| George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled. The demolition of the Taliban, the huge damage inflicted on the al-Qaida network, and the confrontation with theocratic saboteurs in Iraq represent huge advances for the non-fundamentalist forces in many countries. The "antiwar" faction even recognizes this achievement, if only indirectly, by complaining about the way in which it has infuriated the Islamic religious extremists around the world. But does it accept the apparent corollary—that we should have been pursuing a policy to which the fanatics had no objection?
Secularism is not just a smug attitude. It is a possible way of democratic and pluralistic life that only became thinkable after several wars and revolutions had ruthlessly smashed the hold of the clergy on the state. We are now in the middle of another such war and revolution, and the liberals have gone AWOL. I dare say that there will be a few domestic confrontations down the road, over everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the display of Mosaic tablets in courtrooms and schools. I have spent all my life on the atheist side of this argument, and will brace for more of the same, but I somehow can't hear Robert Ingersoll* or Clarence Darrow being soft and cowardly and evasive if it came to a vicious theocratic challenge that daily threatens us from within and without. |
Now there's an interesting thought. He's right in some respects. Bush has in some sense advanced the cause of secularism by, for example, smashing the Taliban. But if at the same time he has driven hundreds, thousands, perhaps millions towards fundamentalism, what kind of victory is that?
Yes yes... the secular state did come to us only after a number of long, bloody wars. But I thought the whole point was to move beyond that, not to begin the wars anew? I thought, I had hoped, that we had reached a point in world history where ideas would become our primary weapon of choice, relying only on the sword when left with no other choice.
Nevertheless, on the coming battles within the nation he is correct. We must, all of us, stand in defense of reason, of science, of the separation between church and state. This is not a negotiable issue. Believe and worship whatever way you see fit. I will always honor, respect, and yes, even fight for you to have that right. But do not ever - EVER - attempt to impose your choice on me. No child is ever prevented from offering a private prayer in public schools. What gives you the right to impose your prayer on others? No citizen is prevented from living their life according to the Bible and it's 10 Commandments. What give you the right to suggest that I should live my life that way?
I understand your passion, your devotion. I do. But please, tell me... what possible purpose does placing a tablet with the words "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" on it serve for the functioning of the state?
--------0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: In Defense of Secularism.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.alexwhalen.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1522
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Leave a comment