Backlash Against Secularism Conference

In case you're able to attend and file a report, the Center for Inquiry is holding a conference in NYC. From their press release:

“The Secular Society and Its Enemies,” to address the alarming abandonment of Western secular values in a world increasingly mired in divisive religious strife and deadly sectarian battles. Organizers cite the abandonment of Enlightenment values by traditionalists such as Pope Benedict XVI, the rejection of secularization by social theorists, and taboos against criticizing religion among liberals, as seen in the debates surrounding the “New Atheism.”

The conference will convene November 9-11 at the New York Academy of Sciences, 7 World Trade Center, Manhattan. Presenters include some of the most prominent names of recent social commentary, including author Christopher Hitchens, lawyer/author Alan Dershowitz, astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson, evolution advocate Eugenie Scott, social critic Wendy Kaminer, ethicist Peter Singer, authors Susan Jacoby and Nat Hentoff, and others. 

“Despite the secular foundation of successful modern societies, radical religious fervor has reached an all-time high, and the world is waking up to the fact that belief can no longer be considered benign,” said Dr. Paul Kurtz, founder of the international Center for Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism.

“All theocracies, trumpeted or clandestine, have proven to be disastrous,” Kurtz said. “When the rights of our diverse citizenry are governed by the influence of a single faith, all those outside that narrow worldview—that is, the majority—suffer, both the religious and secular.”

“Support for those who oppose religious fanaticism isn’t limited to the nonreligious,” Kurtz said. “Catholics, Protestants, and especially the world’s subjugated Muslims have a very real stake in protecting our secular society from those who would bind legislation with the Decalogue or weave Sharia law into our courts.”

Comments

[DGP]

>>those who would bind legislation with the Decalogue or weave Sharia law into our courts<<

Amazing -- no differences between the Decalogue and Sharia, eh?

[DGP]

BTW, what the heck is a "clandestine theocracy?"

[Gene Godbold]

A "clandestine theocracy" also known as an "incipient theocracy" is one that isn't there and couldn't ever really be there, but that militant secularists of an atheist stripe worry about.

[GL]

“Despite the secular foundation of successful modern societies, radical religious fervor has reached an all-time high, and the world is waking up to the fact that belief can no longer be considered benign,” said Dr. Paul Kurtz, founder of the international Center for Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism.

And so, we "radical religio[nists]" must be contained and marginalized, if not eliminated.

[labrialumn]

Ahh, yes, we are to believe that they have no believes about metaphysics, ontology or epistemology, and that ours are inadmissible in the public square.

That the first 300 years of America were horrific and a failure, whereas Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia were the shining city on the hill of peace, safety, justice and advancement.

And they are supposed to be the "brights"? ? ?

[Kevin Jones]

“All theocracies, trumpeted or clandestine, have proven to be disastrous,”

Aren't all forms of government disastrous in the end?

[Gene Godbold]

No, no, the brights argue that Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia were really *religious* in their approach to no religion in society and so atheistic ideas can't be blamed for all those deaths. It sounds like this is a joke, but I have heard this point seriously argued in several forums by atheists.

[Ethan C.]

>>No, no, the brights argue that Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia were really *religious* in their approach to no religion in society and so atheistic ideas can't be blamed for all those deaths.<<

And you can tell that they were religous, because they led to so much death. QED.

[Ethan C.]

>>And so, we "radical religio[nists]" must be contained and marginalized, if not eliminated.<<

They better get right on that, before the demography catches up to them.

I hope the conference has panels on forced sterilization and reeducation camps; otherwise, I'm afraid I can't take it seriously as a step toward effective solutions.

[Greg]

<>

Well, two of the guys (Singer and Dershowitz) at this conference are interviewed in the abortion film referenced in the previous Mere Comments post. Maybe they'll touch on it there.

[DGP]

>>All theocracies, trumpeted or clandestine, have proven to be disastrous....<<

Hmm. As in theocratic Tibet, cruelly crushing the infant atheist state known as the People's Republic of China? Oh, wait.... Maybe they're thinking of China a century earlier, when it was a religiously Confucianist empire, and terrorized the innocent Europeans merely trying to go about their business? Oh, wait.... Maybe they're thinking of old India, saturated with religion in every respect, imposing its culture on nominally religious countries like England?

[DGP]

Who turned on the italics?

[Ethan C.]

Greg, remember to get those ">> <<" guys pointed in instead of out, or you end up with html tags.

And the "preview" button is key.

[Maclin Horton]

I'm disappointed to see Nat Hentoff on that list. He's a good man and has been a rare pro-life voice on the (more or less) left. I would have expected more sympathy for religion from him than this.

I see Damon Linker is featured, too. Does anybody know what in the world happened to him? How did he go from First Things editor to crusading secularist?

I never heard of Nica Lalli, but Nothing: Something to Believe In is a very funny title for a book.

[Ethan C.]

>>I never heard of Nica Lalli, but Nothing: Something to Believe In is a very funny title for a book.<<

"Ve are nihilists, Lebowski! Ve believe in nussing!!"

