Secularism, Ecumenicism and the
Exciting Conclusion to This Course

The Age of Religious Wars (1517-1688)

Last time, we looked at religious wars, talking about the war gods of ancient civilization, then moving on to Jihad, the Crusades, and the Age of Religious Wars (1517-1688).  That last period is particularly painful with Christians doing horrible things to other Christians in the name of Christ.  The German-speaking areas of Europe were devastated by things like the 30 Years’ War, a war which, directly or indirectly, involved much of Europe.  France was torn apart by religious civil war from 1562-1589  and, really, well beyond that.  England too had much religious turmoil and eventually a religious Civil War (1642-1649).

But while in some ways the worst of times, this was the best of times as well.  This is a period of rapid social, political, and economic change—changes in some ways good in the long run.  Europe will become the most successful society the world had ever seen and in so many areas the most impressive.

But to live in such times is hard.  At the outset of the course, we talked about religion as a way of balancing things.  The Roman Catholic church had helped Europe find a new balance as the ancient world came to an end.  As the modern period begins, Europe is going to have to find a new balance, and the "religious" wars are in large part about exactly what that balance would be. 

Europe seeks a new balance

At the same time Europeans are trying to find balance at home, they are also pushing into the New World and elsewhere. Europeans will try to remake the rest of the world in its own image, and, of course, religion is going to play an important role.  On the negative side, religion can be an excuse for exploitation.  But it can be a tool for inclusion as well. 

Kipling talked of a White Man’s Burden to change the world, and his "White Man's Burden" poem reflects both the positives and negatives of European domination.

And there are both positives and negatives as Europeans to to get their own house in order.  Can Europeans end their conflicts among themselves, and particularly their religious conflicts?

One solution here: classical liberalism.

Thinkers like Sir Thomas More (Utopia), John Milton (Areopagitica) and John Locke (2nd Treatise of Government) helped lay foundations for the classical liberal approach, an approach that worked toward a balance that would maximizing human. freedom  Out of this comes classical liberalism with its emphasis on political freedom (parliamentary government) and personal freedoms including religious freedom.

Religious conflicts could be minimized (so they thought) by taking religious differences out of the political arena. This might mean either no established church at all, or or a latitudinarian church that included as many as possible and allowed much "latitude" within the established church.

A non-coercive Christianity (Locke) or a kind of Deism (Jefferson) might work very well in preserving the positives or Europe's religious heritage while avoiding bloody conflict. 

An alternative to classical liberalism in finding balance, a kind of conservatism, perhaps a traditional Catholicism as a state religion.

In 1688, England embraced the classical liberal tradition, and in 1776, America followed suit. In 1789, France might likewise have moved in that direction, but, instead, went in a very different direction: including dechristianization!

When Napoleon fell in 1815, France backed away from its radical experiments in societal restructuring.  And in France, like most European countries, the 1815-1914 period was a time of balance between conservative and classical liberal positions…often very healthy. The 19th century was an era of tremendous optimism, a period of tremendous economic growth, of relative peace, and a period of unprecedented scientific and technological progress.

Europe loses it's balance

But then—1914, and a great crash.  World War I destroyed the optimism of Europeans--and led to attempts to find a very different kind of balance.

The post-war period saw the rise of the great secular utopias: Communism, Nationalism, and Fascism.   All three philosophies shoved traditional religion into the background.  Faith in government took precedence over all else.  Nothing above the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state, said Mussolini.  An all-powerful government would solve all human problems.  It seemed, for a time, that these totalitarian systems and the replacement of traditional religion with faith in government and a charismatic leader, would be the wave the future.

But another crash--WW II. 

The Rise of Secularlism)

Post WWII, one secular utopia remained, and the next fifty years would be dominated by a clash between liberal democracies and secularized communists: the Cold War. Note, by the way, the Soviet's Constitution's provisions on religion:

ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

While in a certain sense the Cold War was an external conflict between "godless" communism and liberal democracies, within the democracies themselves there was a push away from classical liberalism toward secularism.  Many European countries moved toward a cradle-to-grave welfare state, with the government pushing into areas at one time more the province of religion.

There was a great push to secularize American society as well, and (in a way) secularism becomes a new religion, a rival to traditional religion faith--and, ironically, an "established" religion itself.  Steps toward establishing secularism include the following:

1.  The schools adopted Dewey's philosophy which had not place for religion.

2. The Supreme Court eliminated prayer of Bible reading in public schools.

3.  In 1954, Senate Leader Lyndon Johnson pushed through Congress a tax law which silenced churches, denying them tax-exempt status if they got involved in political issues.

Secularism as a Religion

The Prothero book has a great section on Secularism as a religion, well worth your time.  But I think it's pretty easy to figure out on your own how secularism takes on a religious nature.  It has all the attributes of a religion:

Is there a god?  Well, withing the secular world view, there are several possibilities.  One, there's a tendency to see government as God.  There's also a tendency to turn human beings into "gods" or at least messianic figures.  And maybe there's the tendency to turn all human beings into gods, an echo of the serpent's promise in Genesis that "you'll be as gods, deciding good and evil for yourself."

Is there a priesthood?  Well, again, several possibilities.  Just as in the ancient world, priests carried out the bureaucratic functions that kept society going, so within the secular view bureaucrats have a kind of priestly function.

What about ethics?  Here, too, secularism has its own unique ethical system.  In the positive sense, tolerance and equality become supreme virtues.  But, running into the "paradox of tolerance," secularists end up not tolerant of anyone who is intolerant--which means in practice, anyone who does not perfectly in line with their beliefs.  No crosses on public displays, or religious place names.  Change the names of school, parks, etc. if the person they honor doesn't match up to contemporary sensibilities.  Tear down monuments--including monuments to our country's founders.

What about an underlying mythology/theology?  Secularists label their own ideas "science," and to challenge those ideas is to "deny science."  Note how similar this is to the treatment of heresy in other religions, where denial of "dogma" (that which is right) gets one labeled a heretic.  Environmentalists and climate change alarmists look an awful lot like the religious zealots of past eras, especially in their demonization of  those who challenge them.

Secularism also has a strong eschatological feel, not very different from that of traditional religions.  Note that constant insistence that those who disagree with them are "on the wrong side of history.|  Humankind is going somewhere, going somewhere good.  Don't stand in the way!

Quo Vadis?

But where exactly are we headed? 

I began this course with a question: quo vadis?  Where are you going?  And, in a way, this is the most appropriate question one can ask in a World Religions class.  Stephen Prothero and I use similar analogies, Prothero comparing religions to various "paths," while I compare different religions to different roads.  I hope this class has given you a chance to think about the road you're on, alternative roads you might take, and the road American society is on, and the roads we might take. A last thing to think about as you travel down whatever road you will take (courtesy of  The Hollies):