Talk2action, the progressive activism site, is taking Barak Obama to task for his wise words on the relationship between faith and politics. In a post they’ve filed under Demonizing Secularism, they accuse Obama, and the evangelical left, of buying into a construct (they call it a “frame”) created by the (evil) religious right, that is, that there is a culture war between secular humanists and Christianity, that there is a secularist plot to de-religionize culture.
They go on to deny Jim Wallis’ contention, in his book God’s Politics : Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, that there are two groups of fundamentalists at work in our society – religious fundies and secular fundamentalists (that’s right, get used to that “oxymoron”, because fundamentalism, by definition, does not have to be religious – it just means those who appeal to some “fundamental” set of guiding principles, like, for instance, separation of church and state). Liberals hate the term “secular fundamentalist,” and this article shows them running around denying any such thing could exist, while the rest of us look on in amazement at such blindness.
Here’s what Wallis’ book said (remember, he’s evangelical left):
We contend today with both religious and secular fundamentalists, neither of whom must have their way. One group would impose the doctrines of a political theocracy on their fellow citizens, while the other would deprive the public square of needed moral and spiritual values often shaped by faith.
To which the blind or willingly ignorant lefty blogger writes:
OK, so who are these “secular fundamentalists” whose “way” is equivalent to the theocratic religious right and must be thwarted? You gotta think that there must be some pretty important people and powerful organizations involved. Right?
The talk2action author goes on to say that Wallis’ book, while mentioning organizations like the ACLU, Americans for Separation of Church and State, and others (he forgot to mention liberal college professors and the leftist judiciary), does nothing to substantiate the secularist agenda. He also asks, what institutions are out there pursuing this alleged secularist agenda? This line of arguing has merit, but I’d say that the organizations mentioned are very active in opposing Christian values in the name of “separation of church and state,” among other arguments they put forth.
Again, while this accusation has some merit, I agree with Wallis (dang, maybe I am becoming an evangelical leftist!) in saying that the secularist “threat” to religious liberty is real – but not because I feel like I am going to lose my right to worship on Sundays, but because any value they don’t like, such as chastity or the normality of heterosexuality, or the evil of taking lives through abortion, they deem as “religious” and therefore somehow not allowed in the public arena.
But as Obama astutely said, as long as my arguments in the public space are not religious arguments, but rather, based on reason and common ethics, then it matters not if my motivation is because some old book like the Humanist Manifesto or the Koran serve as my motivation.
Talk2action goes further into denial, and shows their true lack of desire to move towards a middle ground by accusing the evangelical left of buying into the religious right’s framework. They go on to choose the part of Obama’s speech that they liked (criticizing the right), while calling his criticism of the left a “straw man.”
Anyway, kudos to you Obama for sticking your neck out for the reasonable middle ground. And don’t worry too much about the secular fundies on the left – they will continue to lose ground as people realize that their fanaticism is bad for the country, just like that of the far right. The middle right is a fine place to be.
Creationists love to warp and twist words. For example the word fundamentalist is used to describle a religious movement in opposition to secularism, religious neutrality. The term "secular fundamentalism" is incongruous and contradictory, the very definition of an oxymoron. Creationists don't like the term "Christian fundamentalist" or "Islamic fundamentalist" so they try to twist and turn it around to mean the complete opposite of its true meaning. Seeker speaks with a forked tongue when he uses oxymorons like "creation science," and "secular fundamentalist." Readers can see the contradiction for themselves…
—————————————-
Do creationists agree with this part?
Seeker,
You're not in the middle. Quit being foolish. People in the middle want a financially responsible government who leaves them alone. You want a financially responsible government who makes very personal decisions for all individuals if those individuals make decisions that YOU happen to disagree with. You are the far right.
Actually Cineaste, the reference to secular fundamentalists comes from Wallis "We contend today with both religious and secular fundamentalists, neither of whom must have their way. " I think Seeker was just using his language, and Wallis is not a creationist in the sense you are using it. He is probably a "primary mover" type.
As for Barak's comments, he seems to want no religion but common values. This is the true outcome of relativism. He cannot really want values free from religion because then we end up with majority rules. If we say this is a good thing…..majority rules…..then we have to say that slavery was ok when the majority thought so, and in cultures where oppression of women is so strong, it must me ok if the majority there says so. Oh, and the Nazis, well, most of them agreed with Hitler , so the Holocaust…? If we have nothing higher than some vague reference to the common good to refer to, we are in trouble as a culture. You notice our DofI declares that we hold these truths to be self evident "that all men are CREATED equal". Our rights come from beyond us, not within us. When we remove that concept, all we have left is an unsigned social contract that we can each opt in or out of, at least I never signed it. Furthermore, if I can convince the majority that a particular evil is no longer evil, then there we are, with no rational recourse. In fact, if any of your political views are in the minority, you ARE wrong by consensus. For how can someone in the minority claim they have the moral highground if morality is defined by percentages? The definition of morality becomes one of the masses always being right, the minority , wrong.
