The secular Left, morality, and religion
“We need the sustaining, buttressing aid of those great ethical religious teachings which are the heritage of our modern civilization. For ‘not upon strength nor upon power, but upon the spirit of God’ shall our democracy be founded.”
If you take exception to that opening paragraph, you find yourself at odds with one of the pillars of modern progressive politics, President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Roosevelt would be stunned — dare I say appalled — by today’s far-left secularism and its shocking attacks on religion, free speech, and dissenting opinions.
Attorney General William Barr provided a recent case in point. He spoke on the role of religion in the history of American freedom at the University of Notre Dame.
He noted that religion’s declining influence in American life has left us morally adrift and vulnerable to what Alexis de Tocqueville called the “soft despotism” of government dependency, a country overrun by “a network of small complicated rules.” Sound familiar?
Barr observed that today’s secularists are decidedly not of the live-and-let-live variety:
“The secular project has itself become a religion, pursued with religious fervor. It is taking on all the trappings of religion, including inquisitions and excommunication. Those who defy the creed risk a figurative burning at the stake — social, educational and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits and savage social media campaigns.”
Barr committed two offenses against modern progressive dogma. As a public official, he spoke favorably about religion, and he spoke at a religious university.
These offenses produced the expected howls from the secular left, which, as Barr noted in his speech, wants to ban religion from the public square.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman accused Barr of “religious bigotry” and described his words as a “pogrom-type speech.” Washington Post columnist Catharine Rampell called his speech “a tacit endorsement of theocracy.” Political observer Richard Painter tweeted that Barr sounded like “vintage Goebbels.”
Secularists denounced Barr for blaming a lack of moral and spiritual roots as precursors to societal problems like family breakdown, drug addiction, and increasing numbers of angry and alienated young men.
He stated that religion addresses such challenges by emphasizing personal responsibility. In contrast, secular programs excuse individual choices and instead focus on alleviating their “bad consequences”:
“So the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but abortion. The reaction to drug addiction is safe injection sites. The solution to the breakdown of the family is for the state to set itself up as an ersatz husband for the single mother and an ersatz father for the children.
“The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with this wreckage — and while we think we’re solving problems, we are underwriting them.”
I’ll say “amen” to that.
Today’s smug liberal secularists are sure that their views are the only ones deserving respect. Rather than take Barr’s speech as an opportunity for thoughtful discussion, they instead throw out insults and threaten retaliation against any who dare to have a contrary opinion.
A recent example: One-time Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke was asked by CNN’s Don Lemon, “Do you think religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should lose their tax exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?”
Regardless of your feelings about same sex marriage, you should be shocked by O’Rourke’s reply:
“Yes, there can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us. So as president we’re going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.”
This brings to mind Orwell’s “1984” thought police. A nationally-recognized Democratic presidential hopeful — and possible future cabinet officer — proposes to punish those whose beliefs disagree with the secular left even when none of their actions infringe on human rights.
I doubt that O’Rourke would propose removing the tax-exempt status of organizations that are working to “infringe” if not eliminate the Second Amendment’s “full civil right” to bear arms.
George Washington, in his farewell address, offered timeless advice to politicians like O’Rourke and his secularist fellow travelers:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports … The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.”
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
Articles related to “The secular Left, morality, and religion”
Just in time for Christmas, Millennials are ditching religion
A patriot should not bow to the southern Utah theocratic oligarchy
Plink… going, going, gone. Homerun.
I appreciate Howard’s thoughts on this matter but when I see the Trump rallies that I assume are attended by many well-meaning Christians shouting hateful things I wonder if they are living by the “great ethical religious teachings” that are referenced. Perhaps it is not just the liberals in our society who have lost their bearings. The liberals are not the ones who espouse those ethical teachings. So perhaps the right is the more hypocritical.
I’ve never attended a Trump rally nor have I watched any on the Internet or television, so you have a leg up on me there. I look for what politicians do, not what they say.
Your assumption that “well-meaning Christians” would shout “hateful things” is a sweeping accusation. That behavior is incompatible with what most well-meaning Christians believe: love your enemies, turn the other cheek, etc. I suspect that you would object if I assumed that Antifa was representative of the left. Extrapolating the actions of few as representative of the many often leads to faulty conclusions.
“Extrapolating the actions of few as representative of the many” is the exact strategy this op-ed employs. The author uses examples of several individuals isolated comments to condemn all “secular left”.
And there is immense irony in using an insult like “smug liberal” followed immediately by criticism like “rather than take Barr’s speech as an opportunity for thoughtful discussion, they instead throw out insults”. Rarely has Howard’s pieces actually engaged in thoughtful analysis of a political oponnent’s ideas; instead he uses the exact methods he ironically condemns.
Sadly this is our political discourse and has been for a decade. Each “side” demands behavior from opposition they themselves fail to live up to. Each side believes their opposition is illegitimate instead of just individuals with differing political views. Fact is, as uncomfortable as it is to admit, we need political factions who are introspective enough to recognize our democracy has room for opposing views. And that a “confident pluralism”, which democracy supposedly strives for, can’t exist without some level of that tolerance.
Maybe it’s time Op Ed writers like Ed and Howard started writing what they stand for instead of branding their opponents illegitimate. Let the audience analyze the arguments strengths and weaknesses instead of personal attacks. If we did that I think we’d better gatekeep against candidates dangerous ideas (like Beto’s authoritarian policies of firearm confiscation and federal orthodoxy). Because under it all I have no doubt columnist like Ed and Howard have deeply held, well justified values and beliefs. And ones we might learn from But sadly all we normally see is what they try to define themselves against, which all too often are fanciful caricatures not concrete views.
Actually YES, it is the liberals that have lost their bearings. It is not liberalism in and of itself, but the generation gap. The majority of liberals these days are younger and grew up in a technological paradigm that only the GenXers truly understand. “Ok boomer” the new millineal slogan says it all. The left brain is now King Kong and words, memes etc… matter soooooo much (re: safe places). GenXers are the neo conservatives, as the hippies / yippies started migrating, once upon a time, in the mid to late 80s, to become the conservatives we now have today.. It is a cycle. We have a lost generation addicted to technology, instant gratification, and getting their way or the highway. NOT THEIR FAULT though (thanks helicopter parents and Xbox) And they discount older generations as they think they are smarter due to demonstrated superior tech skills, yet many cannot read beyond 4 or 5 sentences due to attention deficit. Not all of course, but in the end the left brain overkill has created a more or less anti social structure in society today. People cannot talk about issues, and often hide behind words or text msgs. Some cannot even say “hello” or recognize basic human interaction. The Gen Zs are completely and purely left brain now. and they too (as the cycle dictates) will counter the millineal debacle one day as they see the problem from that side of the equation. Thus there is hope. The GenZs listen to their grandparents. Lol. Very True. Ok, back to my rock work – breaks over…
“When lots of people in a given society stop being religious of their own accord, such organic secularization does not result in the evaporation of morality in society, nor national decay. For instance, the most secular countries in the world today fare much better on nearly every measure of peace, prosperity, and societal well-being — including infant mortality, life expectancy, educational attainment, economic prosperity, freedom, levels of corruption, and so forth — than the most religious countries. In fact, those countries with the highest murder rates — such as Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Colombia, and Brazil — are extremely religious, while those countries with the lowest murder rates — such as Iceland, Canada, Slovenia, Norway, and the Netherlands — are among the most secular nations in the world.”
Wondering where your data is? Any facts, as opposed to opinions?
https://www.salon.com/2019/11/09/the-unbearable-wrongness-of-william-barr/