SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Religion Of Secularism

THE SPINE DECEMBER 6, 2007

The Religion Of Secularism

BY JAMES KIRCHICK

Boston has always been a city of religion. Or of religions. It began with the Puritans or, to be more precise, with the Puritan ultras, the Plymouth Brethren. But since it was a part of the king's venture into the new world it also had a deep strain of Anglicanism. And then of other Protestantisms, like the Congregationalists. Roman Catholicism followed and, with the immigrations from Ireland and Italy, exploded. Then, of course, the Jews.

Unitarianism had its home in Boston. The Unitarians, it was said, believed in their own trinity. The fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man and the neighborhood of Boston. Years ago, I attended a funeral at the First Unitarian Church in Cambridge. The minister was commending the soul of the deceased to...well, whom? He said, "And if perchance there is an afterlife..."

When I was at college I had my radio-alarm clock set for the station on which the Kennedy family priest would recite the "Hail Mary..." every morning at the appointed hour that I wished to wake. Of course, the priest was Bernard Cardinal Cushing. I meant no disrespect for Cushing or his faith by this little behavioral curiosity of mine. The real reason my wake-up "call" was set to him is that he had a very gravelly voice through which it was literally impossible to sleep.

Around the same time, there was a recalcitrant priest, Father Leonard Feeney, who led a weekly procession of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary from his little cloister across from Adams House at Harvard down the Charles to the Boston Commons. There on each Sunday morning he would inveigh against the Jews. No, not because they had done wrong to the Palestinians. But because of the Jewish plot, encapsulated in the Salk and Sabin vaccines against polio, to "kill good Catholic children." Cushing finally had Feeney excommunicated, but he survived with his fanatics for a few years until his little posse collapsed of its own madness. And his hostel became the Cafe Pamplona.

Now, of course, Greater Boston has become a center for "the religion of secularism." That's the phrase that Mitt Romney put into the campaign today as a hostile characterization of that faith that knows no faith...and often derides the faith of others. Michelle Cottle has posted a Plank taking him to task -- in a very gentle way -- for doing this. But, in Boston (where for decades as a reputable citizen and then as governor Romney has practiced his religion with barely anyone noticing) and elsewhere around the country, the name of God seems to give a lot of people the creeps.

Without some wrestling with the angel, lives tend to get spiritually desiccated. When religion was seen as an enemy of the intelligent and the intellectual the culture itself lost some of its richness and complexity. Yes, religions themselves took on a more hostile character and so now we have two hostile camps facing each other.

I do not like Romney. I did not vote for him in Massachusetts. And, since I'm a Democrat, I will not have even the opportunity to vote against him (at least in the primary). But I hope that his speech will explain to fervid religious people who disdain Mormonism and to fervid secularists that faith is no impediment to service.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 27 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

27 comments

Secularism is not a religion.

Enough said.

- Androscoggin

December 6, 2007 at 3:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In my younger and more vulnerable years I used to power my alarm clock with the energy of Our Lady of Perpetual Motion.

- teplukhin2you

December 6, 2007 at 3:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

About this "religion of secularism," idea, which Marty really seems to like, I think he should read Noam Scheiber's response:

"Is it just me, or is it slightly bizarre to use the word "religion" in a derogatory way--to conjure up dogma, irrationality, intolerance--in a speech defending religion?"

Yes, it's bizarre, because it's a tacit admission that religion is an anachronism.

- huntlib

December 6, 2007 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And his hostel became the Cafe Pamplona."

I used to eat at the cafe and the food was very good and very plain.  The flan was out of this world, though.

Is it still there? I should revisit the place.

Everything else you wrote was before my time and I knew nothing about the crazy Priest.

- jacksondyer

December 6, 2007 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't trust politicians who talk about the religion of secularism.

- jacksondyer

December 6, 2007 at 4:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excuse me for this, Mr. Peretz, but I'll transfer here what I said on that thread:

And on Jefferson on the need to avoid "religious fanaticism", this is the lesson you should concentrate on. Implied is the idea that only adequate formation in these matters can avoid the uninformation that allows for the spreading of "religious fanaticism" and of untempered "religious sects".

Today in America this lesson applies. You should not, if you cherish your polity and it's health, involve yourselves in a sectarian fight between "secularists" and "religious". You should try to inform yourselves adequately on these matters in order to avoid the taking over of the American polity by extremely undigestable religious groups.

All this mixed with a Straussian political use (perversion) of religion as it has been seen amongst Republicans... and you're defenseless. Culturaly defenseless. Of course, not on the coasts. But all those enormous mass of people with no education whatsoever is willing to buy the first garbage that is given to them.

If the American bien pensant prouds himself of having no theological culture whatsoever, in the present climate, that means sectarian blindness. And worst: complete non-commitment with his fellow Americans and the cultural vulnerability in which they are.

