpreted."
Mr. Ledewitz, what kind of controlled substance are you currently consuming?

No such thing is occurring in science. In fact, evidence for scientific evolution is now considered fact. As an example, the human genome project is now being used on Neanderthal Man.

Examples of abiogenesis will be proven within the next 18 months by several laboratories.

Particle physics, the LHC coming online.

The list goes on.

[Daksian]

While there is certainly much to be gained by a more conciliatory approach from non-believers towards believers in terms of goodwill and perspective, it is equally important to be wary of sublimating one's views to 'get along'. On my Livejournal I have a number of friends who are atheists and believers alike, and I am comfortable conversing with both regarding religion or non-belief, as we keep the discussions civil. In these discussions, however, I make no apologies for considering the indoctrination of children into religion as unethical and other 'contentious' views. While it may seem like that creates needless strife, my experience has been that it has opened eyes and forced new ways of thinking.

Statistics shift all the time, but secularism does seem to be on the rise, and that rise should be encouraged to continue. Encouragement means rational, civil, respectful discussion and not shying away from the harder questions for fear of offending others. Be conciliatory, yes...but only to a point.

[imaproudliberal]

Why does it have to be a one way street as your post suggests? Where's the conciliatory approach from believers towards non-believers? Sorry, but it seems to me that it's the "believers" who need to be more conciliatory towards us non-believers, especially after the last 8 years. Even though secularism is on the rise, there's absolutely no way that an atheist or agnostic will ever be POTUS - so that means I & many others like me will more likely than not not have someone representing our POV & beliefs in the WH.

[Daksian]

I didn't mean for my post to suggest conciliatory to be the modus operandi, let alone one-way. As I mentioned, it's useful to a point. However, I suppose I was remiss in not mentioning that those believers I do have my discussions are equally respectful and when they feel it appropriate, are conciliatory. It IS a two-way street...but there's nothing wrong with being the first one to extend the olive branch...just don't do it with your eyes closed, is all I'm saying.

[Daksian]

Heh, I had another thought on this. I think the best approach is the 'Obama' approach. Obama rejected the 'angry black man' in his run because he knew it would gain him nothing. He didn't back down from his opponents, but he treated them with respect and dignity and made them look like asses when they didn't return that treatment, and in the interim made his point even stronger. Secularists can learn a thing or two from such tactics.

[jfor]

You do not need any God to show compassion to another, you just have to want to.

[djk37]

And actually, to show compassion without belief in a God is REAL compassion, unlike those who feel compassion because they think that they need to because there is a man in the clouds watching their every move.

[Lilly-G]

Thank you for putting it so nicely. I've had to defend my non-beliefs, all too often I'm considered to be heartless and satanic-esk only because I don't believe as they do. This is certainly not true. You're right, the religious are always protecting the highway to heaven - meaning they're not doing good things for other people out of any true altruistic reasons.

[radmul]

The key to moving society ahead is to abandon superstition and replace it with reason. Adopting a rebranding of superstition is counterproductive.

[Wittsend]

Nothing new about "secular religion". Ethical Culture ( http://www.aeu.org/ ) has been around for over 130 years. We helped to promote the original Red Cross and Nurses Aid programs and were leaders in the women's Right To Vote movement over 100 years ago. It was founded as a secular answer to "organized religion" and has Society branches all over the USA and worldwide.

Always act so as to elicit the best in others, and thereby in yourself. - Felix Adler

[Stephen C. Rose - Huffpost Blogger]

My sense is that Barack is either a genius or a secret church reformer. Here me out. I think the key to moving churches ahead is what I called abandonment in my 1966 book The Grass Roots Church. This was the idea that lay people should accomplish their mission by simply blending in with no particular church identity to efforts to improve life.

Barack's twist on faith based ministries is what may precisely enable abandonment as I thought of it back then..
This is the very opposite of a program based on trying to convert folk.

Through the acceptance of a fundamentally secular structure for achieving good and helpful goals, both church and society are renewed.

[montemalone]

So long as religion is used as a tool by hypocrites and thieves to spread hate and greed, I'll have no part of trying to understand their point of view.
Any scientist trying to equate the marvel that is the universe, which is a chemical reaction that has gone on for billions of years, with religion, has another motive.
The golden rule can be espoused by all without having to submit to organized brain washing.