[Art Deco]

I see Damon Linker is featured, too. Does anybody know what in the world happened to him? How did he go from First Things editor to crusading secularist?

An observer of Dr. Linker (who I believe knows him personally) charitably suggested that he is in the character of a "gyrovague" (I had to look that up, too).

The lapse of time between when he sought a promotion to the editor's chair at First Things and when he refused to allow his employer Fr. Neuhaus to inspect the manuscript and outline for the book for which he had received a $160,000 advance was about a year. That must have been an interesting year.

If my memory serves, I do not think he held his own well with his interlocutors here or at No Left Turns or at The American Scene. Considering that he is a lapsed professor of political theory and he was arguing with one other political scientist (Joseph Knippenberg), an English professor (Alan Jacobs), a lawyer (Bradford Short), a journalist (Ross Douthat), and various extras about arguments he himself had developed, that is surprising.

You tell me, but I think if you review what he did say at those times, it seems like he merely regurgitated what various of Fr. Neuhaus's critics have been saying right along. You would think that having imbibed and then rejected the notions of a particular subculture, he would bring somthing rather more original to his critique than he does.

Then you have to remember, he is a man with a very extensive liberal education which gave him specific preparation only to teach; he had had visiting and adjunct appointments (at Brigham Young, &c.) but had failed to land a permanent job; had gone thence to a position writing speeches for Rudolph Giuliani; thence to a position on Fr. Neuhaus' staff; thence to his current illustrious employments.

Suggest that nothing may have happened to him, and that implicit in his utterances has been the following: "See what I have to stoop to to earn a living."

[Judy Warner]

>>>No, no, the brights argue that Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia were really *religious* in their approach to no religion in society and so atheistic ideas can't be blamed for all those deaths. <<<

This is Christopher Hitchens's argument. It is such a bad argument that it strengthens my belief that Hitchens will eventually become a Christian; it is a last-ditch, hanging-on-by-the-fingernails argument.

[GL]

I saw Hitchens interviewed a few weeks ago. Apparently, his brother is a Christian. Let us hope that his brother's life will prove a bigger influence than his desire to be seen as part of the new-atheist intelligentsia.

[Judy Warner]

Hitchens's motivation doesn't seem to be so much his social standing among intellectuals as a burning hatred for religion and God. That's the kind of thing that can flip more easily.

[Rob Grano]

"Ve are nihilists, Lebowski! Ve believe in nussing!!"

Yeah, say what you'd like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

[labrialumn]

And the "new atheists" aren't passionately religious about it?
Aren't in fact, fundamentalist jihadists in the modern MSM use of the term? (not the 5 booklets on the fundamentals based upon the Apostle's Creed, obviously)

[Maclin Horton]

"Ve are nihilists..." Isn't that followed by certain dismaying threats against the person of The Dude? If so it gives the book title noted above a certain piquancy.

Art D, that is a plausible explanation for the Linker affair. I actually have a copy of Theocons, a review copy discarded by someone else. I sort of doubt that I'll ever get around to reading it.

[Judy Warner]

More on Nica from James Taranto:

Nada, Give Me Strength We hadn't heard of Nica Lalli until we picked up USA Today and found her op-ed titled "Atheists Speak With Just One Voice." Lalli, "an artist, educator and writer who lives in Brooklyn," published a book earlier this year whose title, "Nothing: Something to Believe In," is reminiscent of our riff on the conspiracy of none against Hillary Clinton. The current atheism fad seems to have passed poor Lalli by; as of early this afternoon, her book ranked No. 37,402 on Amazon, 37,335 slots below Christopher Hitchens's "God Is Not Great."

Lalli is unhappy with being lumped in with the likes of Hitch, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, who she pointedly notes are "mostly male." She wants you to know that "there is more than one kind of atheist," and that although she is "angry at some believers," as she "should be," she isn't the sort of atheist who has an "interest in telling anyone else what he should or should not believe." What she really yearns for is "dialogue." She is unhappy that atheists "are rarely even invited to the table when discussions among different religions (or beliefs) are held."

You may think she's exaggerating, but it really does seem as though the entire Christian religion has snubbed Lalli. How else to explain the opening paragraph in her piece:

I have a question for the Christians out there: If you could pick one living person to be the face of the entire Christian faith, who would that person be? Even if you could pick three, or even five people, it would still be a challenge. I imagine it would be hard to figure out whether you wanted to pick those Christians who think most like you, or if you would pick people who could better represent the many colors of Christianity, the subtle differences and big-picture similarities.

We lived in Brooklyn for a time in the early 1990s. Back then, at least, there were Christians there, and it seems unlikely that all of them have left. Lalli should see if she can find one so that she can ask her question directly. We're pretty sure the answer will be Christ.

[F Jones]

Could we have a plural society where there is free competion between the various world-views, rather than a secular one in which one view is imposed by the state? The distinction seems to be lost on many posters. Secular does unfortunately not mean plural.