No Secular Option — Debated

MY RECENT ESSAY AND POST
STIRRED LIVELY DISCUSSION

During two weeks of vacationing with family in Colorado, a lively debate went on concerning my recent essay titled, “No Secular Option.” There were some comments on this blog, but most of the give-and-take occurred at the online journal, American Thinker, where the piece had appeared first.

The point of my article was that Islamist radicalism has brought us to a civilizational war. As I wrote…

“It’s not a war of all Christians against all Muslims.

“But it is a moment when everyone — Muslims, Christians, even those with no explicit faith commitment — must decide which civilization they wish to be part of…

“— the civilization that honors the Judeo-Christian god?

“— or the civilization that submits to the god of Islam?”

I insisted that…

“The sweet, all-accepting world of that cute little ‘COEXIST’ bumper sticker is a myth.”

…and drew the conclusion…

“There is no secular option.”

I expected that defenders of the ‘COEXIST’ view would recoil from such a stark contrast, express hope for a rapprochement between the Islamic and Judeo-Christian worlds, and criticize me for demanding that Muslims deny their faith tradition (which I didn’t, actually).

Likewise, I expected skepticism that, short of some extreme “Reformation,” Islam will never accept the existence of a worldview that differs from the religious/moral understanding enshrined in Sharia Law. This I received in abundance, with most commentators who took that position expressing themselves in rather harsh terms.

The predominant reaction, however, wasn’t either of those views. It was an objection to my premise that we must choose between two religious civilizations. Quite a few readers spoke out strongly in defense of secularism, not only as a governing principle, but as a moral system.

A reader named Walt was quite put off by my whole approach, and minced no words…

“How come this author doesn’t even know what secularity means? Secularity is the separation of state and church. It implies that the state is not governed by religion, and doesn’t govern religion….

“The author apparently believes that secularism is the same as atheism or some form of communism.”

I don’t, of course. My essay simply argued that we owe our freedoms to the principles developed, refined and preserved by Judeo-Christian culture. Muslim culture, on the other hand, has perpetuated an understanding of life that does not necessarily see human freedom as a virtue.

I maintain that there is no secular option because religion is at the heart of civilization (the root of the word “culture” is “cult”). And so we must choose between two distinct religious visions.

Another reader, named Randy got that, and he countered Walt with this observation…

“The separation of church and state has already been accomplished in this country, but the denial of a Judeo-Christian heritage in all aspects of American culture simply creates a vacuum that Muslims would love to fill. Do you really think cultural moral relativism can compete with the utter certainty of its antithesis — Islam?”

To which Walt responded…

“Absolutely not. Cultural and moral relativism are destructive, and ideologies entertained by the nihilistic left.

“But the fact remains, secularism is a different concept. Secularism is not nihilistic, it is not the same as atheism, but it is the only option in the free world to avoid religious interference with political power.”

A reader styling himself (or herself) “stars misplaced” commented that…

“It is possible to reject radical Islam without embracing Christianity.”

To which someone adopting the name, “Steve McQueen” responded…

“One need not ‘embrace’ Christianity. All that is required is to (1) understand and publically acknowledge that Western values are the product of centuries of Judeo-Christian culture on the one hand and Greek rationality on the other, and (2) defend these values against all forces that seek to undermine them.
 Clearly, Islam is one of those forces.”

A certain “Nemeshisu” stated his (or her) feelings quite succinctly…

“What a moronic article.

“First, the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is the same one god. The reason that these three religions are collectively called the ‘Abrahamic faiths’ is because all three believe in the one god of Abraham. ‘Allah’ is just the Arabic word for ‘God’….

“Second, the choice is not between one religion versus another. The real choice is between the sanity and rationality of secularism (the gift that our Founding Fathers gave us and the world), where the right of people to be free to believe whatever they want is protected by keeping religion out of government versus the theocratic leanings of conservative religious fundamentalist zealots that want government to be an arm of their religion so that they can have government affirm their religion over everyone else.

“If we seek to protect our rights from theocrats, then secularism is the only option.”

However, someone designated “gray man” was having none of that. He maintained that the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is not the same one god…

“False. The God of the Jews and the Christians is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The ‘god’ of Islam is not.”

Apparently something of a religious scholar, “gray man” cited excerpts from the Qur’an (in Arabic with English translations) specifying certain divine characteristics that contrast with the Jewish/Christian understanding of God.

He was no less vehement in critiquing “Nemeshisu’s” praise of secularism…

“The rest of your comment was also nonsense. Our founding fathers did not give us secularism, and secularism has been the second greatest murderer in history. Second only to Islam.”

Not that “gray man” thought much of my views either…

“‘It’s not a war of all Christians against all Muslims.’ False. It most certainly is.”

And he wasn’t alone in his disdain. Someone called “iampeter” wrote…

“I think this article along with the comments is great in that it shows so much of what is wrong with the conservative movement and why it is not and has not been a movement of freedom in a long time.

“This is not an ideological struggle between ‘civilization that honors the Judeo-Christian god’ and ‘civilization that submits to the god of Islam.’ This is a false dichotomy.

“What we are seeing today is the same struggle we have always seen: reason vs mysticism.”

Indeed, ‘iampeter’ pretty much included all faiths in the “irrational” column…

“Today Christians are not as militant as certain Islamic groups, but that’s because they just don’t take their religion seriously. If they did, there would be Christian groups similar to ISIS.”

Ouch! Lord, save us from jihadist Christians. (Though I have to admit that “iampeter” does have a point about believers not taking their faith seriously enough.)

Alas, ‘iampeter’s’ assessment wasn’t the unkindest cut. Someone called “All American American” dismissed my article as…

“More dhimmi nonsense from the pages of AT [American Thinker].”

A few comments about my essay were quite incomprehensible — not to say just plain weird. For instance, someone called “scrambler65” raised this strange question…

“No secular option? If America is an Islamic state, then how come the Muslims did not behead all the Christians?”

And a certain “Lee” suggested…

“We should always avoid using the terms ‘war’ and ‘jihad,’ as that only strengthens [Muslims’] belief in achieving ‘martyrdom.’ This is a social and mental health issue, in no way is it a war.”

“Steve McQueen” retorted…

“Sadly clueless.”

…which I think hits the nail on the head.

There seems to be a law of inevitability guaranteeing that, given enough participants in a discussion, eventually somebody will get around to blaming the Jews — as shown by this oblique remark from a “Craig B.”…

“I really want to know just what the eff is a ‘Judeo-Christian God’? Can’t Christians have THEIR OWN GOD? Perhaps one day Christians will wake up to this Jewish nonsense?”

What can one say?

Well, I for one always enjoy a lively discussion. And I admit to relishing the little compliments that occasionally come my way from readers. Such was this from “Alistar,” who picked up on a question I asked my religiously uncommitted friends…

“‘How long do you think you’ll be free to live in comfortable, undemanding agnosticism should radical Islam triumph?’ Best question of the year!!!”

Thank you, “Alistar.” You’re a star with me.

 

Read the original essay at…

http://www.billkassel.com/3779-2/

…along with the reader comments at the bottom.

 

Then pop over to American Thinker to sample the parry-and-thrust that went on there…

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/no_secular_option_comments.html#disqus_thread

 

And do come back to offer your thoughts. They’re always appreciated.