Secularism is one of the most important movements of the modern West. The influence and power of secularism serve to differentiate the modern West from the Middle Ages as well as from other regions around the world. Secularism defines the modern West; for some, that is a reason to cheer secularism on, but for others it is a reason to mourn.
James Madison believed firmly that, under the Constitution, 'there is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion' and that 'this subject is, for the honor of America, perfectly free and unshackled. The Government has no jurisdiction over it...' This is the most concise and the most articulate statement of the views of the First Amendment's author concerning what is 'an establishment of religion.'
The climax of the conflict between James Madison and Patrick Henry was the 1784-1785 struggle over Henry's Assessment Bill. This tax for the support of religion at first singled out a one sect for preferential treatment, but was later broadened to include all Christian sects. In its final form, the bill allowed each taxpayer to designate which church should receive his share of the tax. In the absence of such a choice, the legislature was authorized to apply it to 'pious uses.'
In 1779 as a member of the General Assembly, James Madison supported Thomas Jefferson's historic Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom; after Jefferson left for diplomatic duties in Europe in 1784, Madison became the bill's prime sponsor. Enactment failed every year from June 1779 until it was finally adopted in January, 1786. The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom was an important milestone in establishing religious liberty in America and disestablishing official churches.
A libertarian state is one where the state is severely constrained in how it can act; a theocratic state is one where the laws are all based around religion. If some Christians have their way, America could become a bit of both: a theo-libertarian state where the government is severely constrained in what it can do because it can't easily do anything if it interferes with people's religious beliefs or practices. Even if you are a libertarian, a theo-libertarian state can't look good.
Secularism is one of the most important movements in the history of the modern West, helping differentiate the West not only from the Middle Ages and more ancient eras, but also from other cultural regions around the world. The modern West is what it is largely because of secularism; for some, that is a reason to cheer, but for others it is a reason to mourn. A better understanding of the history…
Supporters of secularism and secularization can best rebut attacks from religious critics by emphasizing how the two are vital for democracy, personal liberty, and even religious freedom. Secularism prescribes state neutrality in religious matters, but they are not morally or politically neutral. They are positive goods which must be defended as foundations of liberal democracy. This is why they …
In arguing against the separation of church and state, Christian Nationalists frequently promote all sorts of myths, misconceptions, and even lies about the relationship between religion and government. It's important to confuse people about how religion and government should interact because it helps the goal of convincing people that it's appropriate for the state to promote, endorse, or even f…
What does it mean to be 'free' in a liberal democracy? At the very least, it must mean that people are able to form opinions and pursue goals relating to the direction of their life with a minimum of interference from the state. If people are prevented from developing their own ideas about what constitutes a good and moral life, they simply become tools of the state. This is especially true when the state promotes the ideology of any one religion as defining what is good and moral.
Perhaps the best way for a group or person to exercise power in a manner that harms others is to convince people that one doesn't actually have any power to begin with. This is the tactic adopted by many conservative religious institutions in America: despite wielding tremendous direct power as well as indirect power through their influence, they have persistently argued that they are powerless due to American culture being secularized.
When, if ever, should personal religious morality take precedence over neutral, public laws and standards of justice? In a civil, secular society the answer should probably be 'never,' but not all religious believers agree with this. One issue which underlies so many religious conflicts, not to mention religious extremism, is the conviction held by many religious believers that their religious morality, supposedly from their god, should take precedence when they believe the law has failed.
Secularism is one of the most important movements of the modern West. The influence and power of secularism differentiate the modern West from the Middle Ages and from other regions around the world. Secularism defines the modern West; for some, that is a reason to cheer secularism on, but for others it is a reason to mourn. Secularism preserves the religious neutrality of government and culture, but critics contend that it is an atheistic conspiracy against religion and Christianity.
Secularism had not always been regarded as a universal good. There are many today who not only fail to find secularism and the process of secularization to be beneficial, but who argue that it is the source of all society's ills. According to them, abandoning secularism in favor of a more explicitly religious basis for politics and culture would produce a more stable, more moral, and ultimately better social order. Are their critiques of secularism reasonable and accurate?
If secularism opposes the public support of religion or the presence of ecclesiastical authorities simultaneously exercising public authority, what role is left for religion in a secular society? Is religion doomed to a slow decline and attrition? Is it relegated to a web of quaint but unimportant cultural traditions? Such are the fears of opponents to secularism and secularization who argue that religion is too important to be eliminated in such a manner and blame atheists for their woes.
Secularism is used in a restricted sense today, but it retains a philosophical aspect in political and social situations. Secularism has always carried a strong connotation of the desire to establish an autonomous political and social sphere which is naturalistic and materialistic, as opposed to a religious realm where the supernatural and faith take precedence.
Although secularism can certainly be understood as simply the absence of religion, it is also often treated as a philosophical system with personal, political, cultural, and social implications. Secularism as a philosophy must be treated a bit differently than secularism as a mere idea, but just what sort of philosophy can secularism be? For those who treated secularism as a philosophy, it was a humanistic and even atheistic philosophy that sought the good of humanity in this life.
