I had received this as a bullettin from my friend Jeff at Beltway Atheists.

I decided to respond to the column.  (my response is at the end of the page, and also on the newsweek link.) 

From: Jeff
Date: Jul 16, 2007 11:10 AM


http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2007/07/secularism_boring_part_i.html

Jacques Berlinerblau is an associate professor and program director at Georgetown University. The God Vote is a critical look at the religious rhetoric, activity and theology behind the 2008 presidential campaign

Phone 202-687-6803
Email [email protected]

Secularism: Boring (Part I)

Query: Can an atheist or agnostic commentator discuss any aspect of religion for more than thirty seconds without referring to religious people as imbeciles, extremists, mental deficients, fascists, enemies of the common good, crypto-Nazis, conjure men, irrationalists, pedophiles, bearers of false consciousness, authoritarian despots, and so forth? Is that possible?

First, some basic definitions. Politically speaking, American secularism is made up of two overlapping, albeit distinct, constituencies. The first is comprised of the aforementioned nonbelievers whose best-selling spokespersons are fast becoming the soccer hooligans of reasoned public discourse. The second is much larger and much quieter. It encompasses religious Americans who favor strict Church/State Separation (this they share with the nonbelievers).

Nonbelievers of late have been churning out loud, unsubtle, anti-religious manifestos. The world would be a better place, they all seem to suggest, if religion and all of its associated personnel were simply to disappear. In this regards the new nonbelievers seem stuck in the ‘90s—and by this I mean the 1890s. This calls attention to one glaring problem with atheism and agnosticism today: it lacks new ideas. The movement abounds in polemicists, but has not produced a thinker of real substance since perhaps the days of Jean-Paul Sartre.

A second problem is that contemporary nonbelief lacks any discernible political dynamism, not to mention power. Here they could learn much from their arch nemesis, the Evangelicals. The latter, with their grass roots organizations, Beltway alliances, pressure groups, D.C. lobbyists and internet manifestos are the model of an efficient (and somewhat frightening) political juggernaut. Celebrities of nonbelief can call Evangelical Christians imbeciles as much as they want. But If imbecility is measured by the metric of political power, then the accusation is misdirected.

The Faith and Values Industry, for its part, has not done much to make secularism more interesting. For the past decade or so, only the most snarling and extreme variants of atheist and agnostic thought have been featured in Book Review sections, Op-Ed pages, and magazines of opinion. Sticking it to the Pope, taking on Islam in its entirety, or ridiculing Bible-carrying Christians has become the admission ticket for those nonbelievers craving media attention.

This is not, I wish to stress, part of some vast Left- or Right-wing conspiracy. Rather, secularism as a social, cultural, historical, and even theological project remains one of the least understood and most highly charged subjects of our time. Few institutions of higher education seem interested in studying the issue (though see the work of The Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture at Trinity College) and the media outlets simply follow the bestseller lists in an effort to give this perspective its just hearing.

Nonbelief will not become any less dull or predictable if it keeps wrapping stale criticisms of religion in more incendiary packaging. Fresh criticisms of religion in incendiary packaging are always welcome (I think of the preposterously creative, thoughtful and troubling fiction of writers such as Salman Rushdie, Philip Roth, and Michel Houellebecq). Even more useful for lifting secularism out of its rut would be self-criticism. This would be the first step toward re-animating a worthy, though presently moribund, intellectual and aesthetic tradition.

MY RESPONSE TO THIS:

First of all, it seems as if the author here misses the point completely, as most people who criticize the growing secular movement often do.

The fact that there is a "lack of new ideas" is a red herring. What's important here is that the ideas that secularists prescribe to are in fact self evident as truth. Since the 1890's and, obviously even before then, religion has managed to justify the secularists beliefs. In that religion is completely out of tune with modern civilizations, if by modern civilizations we mean peaceful progress without the reason to kill each other because of some differing views on god belief (on the extreme quickly becoming the mainstream in some god belief cultures(ahem..9-11)) and by censoring science in order to fit a political agenda associated with god belief (on the mainstream). Secularists have had enough. The "ideas" are resurfacing, if you will, in retaliation to the vast evangelical movement that has taken over our political system. We are living in a world now where ancient philosophies are guiding the minds and hearts of people who have the capabilities and knowledge of 21st century technology(paraphrasing Sam Harris). This is dangerous. The straw that broke the camel's back here is the complete take over of our government, judicial system and now even the attempt at our schools that is driving the secularists to be so avid in their fight for a fair system.

How is political dynamism and power supposed to be achieved by keeping the secular movement quiet? The reason why the media spotlights those in the secular movement who are the most antipathetic is simply because the media has no interest in being even or fair or actually engage in true public discourse, the media is interested in ratings. This is why the media ignores the other voices in the movement. There is a multi-faceted approach coming from the secular movement. This includes both radicals and midliners. All with the notion that religious beliefs are very dangerous, especially when espoused to laws and politics; ie., theocracy. The movement, is much more interesting and dynamic than what the author suggest.