Secularism must be the most misunderstood and mangled ism in the American political lexicon. Commentators on the right and the left routinely equate it with Stalinism, Nazism and Socialism, among other dreaded isms.
In the United States, of late, another false equation has emerged. That would be the groundless association of secularism with atheism. The religious right has profitably promulgated this misconception at least since the 1970s.
More recently politicians such as Newt Gingrich have gleefully fostered this confusion. During his raucous, unforgettable 2012 presidential run, the former Speaker of the House fretted that his grandchildren were poised to live in "a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."
Claiming that secularism and atheism are the same thing makes for good culture warrioring. The number of nonbelievers in this country is quite small. Many Americans, unfortunately, harbor irrational prejudices toward them. By intentionally blurring the distinction between atheism and secularism, the religious right succeeds in drowning both.
Yet it is not only foes, but friends of secularism, who sometimes make this mistake as well. Nowadays most major atheist groups describe themselves as "secular." Many are in fact good secularists. But others, as we shall see, are beholden to assumptions that are strikingly at odds with the secular worldview.
Let's start with some brief definitions. Atheism, put simply, is a term that covers a wide variety of schools of thought that ponder and/or posit the non-existence of God/s. Among scholars there is a fascinating debate about when precisely atheism arose. One compelling theory (see writers like Alan Kors and Michael Buckley) is that nonbelief as a coherent worldview developed within Christian theological speculation in early modernity.
Secularism, on the other hand, has nothing to do with metaphysics. It does not ask whether there is a divine realm. It is agnostic, if you will, on the question of God's existence -- a question that is way above its pay grade.
What secularism does concern itself with are relations between Church and State. It is a flexible doctrine that can embody a lot of policy positions. Strict separationism is one, but not the only, of those positions. At its core, secularism is deeply suspicious of any entanglement between government and religion.
Secularism needs to be disarticulated from atheism for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, these two isms are simply not synonyms. One concerns itself with primarily with politics, the other with (anti-) metaphysics. They have different concerns, intellectual moorings and histories (though, interestingly, it may be that both emanated from Christian theological inquiry).
Second, for secularism to reinvigorate itself it needs to reclaim its traditional base of religious people. As I noted in my forthcoming book, the secular vision was birthed by religious thinkers, such as Martin Luther, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (the last two, admittedly were idiosyncratic believers, but believers nonetheless).
Throughout American history it has been groups like Baptists, Jews, progressive Catholics as well as countless smaller religious minorities who have championed secular political ideas. But religious believers today, even moderate religious believers, will not sign on to secularism if they think it's merely the advocacy arm of godlessness.
Finally, we need to distinguish secularism from atheism because some atheists, of late, have taken a regrettable anti-secular turn. True, secularism is a proponent of religious freedom and freedom from religion. It sees the "Church" as a legitimate component of the American polity. It doesn't view religion as "poison" (to quote Christopher Hitchens) or hope for an "end of faith." As noted earlier, secularism has no dog in that fight.
Most atheists, of course, are tolerant to a fault and simply wish for religious folks to reciprocate (and most do). Yet as long as some celebrities of nonbelief continue to espouse radical anti-theism (in the name of "secularism," no less) the future of secularism is imperiled.
Follow Jacques Berlinerblau on Twitter: www.twitter.com/berlinerblau
Alan Jones: On Missing Christopher Hitchens
As an example of this approach,..., Jacques Berlinerblau does a great disservice to secularism by repeating these old clichés and half-truths whose apparent purpose is to make sure that the status quo remains unchallenged. Berlinerblau's title says it all: “Secularism is Not Atheism.”
In reality, to say that secularism “is” or “is not” atheism is simplistic and inaccurate in either case. The two terms are neither synonyms nor antonyms. That being said, the commonalities between secularism and atheism are nevertheless more important than their differences, and Berlinerblau's approach conceals their important shared foundation...."
From "Secularism and Atheism: A Shared Foundation" by David Rand
http://aft.atheisme.ca/blog-21/
"Of course"? Would that be faith without evidence? How about a scientific study on the attitudes atheists have toward non-atheists? The most prominent evidence is in the books attacking others which atheists put on the bestseller lists, the insulting advertising they fund, the hypocritical way they condemn religion for every complex tragedy in history caused by political or economic reasons under the merest guise of Christianity while denying via special pleading their own responsibility for the millions slaughtered by explicitly atheist Communists during the 20th Century.
Atheist tolerance is a goofy myth propped up by the cautious passivity of minority status. But, Atheism carries aggression in its very name and nature. Other worldviews may slip into--or even trend toward--intolerance, but Atheism is intolerant in its essence. That's what that "a-" means: "These people are bad, we are the opposite of them." It's not mere lack of belief--that would be called "I don't know" not "atheism." Christianity is not Ajudaism, nor Islam Achristianity, nor Buddhism Ahinduism. Even at their worst (and there's no denying their habitually bad behavior) religions are something more than intolerance, more than "not-them."
Atheist intolerance might not always rise to violence and vitriol, it might by demographic necessity disguise its aggression behind reassuring words, but that doesn't change its essentially aggressive nature; contrary to the myth of atheist tolerance, among worldviews atheism is the most purely intolerant.
