The American Spectator : Myth of the Secular West

Text Size

Myth of the Secular West

By Christopher Orlet on 12.30.08 @ 6:06AM

Parroting the jihadists will not allow the West to defeat jihad.

In a widely quoted essay a well-known Catholic writer recently stated "secularism cannot defeat jihad." Silly me. I hadn't known secularism was attempting to defeat jihad. I thought that was the job of the U.S. Armed Forces and the CIA.

The author, Elizabeth Scalia (apparently no relation to the Supreme Court justice), suggests the West is fast becoming a "post-faith society -- disdainful of religion and confident in the primacy of reason alone," thus "rendering itself ineffective and mute" to battle religious extremism.

This seems a popular, if erroneous, notion -- that the West is overrun with bug-eyed atheists, freethinking fanatics, and villainous infidels. Where so many pundits and journalists get the idea that Westerners are largely disciples of Darwin and Dawkins is an utter mystery. Certainly they don't get it from the research. The fact is the United States -- the largest, richest and most culturally significant Western nation -- is one of the most religious societies in history. Only about 10 percent of Americans claim to be neither spiritual nor religious. Another survey finds a mere 6 percent confess to be atheists or agnostics. Sure, that's America for you. What about Europe? Again, few persons in so-called "secular" Europe are genuinely irreligious. The latest European Union poll (pdf) finds a mere 18 percent of Europeans say "they do not believe there is a spirit, God, nor life force." Probably the same percentage as in Muslim countries, though one would be butchered for saying so.

Sweden is often cited as typical of Europe's secularism, though even among the suicidal Swedes a mere 23 percent report that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force." The skepticism of the backsliding Lutheran Scandinavians is more than offset by Catholic Poland, Ireland, Spain and Italy where the percentage of nonbelievers is minuscule.

France has one of the highest percentages of nonbelievers (19 percent atheist, 16 percent agnostic), but this is hardly a recent trend. The French have had a problem with organized religion going back to the Albigensian Crusade (1209–29) when the Catholic Church dispatched crusaders into southern France to massacre upwards of a million Cathars for their unorthodox beliefs. Hardly a way to win converts. It was in France -- not Spain -- that the Inquisition was born. What's more, it was after the French Revolution -- in part a reaction against church and state entanglement -- that Robespierre, a deist, sought to establish a new state religion, the Cult of the Supreme Being. These revolutionaries were not irreligious radicals. They simply (and violently) opposed the regime-coddling Catholic Church.

Like most complex concepts, religion is more complicated than we like to think. Take, for instance, the term "atheist." An atheist is one who does not believe in gods. He is the opposite of a deist, or one who believes in gods. But many non-Western religions do not have gods -- at least not in the way Westerners think of them. In this sense, arguably the world's most spiritual man, the Dalai Lama, is an atheist, and readily admits as much.

Doubtless some will argue that simply being spiritual, or a "spiritual atheist," like his holiness the Dalai Lama, is not the same as being religious in the traditional Western sense. And indeed, most popular surveys equate spirituality with irreligiosity, and are interested only in whether the subject "believes in God." Obviously, this makes the West seem much more irreligious than it in fact is. Even in the U.S., one fifth of Americans describe themselves as "spiritual, but not religious" or belonging to a non-theistic religion.

To complicate matters further, some Christians have long maintained secular humanism is a religion, though a heretical one. Usually, fundamentalist Christians make this claim when they hope to exclude the teaching of evolution from schools. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1961 agreed, noting, "religions" need not be based on a belief in the existence of God. Again in Welsh v. United States the Court similarly found that: "If an individual deeply and sincerely holds beliefs that are purely ethical or moral in source and content…those beliefs certainly occupy in the life of that individual 'a place parallel to that filled by…God' in traditionally religious persons." For the courts, at least, non-theistic religions occupy a place parallel to that filled by God. Taken to this extreme -- if extreme it is -- every one, save perhaps Christopher Hitchens, is religious.

