What does secularism stand for? Listening to those in the increasingly shrill "religious freedom" lobby, one gets the impression that secularism is some sort of civic anti-Christ. It allegedly strives for the suppression of public religious expression, the abrogation of free exercise and the silencing of people of faith.
Nothing could be further from the truth. If the continuing fallout over Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy's epic anti-gay marriage perorations has any redeeming value, then perhaps it can serve as a vehicle to clarify some of these misconceptions.
By now we are all familiar with Cathy's opinions on same-sex marriage. Defending what he called the "biblical definition of the family," Cathy declaimed:
I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about.
But let me also be the first to say that Cathy has every right to completely ignore my scholarship, as well as that of other biblicists who have made similar arguments. The beauty of a well-functioning secular state is that folks like Cathy don't have to listen to the likes of me. "Believe what you want to believe!" -- that is the secular state's motto and it grants Cathy, Nancy Pelosi (who prefers KFC) and everyone else complete psychic sovereignty.
The secular state, then, cannot punish citizens for what they believe. As I note in the video above, this core secular principle was adumbrated by Thomas Jefferson in his "Notes on the State of Virginia."
This is why the attempts by mayors in Boston, Washington, Chicago and San Francisco to punish the Chick-fil-A franchise are a betrayal of secular principles.
It is essential to recall because conservative commentators have forgotten that many liberal and secular voices made precisely this point. Mayor Bloomberg, probably the most intuitively secular politician in America, opined that it was wrong "to look at somebody's political views and decide whether or not they can live in the city, or operate a business in the city, or work for somebody in the city."
Bloomberg understands that secular states don't regulate beliefs. They can and must, however, regulate acts based on those beliefs. A truly just government attempts to strike a complex balance. It aspires to permit religious and irreligious citizens maximal free exercise. It lets citizens act on their convictions to the greatest extent possible. But there are boundaries.
Take the controversy over the Obama administration's HHS mandates. There the government refused to permit Catholic employers to deny access to contraception in their employees' insurance packages. The government did that because it recognizes contraception as a good for all citizens (it also recognizes that the overwhelming majority of employees at Catholic institutions -- be they Catholic or non-Catholic -- want access to contraception). The secular state thus says to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that Church teachings on contraception cannot be translated into domestic policy.
In the case of Chick-fil-A, the fast-food chain has committed no offensive acts. Rather, it has just expressed what are (to many of us) offensive beliefs. Until the company starts discriminating against gay employees and patrons -- and let it be said that Cathy has created a fairly odious professional work environment -- then governments across America have no bone to pick with Chick-fil-A.
Far from being a civic anti-Christ, secularism stands for the right of Cathy to think whatever he wishes.
Follow Jacques Berlinerblau on Twitter: www.twitter.com/berlinerblau
Michael Rowe: The Great Chick-fil-A Snake Oil "Faith" Hustle
Melissa Browning: Chicken Nuggets and Family Values
Sister Mary Ann Walsh: U.S. Catholics' Satisfaction With Bishops Is Up
!. They come across as a "friend" that puts doubt in your mind about God and Jesus. Its anti-Christ.
2. Ridicule and wrath to discredit Christian beliefs are the cornerstone of their argument.
3. They always present the false promise that secular principles will make you happy and promote the elusive "world peace"
4. Atheism surfaces because they want to illustrate that they can challenge God without consequence. In their minds, the lack of punishment proves that there is no God to be fearful of. This is the same behavior of the ancient Greek sophists.
Do not be deceived; a secularist is not your friend. He or she is promoting their own agenda-not Jesus’.
The "virtuous" ones are so concerned with defending corp rights,particularlty with fast food, that concerns re health,environment,obesity,factory farnming,human rights,animal rights etc fall away.
People are malnourished even when surrounded by fast food-or because of it.
The same people don't want gov't to assist people with impossible high insurance premiums or lack of health insurance.Medical bnkruptcy?You're on your own.
CC's demonize food stamps,Soc Sec and Medicaire.I'm fortunate to live in a state where these "Christian" values have not taken over common sense and decency.
Whe're the only developed country where the elderly don't have a strong safety net although that is changing with the over-involvement of these countrieswith our financial practices.They are secular in comparison to the US.
We should favor a secularism of the sort that Berlinerbrau is advocating, but we should not think that being secular automatically implies such views.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/31/my-take-chick-fil-a-controversy-reveals-religious-liberty-under-threat/
Go also to: cathyfamily.com to learn more about this wonderful man.
This is what you consider "thoughtful, balanced" opinion?
This "wonderful man" is funding groups that try to deny SOME tax paying, law abiding Americans equal CIVIL rights as all other tax paying, law abiding Americans. As well as supporting the Ugandian "kill the gays" legislation.
Clearly--you and I have vastly different opinions on "thoughtful, balanced, and wonderful."
The bible treats women only slightly better than livestock, and sometimes not even that. It treats unbelievers, other cultures, other faiths, and other gods with the same respect we treat a colony of ants under our sinks, genocide is completely acceptable, and sometimes necessary.
But how do you take that same book and find a way to say after all that, that two men in a sexual relationship is somehow *not* frowned upon in the same book? The jewish culture was very much against Roman and Greek cultures, they thought they were sexually immoral.
Fact of the matter is, The Roman and Hellenistic cultures were ok with homosexuality, as long as it was sexual and the two men were not equals, one would have to be a servant or prostitute.
That was never ever a part of ancient Jewish culture, as it was for the romans and greeks.
But overall, my point is, why spend time trying to convince religious people the bible is fair on this issue, why not say, yeah I understand your religious belief, but we don't use RELIGIOUS BOOKS or BELIEFS TO DETERMINE SECULAR LAW.
How about that? Just say, your bible and your religious beliefs is not a factor in determining secular american legislation?
When the Bible comes up against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, AND the Golden Rule, it is no longer about theology, it's about something far more important--human dignity and equality.
It's not rare to hear someone telling a religious person that they must leave their religion in the private sphere for example, the implicit assumption being that the free-market of ideas must be atheistic or as if people must operate in society (and inform their vote) as if atheism is the case and their religion isn't true.
Obviously, if atheism is assumed, then the nativity on government property during the Christmas season would be as inappropriate as a crucifix in a mosque.
But if secularism simply means that the government isn't going to endorse any particular theological position or state religion (or atheism), then the various religious decor can be allowed on state property during holy days, and religious people have every right to bring their religion with them to the marketplace of ideas, and to inform their vote by them, and to operate in society by them within the confines of the law.
I agree with most of what you say here. But you seem to miss that the use of public lands for religious observances has traditionally been part of an endorsement of Christianity.