Book Review: The End of Secularism, by Hunter Baker

It has long been the consensus among the intellectual elite of America that secularism in the public square is a neutral approach to culture and politics, and that it is the only effective way to protect the various constituents of a pluralistic society from the conflicting ideologies of religious fundamentalists. It has also been assumed that this approach is the true genius of American democracy, and that its ongoing validity is ensured by the “separation of church and state” clause in the first amendment. But are such widespread assumptions valid? In a very compelling little volume, The End of Secularism, Hunter Baker argues that they are not.

The essential problem with the theories of a secular public square is that secularism is not the same thing as neutrality, nor has it ever been. As a theory of culture, secularism has its roots in the skeptical Enlightenment, and has always been a politically charged ideology, confidently (but errantly) predicting the decline of religion and the corresponding advance of science. Now, even overlooking the assumed but fallacious premise that religion and science are mutually exclusive methods of obtaining knowledge, Baker’s well-documented history of the rise of secularism in America proves something very vital, but rarely admitted: secularism itself is a contested worldview, and hence insufficient to be the arbiter between worldview conflicts in the public square. In reality, it stands alongside Christianity, feminism, environmentalism, Judaism, etc., as one more contestant in the culture wars. But secularism, in an underhanded way, has attempted to win the war by barring all other views in a pluralistic society from the public square where the battles take place. Religion is fine, in private; but in the culture, where policies are legislated and decisions are made, it is off-limits; there, only secularism is allowed. And hence, by default, it wins. The strategy of the secularists has largely been successful in the past decades; but a new wave of criticism, much of which is rooted in the postmodern worldview, portends significant change, which one would do well to be aware of.

What about the “establishment of religion” clause in the First Amendment? Surely that, at least, supports the claims of the secularists that religious views should be kept out of the government? No, Baker would argue, the clause does not even address the question of religious freedom in the states. On the contrary, it is merely jurisdictional – “Congress shall make no law [but the states, in assumption, may]…”. The amendment “kept control of religious matters in the hands of the states, which would maintain their own governments in a coordinated partnership with the new federal government” (p. 81). Such an understanding may sound radical and incredible, but Baker has laid out a reasonable argument for his view.

Well, then, the unconvinced reader may say, if there really is no reason, legal or otherwise, to keep our religious views out of Washington, what will prevent us from establishing a theocracy and persecuting all whose beliefs differ from our own? This is likewise a point Baker treats of at some length, arguing for a truly pluralistic society, and not just a secular society (which ironically would itself eliminate pluralism, just as the secular and scientific totalitarian governments of the Marxists undertook to do). In a perceptive analysis, Baker suggests, “Though Christians often bemoan the separation of church and state and claim angrily that the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, they are actually expressing their frustration with secularism as the preferred ideology of many elites in politics, media, and education. Christians should absolutely bring their faith to bear in the public square. They should reject the influence of secularism urging them to keep their faith private and not to argue for a Christian perspective in areas like politics and education. What they must not do is to repeat the mistake of mingling the church’s future with that of the state” (p. 148, emphasis added).

In some of the most compelling parts of the book, Baker turns a scathing critique on the secularist movement itself, and in particular, its claims to take a solely neutral and scientific approach toward social and political science. If the secularists really employ the scientific method in sociology, where do they even come up with their cardinal rule of the equality of every person? Certainly not by scientifically quantifying the potential and actual achievements of each individual. In reality, they are on entirely borrowed ground. “If we are equal,” Baker wisely notes, “it is almost surely in the sense of being equal before God, because we are in fact equal in virtually no other way” (p. 177, emphasis original).

Baker concludes with a well-articulated summary, including the following excerpt: “Pluralism is better than secularism because it is not artificial. In a pluralistic environment, we simply enter the public square and say who we are and what we believe. We make arguments that advert to religion or other sources of values, and they are more or less convincing on a case-by-case basis. The result is that our arguments are naturally tempered by reality and we develop the virtue of civility if we pay attention. Pluralism brought about the separation of church and state. Notably, many argued for the separation of church and state on the religious basis that God would not tolerate the kind of hypocritical allegiance brought on by confessional legal regimes. The alternative presented by secularism commits the same sin in a different direction. Secularists ask that individuals with religious reasons pretend to think and act on some other basis.”

Leave a Reply