Of course many purists will say that's hogwash. Any true religion requires a belief in a creator god. Being spiritual doesn't count; one must be religious. And of a particular religion. Such traditionalists remind one of Fielding's the Rev. Mr. Thwackum who said, "When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England." And indeed some secular humanists wholeheartedly agree with the religious fundamentalists. As Austin Cline, a regional director for the Council for Secular Humanism, points out, "the very label 'secular' means, essentially, non-religious. A non-religious religion isn't logically possible." In that sense, secular humanism is no more a religion than is feminism, communism or vegetarianism.

AT ITS BASE, Ms. Scalia's real objection is not with the West's fictitious lack of faith, but with the Enlightenment and arguably its greatest accomplishment: separation of church and state. "These groups [secular Jews, elites, governments and the media] are stymied by their own enlightenment," she offers as her contribution to the increasing perception that conservatives are anti-intellectual.

Incredibly, Ms. Scalia says the West should, in this instance at least, follow the lead of the jihadists -- not by discrediting the language of jihad, but by adopting it: "By failing to speak in the same language, [the West] has no weapons for victory, short of destroying whole cities." Do we really want our leaders speaking the "same language" as the jihadists? And if our leaders should adopt jihad-speak, does anyone besides Ms. Scalia believe that will end terrorism? Or will we have to go further, and adopt the actions of jihad too?

Why we should have to defend continually the fruits of the Enlightenment to Americans -- whose Declaration of Independence, and whose ideas of separation of powers and separation of church and state, were the direct result of its ideas -- is beyond my poor powers of understanding. Apparently Ms. Scalia would have us travel back to the good old 17th century, when Christian sects battled unto the death. For myself, I like to think we can be a spiritual or religious people without abandoning the Enlightenment, and certainly without parroting the language of jihad.

About the Author

Christopher Orlet writes every Thursday from St. Louis.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (20) | Leave a comment

adva| 12.30.08 @ 7:16AM

I have to admit I didn't read Scalia's letter , but based on your repor, her opinions are quite scary.

First of all, "Jihadist language" cannot be equalled with "Islamic language". "Jihad" literally means - a sacred war, and Islam is quite another thing. To claim that in order to face jihadists and defeat them, one needs a religious language - is to claim that religion = violence and terror. True, most religions have proved to be violent in different epochs, but this doesn't mean that violence is a necessary part of religion. In fact, I have heard quite many Muslims say that the way of Islam is peace.

All this serves to say that adopting a religious language to fight a violent language is, at best, a strange idea. Other than that, I don't think it is even possible to find some common language to all religions, except for having a sacred core of beliefs, one that is unquestionable (and maybe even that is not always the case). As for free-thinkers, they don't necessarily have such a core, and therefore are (or should be, ideally) willing to question each and every belief they hold. Even anti-religious ones. Even such that blame a whole religion for the violence and fanaticism of some of its proponents.

VinceP1974| 12.30.08 @ 7:52AM

I believe my thinking is along the lines of Scalia. So while I haven't spent time researching her particulars, from the things that have been written above, I can relate to them and explain my thihnking.

A lot of what I'm saying will be generalizations, so there are individual exceptions to probably everything.

Athiests:
For the most part, I do not find that the Atheists appreciate the true cause for the Jihad. They tend to view events in a Marxist worldview... menaing that the people are behaving the way they are because of factors that have to do with economy, colonization, education, etc... Especially if the person is on the Left. A Leftist Atheist will tend to hold to a very arrogant and steereotypical anti-colonial model that explains the violence and hatred. I do not see a willingness of these folks to have thier mind be changed from that POV. I call it the 1968 mindset. Their minds are made up.. the Muslims are simply reacting to years of Western domination and American influence keeping their countries under dictatorships.
The Muslims must hate America for the same reason that the International Left hates America.

These folks have no appreciation for the Islamic religious drive that is at the heart of the Jihadist mindset.

Also, I find in the same people no appreciation that their culture is under assault by the Jihad. In fact most of these people agree with the cultural complaints of the Jihadis.

So what I find is close-minded people , not inclined in the least to protect their way of life from the Muslims who seek to overturn it.

I feel that if they could be persuaded to take the Muslims at their word and drop the 1968 thinking that maybe they would take the threat seriously.. but I really dont know.

Also, the Athessts observe that Christians / Conservatives / Republicans are concerned about the Jihad and what I find is that the atheist does not want to be on the same side of the Christians/Conservatives/Republicans.

