…92 percent of evangelical leaders from the United States who took part in a new Pew Forum survey said they are convinced that secularism is a “major threat” to the health of evangelical Christianity in their land, a threat even greater than materialism, consumerism and the rising tide of sex and violence in popular culture.
In a related question, a majority of U.S. evangelical leaders — 82 percent — said they are convinced that their churches are currently losing clout in American life.
I think that they are right. By and large the secularists seem to want to relegate religion to private belief only in your own home. Acting on your beliefs in public is to be prohibited.
It is a sad fact that the “free exercise” clause of the Constitution has been effectively nullified by the Courts.
Well, then, maybe it’s time for the citizens of this country to nullify the courts by demanding that they interpret the Constitution in the manner in which it was originally meant to be interpreted! How’s [i]that[/i] for starters?
Meanwhile, Obama moves to nullify DOMA.
The problem is not so much secularism as it is the rampant individualism combined with a voluntarist libertarian notion of freedom that lies at the roots of modern Western culture, sometimes called “classical liberalism.” Secularism is, of course, the logical conclusion of this journey, but it manifests itself in numerous other ways, including many that meet with approval by “orthodox” Western Christians who have drank the kool-aid as much as anyone else. Given that the US Constitution is itself largely a product of these Enlightenment ideals, appealing to the framers’ “original intent” is to decide by fiat to stop the process at an arbitrary point. Obama is, of course, one way in which the process can work itself out, but so were Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The infection began with John Locke, not Karl Marx.
RE: “The problem is not so much secularism as it is the rampant individualism combined with a voluntarist libertarian notion of freedom that lies at the roots of modern Western culture, sometimes called “classical liberalism.â€
Ie, the philosophical basis for the American system of government as outlined by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
i understand other people who appreciate other systems of government believing this, but obviously I do not at all believe that the above is “the problem.”
“The problem is not so much secularism as it is the rampant individualism combined with a voluntarist libertarian notion of freedom that lies at the roots of modern Western culture, sometimes called “classical liberalism.†”
I have to degree the opposite of “rampant individualism†is collectivism. It become lose-lose situation for the church; ether the church is dominant and can fall to corruption of political power or the state is dominant and collectivism become a tool of oppression.
There was a time Christians who believe total depravity of human race would be suspicious and think it is unwise concentrate political power to sinful humanity; The problem is secularism in education and the public square happed because we allow institutions to be ran by the state. I dare say individualism is the solution not the problem.
Sarah,
If rampant individualism is indeed the philosophical basis of the American system of government, then it is no surprise that the fruits have been consumerism, a self-indulgent me-first culture, and political arguments in which two sides of a fun-house mirror debate both appeal to “individual rights” rather than to the common good. And, of course, the logical consequence of rampant individualism is secularistic atheism. “I’ve gotta be me” is so much more honest when there is no other to answer to, whether that other is one’s fellow human beings, or a transcendent deity.
#6 “Collectivism” is indeed a tool of oppression, and has been, historically, the seesaw reaction to the chaos of rampant individualism. One does not exorcise an error by either endorsing or embracing an opposite error.
Any anthropology worth its salt is neither individualist nor collectivist, but relational, embracing the common good (not collective) of persons (not individuals) in community (neither a horde nor interchangeable cyphers).
Neither individualism nor collectivism is has a teleology, neither can give an account of the common good, neither can account for the relation of persons in community, and neither can give an account of a transcendent Absolute Good (the Summum Bonum) beyond the entirely immanent. The “god” of the American Declaration of Independence was, arguably, a deist fantasy.
A day’s respite has given me time to qualify (not correct) some rather broad brush strokes. The American anthropology lives with an uncomfortable tension between two versions of individualism: individualist anthropology combined with a deontological ethic, and individualism combined with a consequentialist ethic. So-called “conservatives” in our culture affirm the former. Thus, the individual has the right to accumulate as much wealth as one desires (individualism) because the right to private property is sacrosanct (deontologism). Post-modern liberals affirm the latter. One has the right to have an abortion because one owns one’s own body (individualism), and one should not bring unwanted children into the world (consequentialism).
Political “Conservatives” in the USA, especially orthodox Christians who identify themselves as political “conservatives” have planted their flags with the alliance between individualist anthropology and deontological ethics. Unfortunately, the boundary between deontologism and consequentalism is inherently unstable. It is hard to make the case on individualist grounds for a deontological ethic, since it is not immediately evident how doing so would benefit me as an individual. It seems that the culture is more and more embracing that combination of individualism and consequentalism characteristic of libertarianism, a political philosophy that happily embraces both unrestrained free enterprise capitalism and no government restraint on any of my personal proclivities, as long as those proclivities don’t tread on one’s own individual proclivities. So gay marriage is simply self-evidently correct in this latest development, as it is one more choice among the many consumerist options. Telling two people of any gender that they cannot marry one another is perceived as the moral equivalent of telling someone that they can only buy Crest toothpaste when they much prefer Tom’s. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both won great support from “conservative” Christians as presidents who upheld their values, yet it should be no surprise that Milton Friedman and Allan Greenspan, two of the greatest influences behind Reagan’s and Bush’s economic philosophies, were admirers of Ayn Rand, the patron saint of anti-theistic libertarianism.
