On Faith: Secularism vs. atheism | Perspective | rutlandherald.com – Rutland Herald

In my last column, I made another reference to secularism, and it occurs to me this term and concept deserves further consideration. As it happens, a much-needed book has just been published by Routledge titled Secularism: The Basics by Jacques Berlinerblau. The author was also interviewed in the Jan. 25 edition of the Religion News Service online. My remarks here have been suggested by his book and that interview.

I have made use of the phrase steadfast secularism, intending to mean something that could also be called hard secularism or atheistic secularism. Secularism in its original form referred to the principle of striving to conduct human governmental affairs based on secular, naturalistic considerations, maintaining something of a separation between church and state.

However, there is a form of secularism, which took shape through the 20th century, that goes much further and aggressively maintains the reason for such a separation is because religion of any sort is a pernicious relic of the past and needs to be stamped out of all societies for the welfare of humanity. In the late-20th century, the so-called New Atheists (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, et al) were of this ilk. Of course, earlier in the 20th century, Marxism took the same position.

Contrary to the above, the origin of the idea and term secularism in the English language can be traced to the British writer George Holyoake (1817-1906). He wanted a term and idea that was not as harsh as atheism, but would indicate an approach in government and philosophy whereby there could be cooperation with religions and believers of all types this is soft secularism. He did not intend that a government which accepted secularism as a principle, would seek to shut down religions or their influence on cultures. That further step, hard secularism, took place later in 20th-century fascist movements in Europe and in the communist revolutions in Russia and China. Today, some are noticing aspects of hard secularism filtering into many First World societies.

As Berlinerblau is careful to explain in his new book, there is a world of difference between hard and soft secularism in fact, they are pretty much opposites. Hard secularism seeks to destroy religion, whereas soft secularism seeks to accommodate and cooperate with religion, recognizing its value.

Making matters worse here in the United States, many if not most voters dont understand the difference between hard and soft secularism. This leads to the accusation, coming from the religious right, that the left-leaning Democratic Party wants to ram through atheistic secularism and to persecute religions and religious people. This would be absolutely true if the Democratic Party were aiming to align itself with hard secularism, but it isnt. It is only aiming for soft secularism that is to say, aiming for a government that defends religious freedom and does not align itself with any one religion to the exclusion of the others.

But the Democratic Party and politicians are fumbling this message over and over and they do this at their extreme peril. Americans are a very religious people even the ones who have stopped going to church. Voters in the U.S. are way more religious than western Europeans. So the Democratic Party cannot let itself be overly influenced by what flies in Europe with the public. It wont fly here.

We need to remember those famous words of the rabbi Jesus, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods. In a divinely inspired aphorism, that is exactly the type of secularism needed in order for religion and government to understand each other. These are two separate realms which, in 2,000 years of Christian social teaching, have been called the two swords and the two realms: the material and the spiritual. We live in both.

I am very much in favor of secularism, the right kind of secularism: the kind of secularism that reflects the meaning which is right there inside the words etymology. Secular comes from the Latin word saecularis (of an age/era) from the root saeculum (age/era). Secular values are values of an era, of an age, of politics). There are plenty of times when those sorts of values need some guidance from values that have stood the test of multiple eras and multiple political fights values that we sense come from a higher plain, a higher level.

I hasten to add that this does not mean they come from a literalist reading of Christian, Jewish or Islamic scripture. It means that there are core life-affirming and life-preserving values held in common by the worlds great monotheisms and their best teachers and we cannot let governments and corporations trample these values. We did not get the ideas of human rights, human flourishing and human charity from corporate bylaws or political party platforms.

The best sort of secularism recognizes its limitations. It must recognize that it cannot take the place of religious and spiritual value systems. Rather, it realizes that our societies must make a place and places for religion and spiritual development in our private and our public lives. There must be a constant dialog between the secular and the spiritual.

As humans, we live in the secular and the spiritual worlds simultaneously. When we forget that, its not pretty. When political parties forget that they either die, if were lucky; or they become tyrannical and that is very unlucky for us, indeed.

John Nassivera is a former professor who retains affiliation with Columbia Universitys Society of Fellows in the Humanities. He lives in Vermont and part-time in Mexico.

Go here to see the original:
On Faith: Secularism vs. atheism | Perspective | rutlandherald.com - Rutland Herald