There are liberal religious figures, or at least they claim to be liberal, who seem to have a vested interest in propping up the "secular" bogeyman created by the Christian Right. One of them is Jim Wallis and among his recent claims is that the "secular left" was one of the decisive losers in the November, 2006 elections. What is this "secular left" and what did it lose, though?

Jim Wallis writes that "In this election, both the Religious Right and the secular Left were defeated, and the voice of the moral center was heard." That's a pretty serious and dramatic claim and it deserves exposition. Unfortunately, Jim Wallis simply doesn't do it: we hear nothing about what this alleged "secular left" is, what it wants, or what it supposedly lost in the election.

Frederick Clarkson comments:

Wow. That's quite an assertion. I thought to myself: 'Finally, Wallis is going to help me to understand exactly who and what this mysterious and influential movement really is: the secular left that he seems to equate in significance to the Religious Right -- which is certainly one of the the largest and most influential political and social movements in a century.'

Alas, my hopes were dashed. Wallis did not bother to support his thesis or define his terms. He not only failed to show how the secular left was defeated, he did not even bother to demonstrate that it exists -- or if it does, how it was an actor in the current elections it allegedly lost.

I don't think that this information was forthcoming from Jim Wallis because I don't think that he has anything to offer: the "secular left" is simply a label people throw around to disparage liberals who don't entirely share all of their religious perspectives, attitudes, and policy positions. It's a way of denigrating others while appearing to maintain the moral high ground.

To see how, imagine for a second that there really was a secular left of any significance, power, and influence (I and many other atheists would surely belong in that category, if it existed). They would have to be liberals, progressives, and leftists who base their political positions largely or entirely on secular philosophy, sociology, economics, psychology, etc. So, what's wrong with that? Does this sound like anything that people — including religious people — should be worried about? Does it sound even remotely as problematic as the Religious Right has been in America?

The answer to all of this is an unequivocal "no." The minimal definition of what a "secular left" must be is nothing problematic or dangerous. That's why such labels are invested with all sorts of distortions and misinformation, thus allowing people to demonizing the concept and use it as a scapegoat for their own political agenda.

That's precisely what the Religious Right did with "secular humanism" back in the 1970s and 1980s. It's what conservative Christians did with "Jews" for centuries. Both have run their course so you don't hear many over complaints about secular humanists or Jews anymore; the Religious Right today focuses on the "gay agenda" and, increasingly, "neo-pagans." Some, though, seem to want to resurrect the demonization of secular Americans.

 

Christian Nationalism & Dominion Theology:

• Dominionism & Dominion Theology
• Christian Reconstructionism
• Leading Christian Reconstructionists
• Reconstructionism & Christian Right: Common Goals, Beliefs