Christians will continue to lose the cultural debate as long as they plant their flags in the unstable anthropology of individualist deontologism. Of course, collectivism is not the only alternative, as Americans are fundamentally allergic to it. (President Obama is not a “collectivist,” but most likely a post-modern individualist, and, an ethical consequentalist.) Both Roman Catholic subsidiarity (found in the papal encylicals) and Reformed sphere sovereignty (the political philosophy of Dutch politician Abraham Kuyper) provide alternatives that place one’s primary identity and allegiances not to individualism but to communities, and specifically to communities other than either the state or the market place.
At any rate, I would suggest that it is individualist consequentalism — post-modern liberalism as opposed to classical liberalism — that is the seedbed for contemporary secularism, but that classical liberalism (John Locke, Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson) planted the seeds because of the inherent instability of its anthropology.
subscribe
RE: “Political “Conservatives†in the USA, especially orthodox Christians who identify themselves as political “conservatives†have planted their flags with the alliance between individualist anthropology and deontological ethics.”
Not at all. We have merely agreed that the least immoral system of government that a nation can have is that which limits the power that accrues to a collective State and spreads out the freedom as much as possible to individuals, [within certain clearly delineated limits that are handily written down for us all], so that they can determine how best to spend their lives and what dreams they wish to pursue. We did this in large part because our wise founders recognized that gross immorality and wickedness is far more heightened and devastating coming from a massive collective endowed with military might than from puny individuals.
I may have all sorts of personal ideas about whether those dreams are moral or immoral — but our country agreed to limit the collective power to force individuals to choose what other various groups deemed proper and moral. And our country deemed that emphasis on limited collective power and broad individual liberty the least immoral system of government.
Again, I recognize that many individuals prefer it otherwise — they prefer a vastly heightened and expanded collective power that can force certain other individuals to choose what the former individuals deem best and they are more than welcome to call its opposite “rampant individualism combined with a voluntarist libertarian notion of freedom.” But thankfully that is not the way our country decided to run itself.
[blockquote]Not at all. We have merely agreed that the least immoral system of government that a nation can have is that which limits the power that accrues to a collective State and spreads out the freedom as much as possible to individuals, [within certain clearly delineated limits that are handily written down for us all], so that they can determine how best to spend their lives and what dreams they wish to pursue.[/blockquote]
And, of course, inevitably, this leads to libertarianism. For the logical implication of affirming such a combination of minimal government authority and maximal individual liberty is that the government should be willing to leave me alone to do whatever I want. If that means, freedom to homeschool, fine. But if that means freedom to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, to use hallucinogens, to have sex with or to “marry” whomever or whatever I want to, also, fine. Thus, the inherent instability of the Faustian bargain that religious “conservatives” have made with so-called political “conservatives” in this country. The only thing preventing a transition to consistent libertarianism is an unnecessary connection to deontology, which is becoming less and less an attractive option for most people in this culture, as consequentialism is simply assumed (without argument) to be the correct way to live one’s life.
I have been predicting for years that the political “center” in this country is moving not toward the historic stances of either political party, but toward a realignment of both parties in the direction of libertarianism. Despite rhetoric, there is very little difference in terms of actual political philosophy between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama on the one hand, and Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mitt Romney, or former Massachusetts governor William Weld, on the other. Despite a lot of political rhetoric, the real dividing issue between the Tea Party and Democrats is about whether raising taxes is necessary to lower the deficit. All of the other social issues that conservative Christians care about so much (abortion, gay marriage) are not even on the table for discussion.
I have questions about the rhetoric of “limiting” the collective state, as I see “conservatives” apply this rather inconsistently. Yes, limit the state when it comes to such things as raising taxes and social services, and restricting or regulating business, but the US has the largest military budget in the world, we have been fighting two hugely expensive wars for a decade, prison growth has increased exponentially in this country in the last three decades, and there is ever-increasing demand for tighter restrictions on immigration as well as greater border patrol and drug enforcement. Yet these are also examples of an expanding collective state.
Further, I have to wonder about the concerns for the dangers of a “collective state” but no corresponding concern about the dangers of a “collective (or rather corporatist) market place”? Surely the events of the last decade have shown that organizations like Enron, BP, and Wall Street are just as subject to the complications of original sin as is the government, and with dire social and economic consequences. And, with the advent of the multinational corporation, some companies (like Walmart) are actually larger than and have more financial clout and power than many governments.
Again, I suggest that the political philosophies of Catholic subsidiarity or Reformed sphere sovereignty are wiser about the positive goods, but also the dangers, not only of government, but also of the market place; at the same time, they place just as much emphasis on the necessity of mediating communities like the church, schools, family, social clubs, labor unions, etc., which do not fall easily into the categories of state, market, or isolated individuals.