There is aboslutely nothing partisan about being Anti-Jihad / Pro-Defense of America. but they seem to make it want to be a partisan thing.

I think generally, the more Bible-believing a Christian is, the more seriously he takes the threat. This is because we understand the spiritual drive of the Muslims... we know there is a spiritual engine that is compelling this thing and that the devotion on their side is genuine and fierce.

Atheists tend to think anyone who believes in a god is an idiot or a fool or retarded... so the Atheist is already dismissing that a Jihadist is a serious person with serious goals.

I cnat tell you how many of these people mock the idea that the Jihadis believe that their take over of the USA is pretty much a done deal and is just a matter of time.

As a Christian, I have deep love for America and the culture that it owes its successs to. I dont take it for granted, and I know it could be lost easlier. Thus I see this threat and I understand it must be fought against.

Plus I see the evil in Islam. Atheists see costumes and a reflexive anti-America disposition.

So like I said, I generalized a lot. The atheists that I encountered that think the way I described seem to be mostly from the Left.

The atheism contributes to the person's mis-diagnosing the engine of Jihad

The Leftism contributes to the person's sympathy to the Anti-Americanism of the Jihadist.

The lack of a religion that warns against Evil contributes to a lack of internal will to defend the homeland for the future.

Christians understand that the values that all claim to be important are values that came directly from the Bible... individual rights.. the right to one's dignity and thoughts etc, so unlike atheists who foolishly think ALL religion is a threat to them ,we understand that its not fundamentalism that is the danger.. but the specific dogma that one is fundamentally about.

John| 12.30.08 @ 9:29AM

Even without reading Elizabeth Scalia's article, after reading Mr. Orlet's arguments I am inclined to believe her premise. Mr. Orlet cites figures that "Only about 10 percent of Americans claim to be neither spiritual nor religious. " Yet, his reference for that claim describes that rapid decrease in the number of religious people in the US. More importantly, the surveys do not appear to measure key attitudes. I have often thought that people can be divided into three categories:

The religious - those whose religious beliefs define who they are,

The non-religious or casually religious - those who may or may not be part of organized religions but whose self definition is based on secluar ideas, and

The anti-religious - those who are opposed to religious and are usually athiests.

While the anti-religious are few in the US, the number of religious are rapidly decreasing with corresponding grow in the non or casually religious. I think this presents a number of problems. With respect to the Islamic Jihadists, the problem is that few really understand their motivations. As a religious person (Christian) I believe I have a better understanding of the religious motivations of the Jihadists (even though I strongly disagree with them) than non-religious or anti-religious person. The secular nature of our society (dominated by the non and casually religious) provides the Jihadists with the perfect enemy (a society that is built around the worship of God). This makes our battle more difficult.

Paul D.| 12.30.08 @ 9:35AM

It seems to me the Islamists consider the West to be decadent, not irreligious. Leaving aside for another time the Islamic world's own decadence, their charge is probably valid.

The problem for the West isn't that it is not religious, it's that religion no longer holds much sway over Westerners' behavior and lifestyles. Most Western Christians are Christian in name only and live no differently than atheists.

The Islamic world might respect the Christian West better if we actually lived what we say we believe in. Instead, they have every reason to believe our bankrupt secular morals justify their own eschatological belief in the eventual transcendence of Allah's will over the infidel world.

VinceP1974 | 12.30.08 @ 10:02AM

Paul: I dont think the Muslims would be any more impressed by the religiosity of Kufrs today than they were of the religiosity of all the Eastern Orthodox and North African Christians that they vanquished in the past.

Paul D.| 12.30.08 @ 10:08AM

VinceP1974 : Good point.

VinceP1974 | 12.30.08 @ 10:23AM

Your point about their disgust about the decadence is a good one.

I can only imagine what they think of the more permissive behaviors of people in Northern European countries.

If Qutb thought co-ed square dancing in Colorado in the 40s was scandalous.. can you imagine the things he'd see now in seedy parts of Germany?

