Erick Erickson is frantic to keep the conservatives on, or above, the moral level of the left, because that’s what keeps the chins of the conservatives up.
Secularism is, in fact, a religion. It has sacraments like support for abortion rights. It has tithing in which secular adherents give money to various political and social causes. It has liturgies in the new speak of wokeness. It has theological tracts and church services as rally and protest and Episcopal mass. It has even spurred the rise of terrorist zealots and the new censorious social justice warriors I have taken to calling Woke-O Haram.
Secularism has various denominations. Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton, both purported religious pastors who have embraced secular causes, were famous in the 1980s and 1990s for pressuring corporate America to pay indulgences to their various social justice causes, most often aligned with race issues. If a corporation did not pay, it could expect calls for boycotts and protest from the secular religious adherents.
In secularism there is no concept of grace, which remains a uniquely Christian concept of giving people that which they do not deserve. Likewise, secularism’s eschatology, or study of the end times, tends to be bleak. You die, the worms eat your body, and Simba sings about the Circle of Life until the sun explodes, everything incinerates, and the universe goes dark.
And there’s more, but that’s enough. It’s easy enough to note that …
- “Woke” remains an intensely controversial ideology which appears to be incompatible, and in my opinion inferior, to the liberalism which has carried Western Civ to arguably advanced heights of civilization, and “woke” has been clutched at prematurely by many out of guilt, lack of thought, or desire for power by many.
- “theological tracts and church services as rally and protest …” ignores the fact that the former is invocations of a Divinity unproven, while the latter are a tactic addressing specific societal problems.
- The corporate “indulgences,” a loaded theological term used to indulge[1] in ad hominem attacks, are hardly that; any donations that occurred were often carefully calculated by the approving C-Suite executives to enhance the corporation’s concrete future.
- And, of course, in Erickson’s own right wing ideology, the equivalent to grace, by his definition, is welfare.
And the rest of his argument is equally dubious. But it really comes down to this:
On the one side, all of the institutions are based on an unknown Divinity which is only thought to exist. The writings attributed to it come from the hands of men & women; that they are thought to be the mere instruments of that Divinity, or inspired by it, is private knowledge, knowledge only known to the happy recipient – or invented by them. One can build up all the logical structures one wants, but if the foundation, the assumptions, upon which structures are built are unstable, then so is the logic.
On the other hand, secularism, the lack of religious influence over public affairs[2], can be conducted rationally. Long-time readers know that I believe that humans can be rational, but are not by nature rational. This means, yes, mass murderers can be religious or not. But a properly rational polity, which has a clear understanding of its goals, and why those goals contribute to both short-term and long-term survival, is in my view not the equivalent of a religious sect because its adherents, properly thoughtful, should also be lacking in that arrogance that comes naturally to the cult adherent.
And that means, very importantly, that course corrections can be enacted bloodlessly.
In Erickson’s post, he references Luther, the Catholic monk outraged by the practice of selling indulgences, who arguably is the progenitor of multiple long and bloody wars between his Protestants and their predecessor Catholics. It’s appalling how often change in religious institutions involves a large amount of blood; and, worse, it’s over inarguable points of religious tenets. Why inarguable? Because it’s based on private knowedge: God told me, I must be right and you can’t challenge me. It’s based on inscrutable writings: It’s God’s finger writing that, you have to believe. Implicit in such confrontations is power, wherein those holding it invoke the status quo, those wanting it claiming those who have it are blasphemers, apostates, or worse.
And it’s never based on rationality.
And, of course, irreligious violence is also famous. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot: their names are legion for their mass murders. Of course, if you don’t hold human life sacred, then they’re not so bad. Perhaps that applies to the Crusaders out to massacre the Muslims who held the sacred lands, too.
I, personally, care not to live in lands ruled by the like of either group.
But I see little rationality in the theocrats. Excuses found in religious literature for crimes large and small are found all over, such as Erickson’s own claim that Christian theology made Trump into God’s tool; all such claims inarguable but with your favorite of weapon of whatever period we’re talking.
But secular rationality grounded in the study of reality, the clear eyed understanding of history and how humanity works (and I fear I’ll part ways with a large party of atheists at this point), and societal goals grounded in justice … put these three together, along with a big dose of humility, and it’s clear that secularism can not be the equivalent of a religious sect. I don’t doubt that a secularism driven by unhinged passions and a dearth of historical sense – or just simple lust for power – will be driven down to the level of a sect, such as that which Erickson inhabits so joyfully.
But I think that Erickson’s not making a reasoned argument, but instead trying to stir the passions of his fellow cult members, because in passion comes a cessation of thinking. Right now, the conservative movement, powered by the evangelicals, is demonstrating a profound contempt for democracy: the insurrection, the refusal of the Senate GOP to convict Trump, the mass GOP refusal to vote for legislation to help the American voter, Democrat and Republican, and now the attempts to disenfranchise voters under the guise of suppressing voter fraud that does not appear to have existed in the first place.
It’s quite a jerky line Erickson has to balance on. It appears he’s still on the part where he has to convince his fellow conservative that they’re morally superior to those bad lefties. The “woke” are an easy target, but if the left, after appropriate discussion and debate, dump them by the side of the road, he’ll have a helluva harder time of it.
Can Erickson drag his democracy haters back into the fold of democracy? He’s got a couple of years to try.
