There is one line in your article that utterly destroys it for me. You say: Attacking our team for using words like "secular" actually undercuts the good side. Team? Good side? What is this, football? Skins versus shirts? C'mon this isn't a game. The faith concerns of conservatives are just as legitmate, and just as good, as the faith concerns of progressives and liberals. We hold no monopoly on truth. Such a juvenile way of discussing an issue of such seriousness completely destroys any credibility you might have had. Have some confidence in your politics AND your faith not to care one way or another what people say about either, and get out there and speak your mind, but please don't talk about teams and sides.

Cheer up, Geoffrey; politics and the sports metaphor have a long and useful relationship in the English language. Here are a few people who might see sides in politics and religion as more than "juvenile."

Surely the slightly loose use of a common metaphor doesn't destroy all of Alex's credibility. I can think of a number of other reasons to discount his arguments! And, in the greater context of the piece, it fits the 'frame game' vision that he started out with. Doc Fitz, my rigorous high school writing teacher, would be proud of such a consistent metaphor. To quote the man, 'There you go, boy, there you go.'

Now, on your substantive objection that we shouldn't talk about teams. Fair enough that we shouldn't demonize those on the other side or deride all of their truth claims. I don't doubt for a second that the concerns of many conservatives are genuine, but I do doubt whether they are good, both theologically and for American democracy. Part of the joy of that democracy is getting to freely state those differences and argue them out. Whether you call your compatriots in those arguments team mates, ideological bedfellows, or philosophical kindred spirits doesn't seem to make much difference to me.

Cheer up? Who's not cheery? I am asking for a little intellectual integrity and rigor here! I am asking for people of faith to be serious here. Don't attempt to dismiss my criticisms because you think I'm not cheery. Teams and good sides are for six graders in gym class. Dealing with serious, substantive issues takes thought, and if we are going to be Christian about it, humility.
And please don't wave a book in my face either. Because I disagree with the presupposition, the argument, for me, is irrelevant. There are no sides here. Shouldn't we, as Christians, be about that? Or are we no better than the religious conservatives who want to be sole possessors of truth?

I posted a diary on The Daily Kos on the issue of "secular fundamentalists", and here is some of the commentary :

"

I can grant that there are people who are scornful of religion, sure.

That's not what is at stake here though.

Look at the claims being made. Assertions that some great marching phalanx of "secular fundamentalists" has been chasing religious expression out of public speech.

Where's the evidence ? Where are those hordes of militant secularists who have faith in America somehow in retreat ?

I'm not talking about obnoxious behavior on the part of atheists or people of faith although there's certainly plenty of that on all sides.

The very term "secular fundamentalist" advances the frame that there is something wrong with being a secularist, that be a strong advocate of church separation is bad.

Do you think it is ?

Vilification of secularism traces back all the way back to the original opponents of the Enlightenment - who vilified secularism and advocated a return to the ancien regime of "God, King, and Family".

How little has changed.

Here's why I'm opposed to the use of the term "secular fundamentalist" :

"I can grant that there are people who are scornful of religion, sure.

That's not what is at stake here though.

Look at the claims being made. Assertions that some great marching phalanx of "secular fundamentalists" has been chasing religious expression out of public speech.

Where's the evidence ? Where are those hordes of militant secularists who have faith in America somehow in retreat ?

I'm not talking about obnoxious behavior on the part of atheists or people of faith although there's certainly plenty of that on all sides.

The very term "secular fundamentalist" advances the frame that there is something wrong with being a secularist, that be a strong advocate of church separation is bad.

Do you think it is ?

Vilification of secularism traces back all the way back to the original opponents of the Enlightenment - who vilified secularism and advocated a return to the ancien regime of "God, King, and Family".

How little has changed.

Now, a bit on the term "secular fundamentalism" :

Secularism - in the political sphere, respect for all positions that citizens in a Democracy bring to the table.

The very idea demands a willingness - on the part of citizens in a democracy - to grant that others with differing views might be correct, to entertain at least the posibility of that, or - at the bare minimum - that members of pluralistic democracies refuse the temptation, even if they believe themselves to be sole possessors of truth, religious or otherwise, to assert their views by force.

That temptation - to assert positions by force - is ever present in religious fundamentalist traditions in Christianity, Islam, in almost any religion one might care to name.

Fundamentalism is - as a position - inherently antidemocratic and so the pairing of the terms "secular" and "fundamentalist" amounts to a grand oxymoron that deeply muddies thought on the issue.

Secular "fundamentalism" is an inherently muddy term because secularism, in American government and history, is about pluralism. So, imagine "radical" or "fundamentalist" pluralism and you'll see where I'm headed....

To assert the possibility of a "radical", or "extreme" secularism would be to claim that a tradition that is at base concerned with the neutrality of government - in preventing government from being used as a vehicle to promote religion or discriminate on the basis of religion - can be used for partisan purposes.

Well, all doctrines can - of course - be subverted but this concerns issues vastly greater than squabbles over creches in town squares.

Let me use an analogy here : think of a sports game. There is a common set of rules that apply to both sides or teams ( if there be two ).