Jefferson and Madison were deists, not theists. How come you can separate atheism and secularism, but not theism and deisim? Does it not suit your purpose of puffing your own book?
What does that mean? It may be true, I just don't have any idea what "anti-secular turn" some atheists have taken. It sounds so ominous, but only that statement is posted as if it's obvious, with no support and no examples given. Isn't "anti-secular" _wanting_ to mix religion into things (like education and politics)?
If you've never read Judge Learned Hand's 'Spirit of Liberty', I think it reflects what is meant by this. {Google that, if you haven't read it.}
He thinks secularism equals freedom of religion and he is trying to say that it's the anti-theists who don't want freedom of religion, so they're anti-secular.
He's wrong on two counts, however. First is that secularism requires making room for religion in public. A quick dictionary check cuts that one down.
Second is that he doesn't understand that the strong atheists (anti-theists) are responding to the continued (successful) efforts by some evangelicals to enforce their views in our laws, to teach their religion in our schools, etc. That if the religionists were content with a secular society and kept their faith out of our laws and quit knocking on our doors trying to convert us, we atheists would be hunky dory and not trying to push their elephant off our chest so we could just catch a breath.
Also, he's wrong that atheism arose from christianity. Nearly as long as there have been claims of gods, there have been atheists.
I'm believe in total seperation of church and state and wish to live in a secular nation. Unfortunely I do not. I live in nation where I have to go to church and lie to be able to send my children to public school. There are few to no secular school choices. I am forced to fund these schoold whether i like it or not. Furthermore in my country children go to government funded schools based on religion. So they never mix. I was best friends with a Muslim growing up but the young generation go to their own schoold and will never mix with my kids.
I am an atheist and you seem to be suggesting that I cannot descroibe myself as secular. Of course I am. I do not understand how an atheist could be anything but secular.
I believe in people right to religion but I also believe I need to stand up to religion and its attampt to force its views on my children through my taxes and have a political voice.
This puts me at odds with religion. If religion stays in church then that would be the end of it. They don't and so I consider them a threat to my freedom.
That is one of the reasons why America is a secular representative republic.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-07-19/no-religion-affiliation/56344976/1
NONES do *NOT* equal nonbelievers. In fact, the vast majority of the percentage of Nones are not constituted by atheists or agnostics. That majority is constituted by those who lack formal, declared, or recorded affiliations to a given religion. Most Nones in fact possess some form of god belief and, in fact, engage in traditional religious practices from time to time.
You are right that NONES is not equivalent to nonbelievers. However, your reasoning would leave out those who DO have affiliations or do engage in "traditional religious practices" but yet do NOT believe. Most studies would actually exclude them, thus under-reporting nonbelievers.
Some researchers are getting better at this.
"Finally, we need to distinguish secularism from atheism because some atheists, of late, have taken a regrettable anti-secular turn."
Really? Anti-secular? Your examples don't support the claim of anti-secularism, they merely show that one can be secular and also opposed to religious claims and actions. Secularism doesn't include a position on the metaphysical, as you note, but it doesn't prohibit secularists from taking a position. As you pointed out, there are religious secularists and atheist secularists.
That makes your claim here rather suspect. You're advocating the religious secularists who respect religion while deriding the atheistic secularists who oppose it.
Finally, you extend this to make a rather peculiar assertion:
"It sees the "Church" as a legitimate component of the American polity."
Secularism, which can include, by your own admission, the total separation of church and state must see the "Church" as a legitimate component of the American polity?
Careful, your bias is showing.
Secularism is the philosophy that drove the decision that there are no tests for religion or irreligion when it comes to being a citizen of the United States, and that no religious organization shall have a dominant voice in civil discourse and politics.
Secularism allows for the religious and irreligious to live side by side, with each person following the dictates of his or her own conscience, yet unable to dictate to anyone else concerning matters of religion or irreligion.
Unless you have some sort of learning disability, this should be perfectly understandable.
And more broadly, secularism is not materialism, either.
Secularism is that fundamental decision at the heart of modern democracy to separate the state from any and all religious institutions, and to treat citizens exactly the same no matter what their religious or irreligious views.
So secularism makes room for the materialist and the transcendentalist. It makes room for the theist and the atheist. It makes room for the transcendentalist who is a theist (like the Abrahamists) and the transcendentalist who is not a theist (like the Dalai Lama).
It makes room for everybody, and allows dominion by nobody. It is arguably the greatest philosophical and political achievement in the history of the human race.
Ha! I guess he hasn't visited the religion page on HuffPo lately, or ever.
As for the atheists who always warn that there numbers are growing- that is false, people leaving religion are growing, that doesn't mean they are becoming atheists.
Another religious person whining that people disagreeing with him is "intolerant" Yawn!
Humanism began as a religious theory whose starting point was that human beings were created in the image of God in that they have rationality. Therefore the religious imperative should be to try to understand the world through the reason that God gave us. But as philosophy developed along Humanist lines, the assumption of the existence of God dropped out and a more secular humanism emerged, that is one that rejects the idea that the reason we should understand the world through reason has anything to do with God. If God exists that fact must come at the end of the reasoning process, not at the outset. Here secularism has to do with the fact that we are not reasoning from religious premises, it has nothing to do with government. It is still consistent with the existence of God, although the arguments don't tend to point that way.