The term secularism was created in 1846 by George Jacob Holyoake to describe 'a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life' (English Secularism, 60). Holyoake was a leader of the English secularist and freethought movement who became famous for his conviction under, and larger fight against, English blasphemy laws. For Holyoake, secularism was a humanist philosophy focused on the needs of people in this life.
Although secularism and secularization are closely related, they nevertheless differ because they do not necessarily offer the same answer to the question of the role of religion in society. Secularism argues generally for a sphere of knowledge, values, and action that is independent of religious authority, but it does not necessarily exclude religion from having any authority over political and social affairs. Secularization, however, is a process which does involve such an exclusion.
Because the concept of the secular is normally conceived as standing in opposition to religion many people may not realize that it originally developed within a religious context. This may also come as quite a surprise to religious fundamentalists who decry the growth of secularism in the modern world. Rather than an atheistic conspiracy to undermine Christian civilization, secularism was originally developed within a Christian context and for the sake of preserving peace among Christians.
A common complaint made about secularism is that it is contrary to religious liberty. At best this is a misunderstanding about secularism because a failure to endorse or promote any one religion should not negatively affect the religious liberties of individuals. On the contrary, the creation of spaces where religion is not endorsed or even required can, for many reasons, enhance religious liberty for everyone because it puts everyone one the same footing.
Few people appreciate the importance of distinguishing the sacred from the secular in modern life. Going beyond the separation of church and state or the separation of religious from civil authority, the distinction between the sacred and the secular ensures that there are aspects to life, culture, and politics which are outside the ability of self-professed religious leaders from controlling.
A common complaint from the Christian Right is that strict separation of church and state threatens to create a 'godless' or naked public square and that the goal of secularists, godless atheists, and godless liberals is to do just that. A godless public square appears to be the worst nightmare for the Christian Right, and even some liberal Christians have bought into the idea that there is something wrong with this. They don't realize that the public square is already godless - as it should be.
Some Christians say they are in conflict with "secular fundamentalism," but what is this and does it even exist? The most basic characteristics of Christian fundamentalism can't apply to secularism of any sort: virgin birth & deity of Jesus, substitutionary death & physical resurrection of Jesus, and a literal heaven/hell. These aren't the limits of the concept, since the label applies to other religions, but even the characteristics which apply most broadly can't be applied to secularism.
Calling secularism (the insistence on separation of church and state) a religion should be instantly recognized as an oxymoron, analogous to claiming that bachelors can be married. Sadly this is not the case, and it has become far too common for critics of secularism to claim that it's a religion which is being improperly supported by the government. Examining the characteristics which define religions as distinct from other types of belief systems reveals just how wrong such claims are.
Despite its importance, there isn't always a great deal of agreement on just what secularism really is. Part of the problem lies in the fact that the concept of "secular" can be used in a couple of ways which, while closely related, are nevertheless different enough to make it difficult to know for sure what people might mean.
Because the concept of the secular is normally conceived as standing in opposition to religion many people may not realize that it originally developed within a religious context. This may also come as quite a surprise to religious fundamentalists who decry the growth of secularism in the modern world.
Although secularism can certainly be understood as simply the absence of religion, it is also often treated as a philosophical system with personal, political, cultural, and social implications. Secularism as a philosophy must be treated a bit differently than secularism as a mere idea - but just what sort of philosophy is secularism?
Secularism tends to be used in a restricted sense today, but it retains a philosophical aspect, particularly when it comes to political and social situations. Throughout its history, it has carried a strong connotation of the desire to establish an autonomous political and social sphere which is naturalistic and materialistic, as opposed to a religious realm...
Secularism and secularization are related, but they differ because they do not necessarily offer the same answer to the question of the role of religion in society. Secularism argues for a sphere of knowledge, values, and action that is independent of religious authority, but it need not exclude religion from having any authority over political and social affairs.
If secularism opposes the public support of religion or the presence of ecclesiastical authorities simultaneously exercising public authority, what role is left for religion in a secular society? Is religion doomed to a slow decline and attrition? Is it relegated to a web of quaint but unimportant cultural traditions?
Needless to say, secularism had not always been regarded as a universal good. Even today, there are many who not only fail to find secularism and the process of secularization to be beneficial to society, but actually argue that it is the source of all of society's ills.
When students in public schools learn about history, we don't hear religious conservatives complaining that they students are being exposed to 'secularist' dating methods that have replaced proper 'biblical' dating. We don't hear that history classes should teach 'both sides' and that multiple dating methods should be used.
Is secularism a doomed and failed experiment of the past? Is the future of society religious %u2014 religious institutions, religious beliefs, and religious values? There was a time when it was common to think that religion would simply disappear and that obviously hasn't happened, but does this mean therefore that secularism will disappear instead?
There was a time when secularism was generally accepted by Americans of most religious groups. This dominance of secularism was, however, powered largely by the influence of liberal, mainstream Protestant denominations. Now that those denominations are on the decline, though, so is secularism itself.