Bob| 12.30.08 @ 11:20AM

The problem with Vince's, et. al., argument, is that when you believe you are entirely right, and the other side is entirely wrong, there is no solution until one side obliterates the other. Vince is quick to say that Islam is wrong and Christianity is right.

In order to live among the various peoples of the the world, in a true libertarian sense, we must respect their beliefs as long as we can live out our beliefs. Otherwise, let's just take our arsenal of aging nukes and obliterate the middle east -- save Israel of course since true Christians want to see the eventual demise of the Jewish people in a biblical manner.

Alan Brooks| 12.30.08 @ 4:13PM

Islam is a misogynistic, polygamous feudalistic religion that, like Communism, will be brought down eventually.
I guarantee it.

Bob| 12.30.08 @ 4:24PM

Alan, you mean like Christianity in the Middle Ages and original Judaism? Perhaps you'd like to tell Romney that Mormon could not evolve from polygamy. Oh, that's right, you don't believe in evolution...

John| 12.30.08 @ 4:42PM

Paul, I am not sure that, in the eyes of the Jihadists, that irreligious is significantly different than decadence. More to the point, we will not convert the Jihadists, but they are a small minority. I do fear that the secular image that the US projects in the region will add to the credentials of the Jihadists in eyes of faithful Muslems. Hollywood and the lifestyle of Western celebrities helps the Jihadists make their case that they are fighting the "Great Satan".

Alan Brooks| 12.30.08 @ 5:07PM

Bob,
i "believe" in evolution, im not sure about progress, though.
and as for the time frame vis a vis medeival
(tell me correct spelling) christianity and judaism, that is scarcely encouraging.

when i say Islam will be brought down
this time, unlike in '91, we may all be brought down.
i am no longer a futurist, only a transhumanist-- and not an optimistic one.

Bob| 12.30.08 @ 5:33PM

Alan, I have a bit more faith in humanity. I believe that most people, whether they have faith or not, just want to live peacefully, support their families, and perhaps have a little bit of fun. Before I retired, I worked in an international job and traveled over 60% of the time to almost 50 countries. I always dealt with foreign nationals. To me, people were much more alike than different and I traveled in several Islamic countries.

So, chill... Islam will not be brought down and extremists, whether they are Islamic or left or right wing nuts in the U.S., will be always present, but never in the majority.

Alan brooks| 12.30.08 @ 6:06PM

let's see, medeival; i before e except after c however it could be the spelling is medaeval or some combination of i,e,a. who knows, i went to pubik skoolz. will have to go look at the dictionary-- if my illiterate roommate didnt sell it to buy marywanna.

okay Bob, faith. faith is for God, not humanity? progress as far as i know is not faith-based. last we heard.
But maybe youre right, perhaps Islam wont be 'brought down' as Communism was brought down. Maybe we'll all die; or most of us.

Ironically it was Gingrich's conservative futurism (gag retch) that prolonged my self-deceived interest in "progress" (progress to what?).

Curse the goddamned day i ever picked up a future-asses tome!

Alan Brooks| 12.30.08 @ 7:53PM

Colonize space? we cant even colonize the antarctic.
Newt, you're full of it.

happy relapse.

VinceP1974| 12.30.08 @ 8:03PM

>The problem with Vince's, et. al., argument, is that when you believe you are entirely right, and the other side is entirely wrong, there is no solution until one side obliterates the other. Vince is quick to say that Islam is wrong and Christianity is right.

So what's your hang up ? That you think I said one thing is 100% one way and the other is 100% another way?

Well perhaps you didn't notice I used the word Jihadist to describe the actor. And yes, I'm going to assume my culture and its religion is vastly superior to theirs.

It's a no brainer to me. Perhaps you'd like to go to Saudi Arabia and see how well your atheism goes there.

I mean. geez,.. you actually can't dicern that Christianity is objectively better than Islam? I propose that I have no problem at all.. it's you with the problem.

>In order to live among the various peoples of the the world, in a true libertarian sense, we must respect their beliefs as long as we can live out our beliefs.

Duh. Islam doesn't allow you to do that. And since I never claimed to not respect a person's belief in whatever they want, to write your statement above as if you're refuting a point I made... I never made that point.

