-
A Novel Solution to the Immigration Problem: The NAFTA Angle
January 30, 2013 | 10 comments
-
Keeping Eastern Europe in Mind
April 25, 2012 | 1 comment
-
Why Some Government Spending Is Better Than Others …
February 24, 2012 | 3 comments
-
The End of Secularism and the HHS Mandate
February 15, 2012 | 2 comments
-
The Reversal of Proposition 8: A Dangerous Precedent
February 8, 2012 | 9 comments
The Spectacle Blog
My new book, The End of Secularism, came out a few days ago. I doubt it would have been written had Wlady Pleszczynski not reached out to a young writer several years ago and given him a chance.
The book is a hard critique of secularism (defined as public life without God). In it, I demonstrate that secularism is not neutral, doesn’t solve the problem of religious difference, and is not some kind of super rational public philosophy to trump all the rest. Along the way, I examine the politico-religious history of the west, the American founding, the so-called “war” between religion and science, and an underreported story of church-state mixing in Alabama I first wrote about for this web site in 2003. The Alabama story shows that secularists aren’t principled. They applaud religious political action from the left and condemn it from the right.
If you have ever tired of hearing men like Robert Reich, Garry Wills, or the New Atheists act as though Christians pose some kind of existential threat to freedom, this is the book for you.
Thanks again to Wlady for giving me my first chance way back when.
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Hunter Baker
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/08/27/the-end-of-secularism
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Brian Kirk| 8.27.09 @ 9:50AM
Looks like a great read!
Seth Cooper| 8.27.09 @ 10:11AM
Congratulations on the publication of your book. I look forward to reading it.
Bob| 8.27.09 @ 11:37AM
"The Alabama story shows that secularists aren't principled."
Statistics show that Muslims and Buddhists stick to their principles even more than Christians, i.e., less divorce, fewer abortions, less premarital sex, etc. I guess that makes them more principled than Christians.
But I guess you are saying that Christian principles are right and all other principles are wrong. Do I have that right?
Hunter Baker| 8.27.09 @ 12:45PM
Bob, the point of the Alabama story is that if secularists embrace left-wing religious activity while claiming fears of theocracy with regard to right-wing religious activity, maybe their actual concerns are different from their stated ones.
Bob| 8.27.09 @ 1:14PM
Hunter, I have a difficult time separating that from your (collective) embrace of right-wing religious activity while claiming fears of secularism. Secularists have principles as strong as theocrats -- but the problem is that you don't "define" them as "principles". The point I was making was larger, i.e., if adherence to religious principles is the measure, both Muslims and Buddhists are more principled than Christians by the fact of their behavior. Even Jihad is principled and fundamental to some of their views of their religion.
It is this defamation of other principled views that I object to. Yes, I would personally like to live in a country with Judeo-Christian views because of my personal orientation. But the lack of respect for the principled views of others leads to more extremism, less conversation, and violence. That is exactly what is occurring in the heath reform debate because both sides continue to lie about the other side.
Is that the type of country you think we should have?
Brian B| 8.27.09 @ 1:15PM
--Statistics show that Muslims and Buddhists stick to their principles even more than Christians, i.e., less divorce, fewer abortions, less premarital sex, etc. I guess that makes them more principled than Christians.
But I guess you are saying that Christian principles are right and all other principles are wrong. Do I have that right?--
The principles you cite are principles that Christianity and other faiths share so your question is a bit of a non sequitor.
Christians, and any serious adherent of virtually any other religion (other than Universalists) do indeed believe their doctrine is correct and all others false, as logic and rationality demand.
Why do people only have a problem with Christians believing this?
kingsmill| 8.27.09 @ 3:23PM
Christians believe their faith is correct, as do Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc. This is a revelation? Of course, they all believe their doctrines embody the truth. The quesion for a free society is whether that belief is to be enforced by a confessional state. The history of Christianity has shown that they do not require the enforcement of their confession by the state. The development of Christianity has moved in the opposite direction towards religious freedom. A large faction of Muslims have not only demanded the instition of a confessional Muslim state, but are intent on reducing practioners of other faiths to subservient status in dhimmitude. The politically correct, multicultural ideology, attempts to shunt aside the nature of all religion as "truth seeking", and has reduced "religion" to a potpourri of cultural cadences pleasing to the secularist aficionada as she flickers from flower to flower sampling all the different colors.
Alan Brooks| 8.27.09 @ 3:30PM
anything but the howling empty void of brave new world.
fern| 8.28.09 @ 3:44AM
The Vatican is no democracy, the pope is elected by a few insiders, even priests can't vote for a new pope.
This is called a theocracy, whatever the pope says goes, either you accept "God" or you don't but if you don't you'll rot in hell.
Separation of State and Church: the majority of people are involved in their surrounding religion since they're born and will be affected by it throughout their lives, even if the become atheists. Not so long ago a N.Y. politician said he understood the plight of the gay people, but his religious convictions stopped him from giving them a favorable vote.
The way I see it is that religion (theocracy) is using democracy to undermine it.
Solo| 8.28.09 @ 8:29AM
Theocracy within a theocratic system?
Oh....the horror! LOL!
Bob...
I would suggest a quick read of Ratzinger's essay "Socrates Or Muhammad". I think that you might find it interesting.
I might also suggest "The Lotus And The Cross" by Ravi Zacharias.
Not all religions are equally "true"- regardless of how "principled" are the faithful. I think that there is an important distinction to be made between "beliefs" and "Principles".
Pingback| 8.28.09 @ 6:36PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : The End of Secularism [ links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: