Guest Post by Morbo
It is fashionable, among certain segments of the right-wing religiously orthodox intelligentsia, to bash the concept of secularism.
Such attacks form the basis of a new book by conservative Catholic writer George Weigel, The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America and Politics without God. I have not read the book — just reviews — but its theme sounds familiar: Secularism spawns “atheistic humanism,” which in turns spawns Nazism, Communism, mass murder, oppression, halitosis and Paris Hilton movies.
It’s a tiresome argument. Secularism is a command that the state be neutral on religious matters, not hostile to them. In a secular state, what you believe about God is irrelevant to your standing as a citizen. You have the freedom to worship one god, 15 gods or no god. The state does not presume to determine orthodoxy and does not take it upon itself to promote the symbols and doctrines of any faith. In fact, the state does not even to venture to make an inquiry into what you believe or don’t believe. It simply does not care.
The irony is that in much of Europe, secularism is not mandated by law but has become a cultural fact of life. The United Kingdom has an established church, as do some Scandinavian nations. Germany has a system of church taxes.
Despite these ties between religion and government, much of Western Europe is de facto secular in a cultural sense. Politicians do not routinely end their speeches with phrases like, “God bless Norway,” and, if asked to name a favorite book, don’t feel compelled to say the Bible.
TV preachers are considered oddballs there, and the idea that people would pour into megachurches and roll about on the floor while a man in a $1,000 suit who has no medical degree “heals” them of various ailments is a joke. Europeans routinely tell pollsters that religion has little influence on their lives. Biblical literalism and belief in creationism are in the single digits. Church attendance rates are abysmally low.
Why is this so? Why has much of Europe discarded its Christian tradition?
I can only guess, but I think it might have something to do with 800 years of religious wars, crusades, witch trials and slaughter on an unprecedented scale — all brought to you by rulers convinced that they knew the mind of God and had a duty to enforce it.
It might also have something to do with Christianity’s failure to live up to its promises. Jesus spoke of caring for the poor and the least among us. Yet “Christian” Europe for centuries tolerated a huge gap between the rich and the poor and to some extent buttressed it by turning bishops into arms of the state. The clergy’s opulence, wealth and access to state power alienated them from the vast majority who were poor. Is it any wonder the French Revolution was so anti-clerical?
“Christian” Europe did not provide health care for its people, a dignified system of retirement for the aged or rights for workers. Secular Europe did.
Weigel attempts to even the scales by insisting that the crimes of Hitler and Stalin were brought about by secularism. In fact, the Nazis co-opted churches and bought them off. Hitler signed a concordat with the Vatican and brought Protestant churches together under a national Reich church. Except for a few notable exceptions, religious leaders were happy to take a check and remain silent.
Stalin’s anti-religious measures were likewise no example of secularism in action. Closing churches and imprisoning clergy is hostility toward religion, not neutrality. A true secularist recognizes the right of religion to exist but insists that it not be imposed, funded or advocated for by the state.
A more valuable discussion of secularism is found in a recent New York Times column by Peter Steinfels. Steinfels discusses the 2004 book Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. The tome, by scholars Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart (which I also have not read), advances various theories as to why societies secularize, concluding that as societies modernize, become more urban and achieve a high degree of security, they become more secular.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that fewer and fewer societies fit this definition these days. Conclude Norris and Inglehart, “Rich societies are secularizing, but they contain a dwindling share of the world’s population; while poor societies are not secularizing and they contain a rising share of the world’s population.”
Secularization, instead of being the wave of the future, could be making its last stand. It’s a sobering thought.