Now, imagine a movement starts that holds one certain team should be able to play by its own, preferential set of rules.

In that context, what would those arguing for the universal set of rules be called if they were to be characterized in the manner that those ( whoever they are - they are never actually identified ) attacked and vilified as "secular fundamentalists" ? Well, we might call them "level playing field fundamentalists", and that gets, really, to the heart of the matter :

The institution of secular government in the United States was created in order that federal government ( the US states became secular later on ) would amount to a "level playing field" in which no group, or groups, would enjoy special rules or privileges or be able to discriminate on the basis of religious belief ( or the lack of that ) or use the government to promote any particular religious faith.

The founders hoped - at least - to avoid the sorts of religious wars that had recently wracked Europe.

In my mind, here's what the term "secular fundamentalism" really amounts to :

secularism = in terms of politics : "a level playing field in government, with universal rules that apply equally to all citizens and groups"

"fundamentalism" seems to code for "taking an extreme, unreasonably, or intransigent position"

So, putting the two together gives us :

"People who take an extreme, unreasonable, or intransigent positions concerning the preservation of a level playing field in government and with universal rules that apply equally to all citizens and groups"

In other words - in short - the vilification of "secular fundamentalists", in the sort of examples of political and religious speech Frederick Clarkson provided, amounts to the vilification of those who advocate a level playing field in government.

"My personal feeling is that it will be impossible to completely purge religious sentiment from the public square" - I agree, and I think it would be silly to try and do that. Moreover, I'm not aware of any group or movement with any sort of power that actually seeks to do so."

Oh - also, I left out a bit in the following sentence :

"The very term "secular fundamentalist" advances the frame that there is something wrong with being a secularist, that be a strong advocate of church separation is bad."

that should read "church state separation"

Bruce,
I appreciate your comments as well as Frederick's over at
Talk To Action. But am I noticing a bit of term slippage from "secular" to "pluralist?" As I am sure you know from your work, there are millions of Americans who still miss the distinction between a religiously pluralistic America and a secular America which sounds religion-free. And, consider with me that perhaps employing the term "secular fundamentalist" is, while unappealing intellectually, effective politically as it covers liberal religious leaders from being accused of leading folks into secularism. Even the militant atheist wouldn't use the essentially oxymoronic term of "secular fundamentalist." Therefore, by pushing the scare term so far left that it applies to almost no one, Lerner, Wallis, and Obama are actually depriving the religious Right of its own oxygen.

Read the speech carefully, or better yet watch it here and see that perhaps Obama is just reminding everyone that not every mention of God in the public sphere is an attack on American values of pluralism. A graduate of Columbia and Harvard—the guy grew up secular and praises his mother of her strong nonreligious values in the speech and he argues that religious values must translate into universal principles—so clearly the guy knows his Dewey and Rorty and Hook. I admire and support the defenders of American pluralism and I believe in a high wall between church and state, but let’s not (sorry, another sporting metaphor) shoot ourselves in our non-left foot just because it looks a little different.

It is "unappealing intellectually" and it will alienate a large portion of the democratic base that lives in cities to use the language of the Klu Klux Klan because it is politically expedient.

It is "unappealing intellectually" and it will alienate a large portion of the democratic base that lives in cities to use the language of the Klu Klux Klan because it is politically expedient.

I do agree that some people who have been brought up without religion are quite ignorant about it. But that is a problem that needs to be addressed through education, not politically expedient polarization.

It may be all right with Alex to be "unappealing intellectually" as long as it is politically expedient to turn off large numbers of the democratic base on both coasts by using the language of the Ku Klux Klan and Opus Dei. I am not sure it is such a good plan myself. People feel very strongly about these things and they have long memories. I find it very offensive and I am not alone.

On the other hand, there is a problem that people who have not had a religious upbringing don't know very much about religion. This is a different problem and should be addressed through education, not least by educating yourselves on how to speak to the non-religous without giving offense.

Sorry to fall behind a bit on this string with the Blog Con this past weekend. I think there are fair points to be made that Obama's speech tripped too much into the rhetorical traps set up by the Religious Right, although I'd agree with Alex that having been there the tone of the speech was certainly intended to be one of conciliatory unity, not of divisive secular-bashing. Having digested a number of the responses to the speech both online and in person at the Blog Con, I think it's clear that the content of this address fell somewhat short of the energized unity that came out of his speech at the Dem National Convention in 04. The challenge is to set out a clear vision for the common good that gives opportunity for full participation by both religious and secularly inspired actors. I still think Obama will be up to playing a key part in the process of setting out that vision. We shouldn't forget that he ended a key section of his speech with a rousing reminder that,

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

That is the problem with Obama's speech. In one paragraph he said one thing and in and in another he said the opposite. Trying to be all things to all people is the definition of pandering is it not?

Well, I think the charitable reading would be that it is a man with integrity trying to work his way through what is clearly a difficult issue. It's one that has consumed some of the best minds in political philosophy in this country in recent decades, so I don't want to be too hard on one of the most promising leaders in the world right now. Part of real leadership is the courage to ask the tough questions, and to revise your statements in light of counterarguments. I hope that is what will follow from the good Senator.