Creationists love to warp and twist words. For example the word fundamentalist is used to describle a religious movement in opposition to secularism, religious neutrality. The term "secular fundamentalism" is incongruous and contradictory, the very definition of an oxymoron. Creationists don't like the term "Christian fundamentalist" or "Islamic fundamentalist" so they try to twist and turn it around to mean the complete opposite of its true meaning.
This has nothing to do with Creationism. I'm sorry this term is causing you such apoplexy and cognitive dissonance, but you are wrong.
Your view of the word fundamentalist is narrow and self-serving, but not accurate. While recent usage of this term has commonly been applied to religionists, it is not necessarily limited to them.
As I said, purely speaking, the word can be used, and IS being used, to represent anyone who holds to a purist, and often extremist view that appeals to foundational principles, be they religious or not.
Your appeal to the Baptist history is already understood, but they just used an existing word to describe themselves. Kind of like modern homosexuals have co-opted the word "gay." Your contention is that the word can't mean what it originally meant, and is like me arguing that "gay" can't be used to mean "happy" because it only means homosexual. Please.
Of course, no one likes the term "fundamentalist" as it is commonly applied today, since it is meant as a pejorative, and a synonym for extremism. But this meaning is actually only connotative, and not denotative. The term "secular fundamentalist" makes total sense in the pure sense of the word "fundamental," which has naught to do with religion.
So stop pretending you don't know what is meant by this term as it is being used. Perhaps, since you know what is MEANT by this term which is being used so "inaccurately", can you use your superior command of English to suggest a better alternative? What is being implied is "secular extremist" – or maybe "bigoted secularism"? I got it, Secular Absolutists. Can I use that term instead?
Secularism has two distinct meanings.
I agree with your definitions here, but the problem is not that we are legislating religious observance, but that when conservative values are brought up in the public arena, they are being attacked as "religious" – as Obama said, religious arguments are not acceptable in public policy arguments, but values that have religious underpinnings are acceptable as long as one can provide "evidence and fact, and not superstitious beliefs."
This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.
You ask if Creationists believe this. I'm sure some do not. However, I am a dreaded "creationist", and I believe this. In fact, the whole reason I commended Obama was because I have said this exact thing.
Do I favor teaching Creationism in public schools as science? Not per se. However, I do support teaching evolution as an unprovable theory with significant challenges to it. Despite the opinings of secularist weenies, I find ID to be making an effort to critique evolution's audacious claims commendable, despite whatever Creationist beginnings it may have had.
But again, I think the main areas we are talking about are not just creationism, but the lack of willingness to critique evolution, and claiming it to be fact. Also, there are other areas of conservative values which have "fact" behind them, not just superstition, including the pro-life, and pro-family movements.
And Obama's point is that, while we need to be vigilant in our separation of religious and political power, we don't do that by attacking, demeaning, or marginalizing people of faith, or more importantly, their ideas just because their proponents are religiously motivated.
You're not in the middle. Quit being foolish. People in the middle want a financially responsible government who leaves them alone.
Actually, I have taken every possible political test I can find on the internet, and consistently come out as moderate. Can you point me to a test that I might honestly take that might categorize me as far right? If not, I'd say that you were far left, categorizing everyone who disagrees with you as "extreme right."
But perhaps we need to define terms. I have outlined what I thought were the left, middle, and right positions on many issues. Based on these, I am middle right, not far right. But I'm sure that to you, everyone who is pro-life and not for gay marriage MUST be far right.
For me, everyone who hates gays is far right socially. Since you hate (love!) gays, you are far right socially. Those tests probably drag you toward the middle based on your fiscal views, but socially you're a far rightist.
I am going to repost talk2action’s response to Obama’s speech. It’s excellent and you can take it as my response to Obama’s speech.
I'll continue to use the dictionary to find the definition of words.
