Berkley Center

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. It 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.