Secularism Is Not Atheism

[rug]

#!

Posted: 07/28/2012 8:39 am
Jacques Berlinerblau
Director of Jewish Civilization, Georgetown University

Secularism must be the most misunderstood and mangled ism in the American political lexicon. Commentators on the right and the left routinely equate it with Stalinism, Nazism and Socialism, among other dreaded isms.

In the United States, of late, another false equation has emerged. That would be the groundless association of secularism with atheism. The religious right has profitably promulgated this misconception at least since the 1970s.

More recently politicians such as Newt Gingrich have gleefully fostered this confusion. During his raucous, unforgettable 2012 presidential run, the former Speaker of the House fretted that his grandchildren were poised to live in "a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

Claiming that secularism and atheism are the same thing makes for good culture warrioring. The number of nonbelievers in this country is quite small. Many Americans, unfortunately, harbor irrational prejudices toward them. By intentionally blurring the distinction between atheism and secularism, the religious right succeeds in drowning both.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacques-berlinerblau/secularism-is-not-atheism_b_1699588.html

[cleanhippie]

1. While he makes some good points, it's really just another diatribe against the "new atheists."

[rug]

2. Not really, unless you consider drawing distinctions to be diatribes.

I'll go one step further: the so-called "new atheists" are making claims beyond what can be supported by atheism alone.

[cleanhippie]

3. Meh. I just find this to be yet another "tone" argument.

But as I said, he does make some good points.

[rug]

4. Well, I find it to have more substace than tone. To each his own.

[skepticscott]

15. Wow, yeah

All those people that someone else labeled "new atheists" should be forbidden from making claims about anything that isn't atheism.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Big difference between atheism and religious neutrality.

[cbayer]

6. Edited - Never mind. I re-read the article more carefully and I

more clearly understand what you said here.

[cbayer]

7. Good article.

I am finding this insistence that you can be only either a theist or an atheist very tedious and confining. And, as he explains it, secularism is a completely different animal that can be a position taken by both believers and non-believers.

Getting a better handle on our terms and definitions will help us communicate and find common ground.

[rug]

8. I thiink it comes down to one's view of a state rather than one's view of a god.

[Adsos Letter]

11. Yes; it defines how a state is ordered and governed.

And has zip-all to do with "twenty gods or no God."

[dmallind]

10. Secularism is not an ontological position at all.

What you think of state involvement with religion is irrelevant to whether you believe in the existence of any deities.

Since "a" means only "without" then you actually CAN only be with or without theistic beliefs. It's no more confining than being either symmetrical or asymmetrical.

Digs at atheists aside, I obviously agree with the central idea that secularism and atheism are not necessarily conjoined traits. You will however find a far higher ratio of atheists who espouse secularism than theists.

[cbayer]

12. While I agree with much of what you say here, I disagree about the either/or of theism and atheism.

The position that you must take sides has been used to divide very effectively. It continues to be used to the benefit of no one except the republicans, as far as I can tell.

One can be sexual or asexual or some variation that is not clearly either.

One can be phasic or aphasic or partially phasic.

One can also be one or the other at different times, even at different times of the day.

And, most importantly, one can just be unsure or unknowing - agnostic.

[trotsky]

19. You seem perpetually confused about this requiring one to "take sides."

It's not about that at all, though I fully understand why you want to portray it like that.

[dmallind]

20. Can you explain the difference between to know and to believe?

If so, the fact that agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism is obvious.

If not, then you are unreachable.

[cbayer]

21. Unreachable? Well that's a conversation stopper right there.

[trotsky]

22. So you aren't aware there's a difference between "to know" and "to believe"?

Or are you just taking offense at something so you won't have to answer a question?

[skepticscott]

16. You CAN only be a theist or an atheist

in the sense that you have to be one or the other. You either believe in a god or gods or you don't. But what ever gave you the silly notion that you can't be anything else in addition to one of those? Of course you can.

The only thing tedious and confining here is your thinking, and you're the only one confined.

And wow...are you actually AGREEING that the most important common ground that people can have is agreeing on what's true and what's real? If you'd just start posting that way, I'd be astonished.

[Leontius]

9. I do hope our Friends take careful notice

of what this article is saying. Doubtful but hopeful.

[mr blur]

13. Well, if they're living in a country "dominated by radical Islamists",

then it won't be "a secular atheist country", will it?

Oh, of course, wrong brand of theocracy...

[rug]

14. He made the point better.

Except he states a society need not be atheist to not be a theocracy.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. "Nones" are around 16% of the population and growing fast.

"The number of nonbelievers in this country is quite small. " or not. Get used to us, we aren't going away.

[cbayer]

18. "Nones" includes believers as well.

"None" refers to the question, "What religious institution are you affiliated with?". It includes those who are believers, but don't have a church, etc. and those that consider themselves "spiritual".