I should say that I do not say this out of any religious zeal in the traditional sense. What I know on theology I learned outside any Church. I had no religious upbringing and do not profess any institutionalized religion (I mistrust all of them, actually). What I know about of God was learned out of interest of learning about man.

- luispc

December 6, 2007 at 4:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't like politician who talk about the "religion of secualarism."

If Romney says that his religion will have no bearing on his Presidency then like all other Presidents before him will be a secular President. Hence he denies secularism in our culture either out of ignorance or out mendacity. Take your pick.

- jacksondyer

December 6, 2007 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Cafe Pampona is below my building.  It looks okay, but nothing special, I can't understand why it has such a big reputation.

- achester99

December 6, 2007 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who said faith was an impediment to service?  I'm getting really sick of the strawmen here.

- jhildner

December 6, 2007 at 5:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess all those church spires in Boston are on buildings with no occupants. Seriously, from his old office at the Massachusetts State House he can see the Park Street Church and he says there's no religion in Boston? I guess his equation is, not fundamentalist or Mormon = secular.

- rozenson

December 6, 2007 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marty wrote: "Without some wrestling with the angel, lives tend to get spiritually desiccated."

What do you mean by "wrestling with the angel?"  I've never heard that expression.

Marty wrote: “When religion was seen as an enemy of the intelligent and the intellectual the culture itself lost some of its richness and complexity.”

What period of time do you have in mind?  When has religion been “seen as an enemy of the intelligent and the intellectual?”  Seen by whom?   Are you talking about the former Soviet Union?  It is very important that people are not fined or imprisoned for their religious practices as long as those practices don’t harm others.  But I think it is good for people to realize that creationism is false.  It is.  And understanding evolution helps people understand the causes of the differences among organisms.  

Marty wrote: “I do not like Romney. I did not vote for him in Massachusetts. And, since I'm a Democrat, I will not have even the opportunity to vote against him (at least in the primary). But I hope that his speech will explain to fervid religious people who disdain Mormonism and to fervid secularists that faith is no impediment to service.”

What do you mean by “fervid secularists?”  And some beliefs that I associate with religion probably would be an “impediment to service.”  For example, I would be very uneasy voting for someone who didn’t believe in evolution.  It would suggest that they have poor judgment or that they are not particularly well-educated.  

- David52194

December 6, 2007 at 6:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh come all ye faithless. Joyless and full of cynicism. Oh come all ye citizens of nowhere at all. I am the Alpha. I am the Omega. Oh come let us adore me. Oh come let us adore me Oh come let us adore me. Collectively.

- boxofrox

December 6, 2007 at 8:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Me, I've never wrestled with the Angel Moroni, but I've wrestled with the non-angelic Morons of non-subscriber TalkBack threads.

Not sure if it sharpens the brain or heals the soul, but it puts hair on your chest. Kinda.

- teplukhin2you

December 6, 2007 at 9:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romney is hiding his Mormonism and begging for the Evangelical vote.  The best he could do was try to assure the theocrats that his beliefs are more like their own than they think - the scary thing is, I believe him.

This is the state of Republican party campaigning.  Dreadful stuff, but it's okay with Marty.  After all, one must wrestle with angels to avoid moral decay, or something like that.  Maybe Marty is no less reasonable than the creationist Huckabee, but it is disappointing to read such nonsense in TNR.  

- purcellneil

December 6, 2007 at 11:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And these ignorant "secularists" that do not know the first thing on history, philosophy and theology are falling right there on the trap this Romney man is putting on their way! They don't even understand that what he is precisely doing is buying a war on religion vs. secularism in America. And guess who is going to win? Guess who's going to capture the hearts and minds of all that evangelical mass?

The "secularists" side is sooooo feeble, too intellectualy lazy. They are so stupidly self-confident, so unaware of everything, that they are like little sheep before a wolf that they do not even understand as a wolf or why precisely it is a wolf.

God, how dumb people are!

- luispc

December 7, 2007 at 5:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At least, Peretz, showing again his stuborn intelligence is smelling a rat and avoiding this talk of secularists vs. religious...

- luispc

December 7, 2007 at 5:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And if anyone there is still smart enough, and wants to simply shut Romney's mouth, he'll sure will not be dumb to the point of accepting that Romney represents the religious side (ultimately Jesus!) against the secularists. No one can be that dumb!

If you're smart enough you'll concentrate on two points: on the theological absurdity of mormonism and on why Romney and his Republican pals are not really Christians or Jeffersonians, but plain libertarians that seek religious justification for their unjustifiable beliefs.

Is there anyone smart enough to see this around there? Or are you all beyond remedy?

