Pluralism & Secularization: Religious Opposition to Modernity in America
Lancelot Link reproduces Damon Linker’s review of Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy, and the Splendor of Truth, By Richard John Neuhaus:
Liberal modernity exasperates traditional religion. It fosters a pluralism that denies any one faith the power to organize the whole of social life. It teaches that public authorities must submit to the consent of those over whom they aspire to rule, thereby undermining the legitimacy of all forms of absolutism. It employs the systematic skepticism of the scientific method to settle important questions of public policy. It encourages the growth of the capitalist marketplace, which unleashes human appetites and gives individuals the freedom to choose among an ever-expanding range of ways to satisfy them.
None of this means that modernity necessarily produces “secularization”: the persistence of piety in America is a massive stumbling block to anyone wishing to maintain that the modern age is just a long march toward atheism. But if modernity does not lead inexorably to godlessness, the social, political, scientific, and economic dynamism of modern life nonetheless requires that traditionalist believers make a choice. They can adapt to modernity by embracing at least some degree of liberalization--or they can set out to combat the modern dispensation in the name of theological purity. A tension between these alternatives--between liberal religion and anti-liberal religion--runs through the history of nearly every modern nation, including the United States.
Pluralism may be the worst crime of modernity, at least in the eyes of anti-liberal religious believers. Pluralism not only introduces a multitude of choices for people, but makes it clear that none of the choices are necessarily privileged. Thus people not only have the opportunity to choose religions other than traditional Christianity (including no religion at all!), but there are no state institutions telling people that Christianity would be preferable.
In a truly pluralistic society, all religions are treated as equals — Judaism is no worse than Christianity; Catholicism is no better than Hinduism; atheists are equal to theists. It’s bad enough that such people are allowed to live freely at all, but the fact that they are permitted to advance their views with impunity and create variety, even dissent, in society is abhorrent.
Christian Right & Christian Nationalism:
Christian Nationalism & Dominion Theology:
- Dominionism & Dominion Theology
- Christian Reconstructionism
- Leading Christian Reconstructionists
- Reconstructionism & Christian Right: Common Goals, Beliefs
Christian Right Issues & Agenda:
Comments
I guess I am an anti-liberal, but it isn’t because I abhor their viewpoints. It is because while they preach pluralism, they don’t practice it. They want pluralism in all things but religion. Why shouldn’t religion be part of the fabric of society. Without it, atheism is the only ‘choice’ in this pluralism they preach. I don’t seek a privileged position because of my Catholicism nor would I even if I were the bishop or the Pope. However, I do believe my faith is right. So should everyone believe this about their own faith or atheism or political party or whatever, else why believe it at all. It is part of my faith that truth can be discerned and that you being an atheist cannot be right if I am right, and vice versa. So why would your viewpoint prevail in a pluralistic society and not my own? I say pluralism for everyone, not just atheists or Democrats or whites or heterosexuals. But I still hold out the opporunity for me and my faith to say something about the state of the world. I can do that without invoking the Bible or private revelation. It can be the fruit and is the fruit of my own thinking. Just as I choose Catholicism, I choose to be opposed to abortion, for example, and not because this is what my church teaches.
They want pluralism in all things but religion.
They? They who? Do you have evidence?
Why shouldn’t religion be part of the fabric of society.
Religion? What religion? Whose religion?
Without it, atheism is the only ‘choice’ in this pluralism they preach.
Atheism isn’t the opposite of religion. Some theists aren’t religious; some religions are atheistic.
So why would your viewpoint prevail in a pluralistic society and not my own?
My viewpoint doesn’t prevail. Atheists are the most distrusted minority in America.
1. “They? They who? Do you have evidence?” I guess so. The article itself ends with this statement: “It’s bad enough that such people are allowed to live freely at all, but the fact that they are permitted to advance their views with impunity and create variety, even dissent, in society is abhorrent.” Do I misunderstand the writer? Isn’t he saying that religious viewpoints should not be allowed? So the “they” is people like the writer.
2. “Religion? What religion? Whose religion?” The answer is all religions in a pluralistic society.
3. “Atheism isn’t the opposite of religion, etc.” I don’t believe it is, nor did I even imply that it is. I lined up atheism along with other viewpoints, including political, gender and race as just many of the other plurals in a pluralistic society.
3. “My viewpoint doesn’t prevail. Atheists are the most distrusted minority in America.” I agree but I wouldn’t use the word distrust. The word I would use is ignored, but only their viewpoint about the existence of God, not otherwise. For example, I don’t hear an atheist Republican speak and ignore what he has to say politically, just religiously. I count among my friends men who are atheistic but more likely agnostic. Only one of them is truly atheist in my judgment. I believe the rest are wounded souls who just don’t know how to be religious anymore given the lifestyles they have chosen. This is a judgment about them personally and not about all atheists. I did not question that an atheists viewpoint should prevail or not prevail. My point was based on the tone of the article which would deny religionists a voice (i.e. they are abhorrent). If religionists of any kind are denied a voice, then the only voice left are those who are without religion, among which are atheists, even though as you have stated atheism isn’t a kind of religion.
I meant no harm in responding to this article. I usually don’t bother since conversion is what people think religionist are about when they try to answer an objection to them. I don’t think an atheist is convertable except by God. I have known those who were converted, but it was in a flash and not by persuasion. I responded because I had the time and it was dropped in my newsfeed today.
The article itself ends with this statement: “It’s bad enough that such people are allowed to live freely at all, but the fact that they are permitted to advance their views with impunity and create variety, even dissent, in society is abhorrent.” Do I misunderstand the writer? Isn’t he saying that religious viewpoints should not be allowed? So the “they” is people like the writer.
Yes, you misunderstand - what you’re complaining about is sarcasm. I’m describing the position of those who oppose genuine pluralism in society. The “they” is “the people who dare to choose something other than what they are supposed to choose, i.e. the dominant faith.”
2. “Religion? What religion? Whose religion?” The answer is all religions in a pluralistic society.
All religions are part of the fabric of society, insofar as there are people who follow them. Who said that religions shouldn’t be part of society?
3. “Atheism isn’t the opposite of religion, etc.” I don’t believe it is, nor did I even imply that it is.
You did when you suggested that liberals don’t want religious pluralism and, therefore, leave atheism as the only possible choice. If religion is eliminated, and all that’s left is atheism, then atheism must somehow be the opposite of religion.
3. “My viewpoint doesn’t prevail. Atheists are the most distrusted minority in America.” I agree but I wouldn’t use the word distrust.
Then you would be incorrect, because that’s precisely what the evidence shows.
Only one of them is truly atheist in my judgment. I believe the rest are wounded souls who just don’t know how to be religious anymore given the lifestyles they have chosen.
That strikes me as a little arrogant, but I don’t know your friends. Do they know that you think this about them?
My point was based on the tone of the article which would deny religionists a voice (i.e. they are abhorrent).
The article is about how anti-liberalism is anti-modernity because, in large part, it is anti-pluralism. Pluralism introduces choice and choice is the beginning of heresy, error, and falling away from the Truth Faith.
If religionists of any kind are denied a voice, then the only voice left are those who are without religion, among which are atheists, even though as you have stated atheism isn’t a kind of religion.
Well, if all religionists were denied a voice, then the only voices left would be a combination of irreligious atheists and irreligious theists. So, it’s not really an “atheism vs. religion” issue, as you implied.