The Increasing Secularism of the U.S.

"The law is a ass, a idiot," said the parish beadle Mr. Bumble in Dickens' "Oliver Twist." People of faith today have every reason to reach a similar conclusion, as endless head-butting with the secular legal system seems to occur with dismaying regularity.

Whether it's the heartless inflexibility of the state and federal courts that discounted the moral dimensions of the Terri Schiavo case, or the long-running battles with secularists who want to stamp out every last vestige of religion from the public square, the list of cases that pit religion against secular forces grows apace.

Believers are tuned to every secular thrust: the drive to suppress Christmas in public schools; the removal of the Ten Commandments from public buildings; the objection to allowing a teacher to wear a cross around her neck; the harassment of the Boy Scouts; the banishment of nativity scenes in communities; removal of cross symbols from historical signage; the release of a known killer because a juror consulted the Bible during a trial, and on and on.

A perverse image comes to mind: a vampire cowering in fear when the dreaded cross is flashed in front of him. Thus militant secularists recoil in horror when they are confronted with religious symbols in the course of their everyday lives.

While believers and non-believers come in all different varieties, one wonders what the real animus against religious beliefs and practices must be for agnostics and atheists. Is it simply general discomfort, the way a Michigan football fan might feel in the middle of Ohio State partisans?

Why would an atheist bring a case all the way to the Supreme Court in the attempt to strike the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance? Why would a father sue the Boy Scouts to force them to admit his atheist son to their theistic ranks?

Pared of the usual smokescreen reasons – separation of church and state, discrimination, etc. – the root cause in all these cases is mere hubris – the arrogant, overweening presumption of non-believers that they have the corner on the truth.

Life is, as they say, too short for believers to be worried about the trivial matters that set atheists to vibrating: whether the Ten Commandments should hang in a schoolroom; if Frostie the Snowman must be included in a manger scene; or if traditional Christmas carols should be removed from the high school choral repertory.

What bothers atheists and agnostics is the fact that the religious have a measure of certainty about their beliefs – they believe in a higher power that has some interaction with human beings. Non-believers have no such certainty, only doubts. What is more important, they resent the fact that believers claim certainty.

While believers really don't care that there exist atheists among them – except as souls to be saved, perhaps – atheists can't stand the fact that there are so many believers. So they superciliously construe any public demonstrations or symbols of faith as an affront to their sensibilities – no more, no less.

What concerns believers, however, is the increasing secularization of the country. Since over 80 percent of all Americans claim to be religious, this process is being driven by a minority, using a misreading of the First Amendment – the tail wagging the proverbial dog. It is an irony that atheists claim intolerance by the majority, yet it is they who aggressively run to court to have their views prevail.

Believers maintain that morality ultimately derives from God, who has been revealed to humankind throughout history. By contrast, secularists believe that moral issues can be resolved on a purely rational basis.

These two contradictory positions remain a mystery; suffice to say that every person must reach his or her own answers based upon religious teaching, philosophic questioning and personal experience.

The implications for a society whose members and leaders are not informed by moral and ethical principles are vast. Whether these derive from a higher power is an open question and people will ultimately choose their sides.

Finally, it would be helpful if every truth-seeker would take a course in the philosophy of religion, which might bring some intellectual modesty to these matters. It might similarly even reveal the truth of which Isaiah spoke, about how the people who walked in darkness have seen a great light.

Barrett Kalellis is a Michigan-based columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications. He may be reached at kalellis@newsmax.com.

Actually, when religiously minded people find out that you're an atheist, many have a tendency to equate that with some sort of devil worship, and a lot of those will start reciting some passage from the Bible in order to 'enlighten' you.

And what is commonly understood as 'devil worship', by the way, might be something like worshipping nature or a big rock in your backyard. So what? As long as they're not hurting anybody, (say like some people who might not get their sick baby timely medical care, because their version of God will take of it all) what business of it is of anybody else to impose their values?

If you want to believe in any of the myriad religious teachings, hey, you're an American, you've got that right, and more power to you. When you want to impose your particular brand of religion on everybody else, whether they're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, pagan, or atheists, people are going to have a tendency to get rather testy about it.

I know that's difficult to understand for people who live strictly 'by the Book', but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Therefore, nobody should be surprised when there's a backlash against certain religious groups who advocate that a government of all people should interpret civil law strictly according to one particular religious belief and it's accompanying tract.

As an agnostic I take offense at being lumped in with atheists. Atheism to me is a faith based religion. It just places faith in the fact that there is no god. They also preach to others what they believe and actively seek the conversion of "non-believers".

A true agnostic should never be innately antagonistic toward religious beliefs. Even though I went to church during most of the time I was growing up, I just never found a true faith in any religion. No amount of preaching can ever change that. I would love to have the comfort of believing in an eternal order and an omnipotent being. I just don't and I can't lie to myself.

What really bothers me is the way the atheists have declared an all out war on Christianity. One would have to be blind not to notice the incessant attempts to tear away at the founding principles of this nation. What makes it all the more disturbing to me, is that the atheists, themselves a proponent of a faith based belief system (faith there is no god), are being allowed to establish their "church" as an officially government sponsored religion in the name of secularism.

Please remember that a real agnostic is not the same as an atheist - the atheists just want you to think they are. Also, anyone who claims to be an agnostic that is outwardly hostile to those with religious beliefs, is really an atheist.

Even though I can't force myself to believe in any deity, I try to live my life by the general intentions of Christian teachings. To me strong moral values are the glue of civilization. Without them, things can rapidly fall apart.

I've known atheists who actually are angered if someone prays for their well being. That is irrational behavior and pretty much sums up most of the atheists I have known. I would much rather live with Christians than with atheists.

Finally, I would like to mention that being an extremely fiscal conservative, a true agnostic with strong moral values, and one who supports the Christian values of this country, is an extremely lonely existence. I don't recommend it by choice.

Non-believers have no such certainty, only doubts.

I have to take issue with this. If these "non-believers" really were riddled with doubt, they wouldn't take to the barricades with such avidity and dispatch. On the contrary, they have a religious certainty of a magnitude that would leave Peter the Hermit gaping in awe.

The difference is not "belief" versus "non-belief" and the sooner we see it the better. The difference is between "beliefs" with different content.

For instance, I might frame a discussion this way: Consider the man Jesus of Nazareth. Practically everybody is persuaded "believes" that such a person lived in the first century of this era, and that he suffered a criminal's execution at the hands of the imperial Roman government. Now comes the question:

Where is he today?

Any answer that we might give to that question, and I mean ANY answer, involves a "belief". I wasn't alive to see Jesus in the first century, so I don't know the answer firsthand, and I am reasonably confident that nobody who reads these words can claim anything better.

Again, it's not "belief" vs "non-belief". It's more like "belief in A" vs "belief in non-A".

And if anybody brings up the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", settle the question of who defines "extraordinary" before proceeding. The secularist survives by insisting on the sole right to mark the field, and the effect is that only secularist touchdowns show on the scoreboard. If someone wishes to claim that a group of uneducated hicks who willingly endured martyrdom rather than retract their claims to have seen Jesus alive after his execution were mass-hallucinating or had secretly stolen the body or <insert your favorite dodge here>, then I want THAT claim treated as extraordinary. Equal opportunity for all.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.