>Otherwise, let's just take our arsenal of aging nukes and obliterate the middle east -- save Israel of course since true Christians want to see the eventual demise of the Jewish people in a biblical manner.

The only who makes stupid assumptions about The Other is you. It's so funny you think you're on some higher level and yet you have such a simplistic vision of me in your head that you must have pulled from one of the obsolete templates , a template that no actual living person comes close to resembling yet you think you're so clever for holding on to.

My entire statement stems from one assertion.. that Islam is a threat to the West.

GIven that, the question was.. who is better at managing this threat.. is religion required.

That is the question I answered. You choose to dazzle us all with your ignorant fair-mindedness.. like the head-choppers are really impressed by that. LOL.

VinceP1974 | 12.30.08 @ 8:04PM

I am no optimist. It's only a matter of time before the Jihadis get their hands on enough nuclear weapons and they destroy mainland US.

ddc| 12.30.08 @ 11:28PM

Viewing the conflict between Jihadists and the west as a some sort of mystical conflict between competeing gods or however the religiousists view the matter produces fundmentally flawed approaches. The conflict is about money and wealth. Bush believed that he was on a crusade against an enemy god and sent the force of the US into the middle east, spending trillions of dollars on an effort that could still be futile.
The jihadists want to set up a wealthy caliphate and the US is paying them to do so. If we stopped sending buckets of cash over there they would not be able to afford a jihad and would have nothing to fight over.
Viewing the matter as a about money is validated by the systematic damage that is being done to multiple adversaries (russia, iran, and venezuala) by the collapse in oil prices. The price drops below 40$ and russia and Chavez panic. Below 20$ and Iran is in deep trouble. Below 5$ (which is possible if it is not used as a fuel source) and the saudis will collapse no longer funding the anti western schools.
Religion motivates the foot soldiers but the overarching force will always be greed.

VinceP1974| 12.31.08 @ 5:44AM

Viewing the conflict between Jihadists and the west as a some sort of mystical conflict between competeing gods or however the religiousists view the matter produces fundmentally flawed approache

I dont advocate that approach. What I am suggesting is that atheist tend to not realize that for our enemy , it is a mystical war.

You cannot the massive amount of misinformation in academies and government that want to pretend that Jihadist violence is a function of poverty or unemployment? This is total misdirection.

The jihadists want to set up a wealthy caliphate and the US is paying them to do so. If we stopped sending buckets of cash over there they would not be able to afford a jihad and would have nothing to fight over.

Well it's too bad Democrats are locking us out of our own energy resources. Nancy Pelosi says she's trying to save the world therefore no new US oil for us.

I see you want to blame money for the Jihad.. this is what I mean about misreading the situation.

Money doens't cause Jihad. Islam causes Jihad. Money funds Jihad. No funding.. Jihad fighting ability is diminished but the will is still there and will always be there as long as people believe in Islam and the texts which call for Jihad.

Naumadd| 12.31.08 @ 11:33PM

A "religion" is merely the consistent day-to-day practice of one's beliefs and values. Since all of us have an individual set of beliefs and an individual set of values, when we act on those beliefs and values we create a religion of them. All of us act on beliefs and values, thus, we all have religion in the technical sense but not in the western traditional sense. Because "secular humanism" has clearly outlined beliefs and values, when an individual acts on their secularist humanist beliefs and values, they create - in the least - a secular humanist religion of one. If a group of individuals act on their secular humanist beliefs and values, they create a secular humanist religion of more than one.

I hear it said time and again by members of theistic religions that the United States has institutionalized secular humanism, i.e., it has adopted the "secular humanist religion". This isn't the case. What the U.S. Constitution and the government it forms are doing is creating a culture without specific preference for or denigration of any set of beliefs or practices save one - the values of inalienable individual rights and the liberty to exercise mutually guaranteed self-determination. In our culture, respect for the individual isn't optional, it's mandatory. All other beliefs and practices are optional. This means government must behave in ways focused on preserving individual liberty in the name of unity and avoid whenever possible becoming an agent of divisive beliefs and practices, i.e., divisive religions. The principles of liberty are by nature unifying. Such cannot be claimed by many traditional religions. As for secular humanism, although its spirit is unifying primarily, there are some divisive principles contained therein.