In saecula saeculorum

There's a vibrant discussion of the role of religion over at Shakespeare's Sister, initiated by two of Shakey Sis's as-always-thought-provoking QoTDs:

Question 1: Religious libs, how do you square your own tolerance and egalitarianism with some of the more intolerant and decidedly illiberal teachings of the religion to which you subscribe?
Question 2: Secular libs, what’s your main problem with religious liberals?

You know you have an opinion, so wade into the comments over there.

Or read on and hear my two cents...

Shakey says, in the text below her Question 1: "I want to see if we can talk about the real problem, which is, to put it succinctly, a mistrust of religious liberals."

I disagree. I think the real problem is the attempt by many different liberals for many different reasons to inject religion and religiosity into liberalism.

Lately, it seems that having religiosity of some publicly announced sort has become a shibboleth for the modern liberal.

After narrowly losing a Presidency (by an "overwhelming margin" of 1 in 40 voters, during a war), and convincing ourselves that religion (as opposed to, say, rank hatred of gay people) had something to do with it, it seems like we're falling all over ourselves trying to convince the moderates of America (if not ourselves) that we're just as religious as the next guy. Sure, we don't want to restrict the rights of Muslim Americans or take away gay people's rights to have jobs or pray in schools or put the Ten Commandments in courthouses, but we're so totally down with the faith of the people on the other side of the aisle. Because faith is great!

As a result, we find ourselves in a situation where in order to be "electable" (i.e., credible, powerful within the party, etc.) one has to be religious, or at least shut up about the idea that it's not important to be religious in order to be good.

We have allowed ourselves to accept the possession (and advertisement) of religious faith as a credential.

That's what I don't like about religion in American liberalism in 2005.

But Shakey's question wasn't quite that. It was what my main problem was with religious liberals.

My answer depends heavily on a definition, which I shall take pains to clarify before answering:

For the purposes of the next paragraph or two, a "religious liberal" is different from a "liberal who happens to be Christian" in the same way that a "Christian rocker" is different from "a musician who goes to church sometimes."

My main problem with religious liberals is that they're people who feel comfortable identifying themselves as such. And to that extent, they're not liberals as I understand the term.

One of the most fundamental and dearest tenets of my liberalism is secular humanism -- in my mind defined as a belief that human beings can solve human problems, and that we don't need an Almighty or organized religion to fulfill our lives or give them meaning.

I understand that other people happen to indulge in religious practice or even religious belief (the two are certainly not equivalent), but I always hope (if not expect) that they'll put those beliefs aside when they walk into the tent of politics. I don't know if I expect that a "religious liberal" will be able to do that. If nothing else, I worry that their devotion to opposing certain of the more noxious aspects of conservatism will be blunted by their sympathy for those across the aisle.

I only want secularists in my foxhole.

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C793628462"); >

In saecula saeculorum

> >