The dictionary had the caveat in it – "usually" – you interpret that to mean always. So do you have analternative for me? If not, I'll use the word "extremists" or "absolutists" – at least we can agree on the meaning of those words – or do they only apply to religious people? ;)
So do you have an alternative for me? If not, I’ll use the word “extremists” or “absolutists”
Yes, at least you would be using the words properly for the way you want to paint secularists. It would not be a blatant oxymoron. Trying to paint secular society as “adhering to religious fundamentals” just makes you sound ignorant. It’s like saying “hippie Nazis,” “pacifist war mongers,” or “creation science.” What you need to do now is define what you mean by secular extremists and absolutists. For instance if secularism means…
Then what are the “extreme” and “absolutist” forms of this? Who are the movement’s leaders? What is their doctrine beyond the traditional definition of secularism quoted above? It just seems to me that fundamentalists, in the religious zealot sense of the word, need to portray themselves as persecuted: under attack from secular society (war on Christmas [give me a break]), science (evolution), gays (assault on marriage), and liberals (the source of all evil on Earth) etc, etc, etc…
——————-
Actually, I have never said anything about witchcraft here.
Not on this post but you have on this blog. Remember the Harry Potter censorship discussion? I said something about banning the Wizard of Oz as well since it had witches in it then you replied something about the difference between “good” and “bad” witches should determine which witchcraft books should be banned. I am sure you can look it up for the exact words if you don’t recall. You are a blog admin after all. Bottom line, you admitted you believe in witches and witchcraft. Do you want to renege?
You can’t honestly call 50% of the country “extremists”, or can you?
…And 12% of Americans believe that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife (Barna poll). In both cases I wouldn’t call them extremists, I would call them ignorant.
Not on this post but you have on this blog. Remember the Harry Potter censorship discussion?
You may be confusing me with Aaron. I am indifferent to Harry Potter.
In both cases I wouldn't call them extremists, I would call them ignorant.
I think you confuse ignorance of history with an informed choice. If you think that those 50% are ignorant, you have a bigger problem than you think – not curing their ignorance, but taking a second look at why they believe something other than you do. Perhaps you are missing something important ;)
Regarding your continued narrow use of "fundamentalist," you can maintain your view in spite of the growing use of it to describe your own extremists. But I disagree with you. But to answer your questions about extreme secularists, you are right, perhaps there is no such thing – perhaps secularism is just extreme by itself ;)
Seriously, those are good questions, I'll ponder them.
You may be confusing me with Aaron. I am indifferent to Harry Potter.
No, it was you. I am sure of it.
If you think that those 50% are ignorant, you have a bigger problem than you think – not curing their ignorance, but taking a second look at why they believe something other than you do.
Creationists are as ignorant, if not more so than the millions of Americans who believe Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. Do I really need to look deeper than the fact our education system is ranked on the lower tier of industrialized nations? Ignorance, creationism, and bigotry are simply a manifestations of our declining educational culture.
Seriously, those are good questions, I'll ponder them.
I can loan you my pocket dictionary if it will help you!
Ignorance, creationism, and bigotry are simply a manifestations of our declining educational culture.
You see, I would say that acceptance of promiscuity and other sexual sins, divorce, not to mention lying and swindling (e.g. Enron) were evidences of a nation in moral decline.
The fact that you call 50% of Americans ignorant because they disagree with you shows that you are not part of the solution.
The fact that you call 12% of Americans ignorant because they disagree with you shows that you are not part of the solution.
The fact that you call 50% of Americans ignorant because they disagree with you shows that you are not part of the solution.
I just can't resist (and I really tried).
Seeker, yet your labeling of the other 50% of Americans that do not agree with you as liberal extremists and secularists doesn't exactly show you are part of the solution either. Don't go around calling the kettle black when you have spots of your own.
Enough said.
-eco
The fact that you call 12% of Americans ignorant because they disagree with you shows that you are not part of the solution.
I don't call them ignorant, I call them mistaken. There's a difference. I don't insult them unless they ask for it ;)
your labeling of the other 50% of Americans that do not agree with you as liberal extremists and secularists doesn't exactly show you are part of the solution either.
Well, good thing I have not done so, as you specifically did. I think most people that disagree with me are either under the sway of the so-called experts, who are deceived (mistaken), and many (most?) are victims of indoctrination and lies. They are not evil or ignorant in the pejorative sense.
However, the people who actively seek to justify homosexuality (that is, activists and theological liberals), and who frown upon the promotion of values like chastity and fidelity, are most certainly part of the problem. They are among those who are, in Paul's words, "worthy of death." That doesn't mean we should kill them, it just means that their fate before God is a serious one.
I don't call them ignorant, I call them mistaken. There's a difference.
To-may-to / To-maa-to. I'm not using "ignorant" pejoratively in either case. It's just true. If I wanted to be insulting, I would have called them stupid.