Further Thoughts on Secularism and Polytheism

I posted the letter to the Financial Times where a college professor from India decried monotheism and declared the benevolent goodness of polytheism and its modern ally, secularism.  The letter struck me as provocative and worth mentioning in its own right.

But now I think I see a connection.

Polytheism, of course, was the norm in the Roman Empire.  The Empire managed its many gods by uniting everyone in a common worship of the emperor.  Worship as many gods as you like as long as you also worship the apotheosis of the state.

Secularism is, indeed, like polytheism in this sense.  Have whatever religious sensibility you like as long as you recognize that your ultimate allegiance is to the secular state which is representative of the real world.  Don’t ever let your religion get between you and the state.  Keep it private.  Keep it in hobby status.

Score one for the man from India.

When it comes to this issue, I unapologetically encourage you to read The End of Secularism.  The more Christians (especially those of a pietistic bent who like to privatize their faith) who read it and understand it, the better equipped we will be to confront the creeping return of the rainbow assortment of gods frolicking beneath the banner of a state happy to tolerate them because they don’t count for much in the end.

Comments

[dca]

"Secularism is, indeed, like polytheism in this sense."

monothesim: belief in a single imaginary god.
polytheism: belief if more than one imaginary god.

The difference is the number.

actually secularism is increasing - math once again.

[Hunter Baker]

So, DCA, go ahead and define secularism for us.

[Octagon]

Hunter, I'm currently working on my dissertation in the religion and politics arena. One thing I've thought about is claims like the following you make above:

"Keep it private. Keep it in hobby status."

These really aren't the same, right? If you think they are, you're seriously devaluing the private sphere. Why is keeping religion in the private sphere treating it like a hobby (same question for Stephen Carter, btw)?

I'm not an exclusivist liberal, just so you know. I'm just curious about your reply.

[Hunter Baker]

Octagon, I suppose the answer to that question would depend on what kind of faith we are talking about. If we mean a faith that simply requires a believer perform certain rituals, prayers, etc., then you are right and there is a big difference. But if we are talking about a faith that actually purports to affect your public actions and decisions, then secularism does in fact try to push your faith into hobby status.

[Octagon]

I can't see that it's that stark. It depends on whether private life has high weight with respect to public life. For instance, many Christian denominations encourage participation in public life but don't see it as essential to living the faith. In that case, it looks like religion isn't *trivialized* but it is still given some kind of second-class status. Now, don't get me wrong, I think that's objectionable to a large degree because it can violate the integrity of citizens of faith but let me ask you about another case:

Suppose that a Christian is a juror and is asked to debate a verdict only with respect to the available evidence. In other words, she cannot appeal to even very important rules of her faith to decide the case. Suppose, for instance, that this is a case concerning abortion and her vote will determine whether the jury hangs or not. If she votes one way, the anti-abortion verdict will stand, but debating on the relevant evidence will lead to a pro-abortion verdict. What then? Does this form of privatization violate the integrity of the citizen of faith? Does it trivialize her devotion or demote her faith to second-class status?

In this case, it seems fine.

[Hunter Baker]

The issue I have with your example is that you can have that situation without religion. You could have a completely non-religious objection to abortion that would put you in the same position. How does secularism help the situation?

[Micah Watson]

Rousseau's civil religion links the commonality you describe in the original post HB (you know this, but others might not).

Believe in anything you like so long as you hold the social contract sacred. Religion is good because it's useful . . .

[Tony Esolen]

Octagon,

You should read Russell Hittinger's The First Grace.

As for religion being private, well, devotional feelings can be private, and sometimes prayer can be private, but the energetic practice of religion can no more be private than can any other activity that touches upon man's relation to the divine and to his fellow men. To say that religion should be kept private is about as self-contradictory as to say that politics should be kept private; that it is not seen as absurd is a function of our having elevated the state to the status of an idol.

[Juli]

A juror whose choice of verdict is independent of the evidence has no busines being on a jury. That juror has decided the case before the trial.