- luispc

December 7, 2007 at 6:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course I recognize I'm thinking wishfully. Except for Peretz, everyone from Ms. Cottle to Mr Chotiner, from Senorita Jhildner to Senor David52194, everyone seems to be falling right there on the trap Romney is putting on their way. Hell, they are endorsing a candidate with Jesus and Jefferson on his side! No matter what Jesus and Jefferson said themselves!

And of course purcelneill in all his confusions is seeing exactly what is happening: "Romney is hiding his Mormonism and begging for the Evangelical vote".

- luispc

December 7, 2007 at 6:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

luis

While you and Marty wrestle with angels, and gaze admiringly on Mitt Romney, I will continue to lament the fact that the GOP is now plainly a sectarian political party.  I doubt that Jefferson would have approved - and as for Jesus, I believe His one comment on the separation of church and state was clearly on my side of the debate.

Neil

- purcellneil

December 7, 2007 at 7:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who is gazing admiringly at Romney, Neil?!?! Didn't you get what I said?!?! I said that he was being so smart as to have everyone gazing admiringly at him, while the dumb and ignorant secularists are buying precisely the war that he wants them to buy. Please re-read my posts.

And what he is doing is not really news within the American polity... This started at least back at the moment in which Reagan presented a caricature of Jefferson and presented himself as the "last jeffersonian" (even you bought that...and many are still buying it...). And reached it's zenith when Bush suggested himself as divinely inspired, as "mars christianissimus" (most christian warrior)...

And while they were having their sweet way turning the American polity upside down, the "secularists" were too worried with their own bellies and with abortion to even understand what they were doing! As they are now before another trap: Romney's.

In one thing I would agree with you: Jefferson would puke before Romney. And I'm not sure what he would make of the "secularists". Something between piety for their dumbness and despise for their ignorance and their egotistic self-centeredness.

Did you get what I said now? If you didn't, please ask further, since I'm really interested in having this message passed

- luispc

December 7, 2007 at 9:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

They are so fucking stupid that they will even bring up gay marriage!

- luispc

December 7, 2007 at 10:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes allright, "The Plank", "The smartest blog on the net. Period"....

- luispc

December 7, 2007 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I must apologize to Ms. Cottle on the above said. She made a good point on The Plank and surely close to the target.

- luispc

December 7, 2007 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now, I don't like asparagus.

It seems that everyone and their grandmother likes asparagus except me.  When I wave off the casserole dish they roll their eyes at me, or worse.  I am the ingrate, the uncouth heathen.  Lack of proper upbringing, no doubt. Or maybe a head injury shortly after birth.

But, well, I don't like the way it tastes. And I don't eat something just because others eat it, or because people tell me it's good for me.  I eat what I want, when I want, and ignore the rest.

You asparagus eaters out there--enjoy!  I have no quarrel with your sense of taste, your little hobby.

Unless, that is, any deleterious actions on your part toward me in some way derive from the fact that you like asparagus and I don't.  Should that become the case, should you attempt to restrict or enforce my behavior based on my disdain for asparagus, should you deny rights or equal protection under the law or any of America's great freedoms and privileges because of my dislike for asparagus, should you seek to distribute wealth among the asparagus lovers at the expense of those of us asparagus haters, well then my friend, you better come armed with something a little stronger than your smug superiority, your clever "religion of asparagus haters" one-liners.

You may have asparagus in all its supernatural power and glory on your side.  That, plus $1.85, will get you a doppio espresso at Starbucks, in my view.

- williamyard

December 7, 2007 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You should know better Bill Yard. Not that one cares if you like aspargus or not. But the right way to go on this: who is making aspargus an issue? and who is more interested on aspargus being an issue? Who is implying that he is the all-aspargus-man against aspargus haters that are accepting their quality as such (even if perhaps wrongly)?

Who should say the all-aspargus-man that he is a fake, but is in no position to do that since he does not know the first thing about aspargus culture, about aspargus perversion and about aspargus consumption? Who should say the all-aspargus-man that the Real Aspargus perhaps is not at all pleased with that fake all-aspargus-man?

- luispc

December 7, 2007 at 5:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Even if apparently out of context and considering many other discussions that have taken place here on TNR in these last few days, perhaps Jose Ortega y Gasset said it all on "What is Philosophy":

"This possibility enerves the Christians and irritates the Anti-Christians, the Moderns. The Christian is Anti-Modern: he confortable installs himself, once and for all, against Modernity. He does not accept it (...) And now it is solemnly announced to him that Modernity is a mature fruit of the idea of God. On his side, the Modern is Anti-Christian, he believes that Modernity borns against the religious idea. And now he is invited to recognize himself, precisely as Modern, as son of God. This irritates. It means to interfere with the dogmatic topics of history".

- luispc

December 8, 2007 at 3:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The translation from Spanish is of course mine, and I already apologize to the memory of Ortega y Gasset for my unability to honour him properly.

- luispc

December 8, 2007 at 3:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close