Saving Secularism


What comes to your mind, my friends, with the word “secular”?  Think about that for a few minutes; this is important.  Because I must report today a dangerous book attacking my kingdom exactly on this point.  And I don’t like it.

Have you finished thinking about it?

No?  OK.  Take a few more minutes.


Great.  Did you think things like non-religious? Value-freeIdeologically neutralSafeConstitutional (for Americans)?  Is there anything else (for the rest of Western civilization)?

If so, then my lies have worked, my servants.  I’ve labored for centuries to convince mankind that there is a beautifully religion-free state of secularism, in which the government purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.  Movements for laïcité in France and for the separation of church and state in the United States define modern concepts of secularism.

In the United States, for example, a kid wearing a Jesus T-shirt to a God-free zone (often called a “school”) can be harassed, disciplined, and potentially subjected to expulsion to ensure a strict secularism.  In France the kid would be OK because no one would recognize the picture. 

In both cases I win.  And I like to win.  If Jesus isn’t going to be ignored as unrecognizable then I must ensure that his Godpunk followers get roughed up, threatened, fined, or otherwise silenced in the name of “separation of church and state” or some other notion of secularism.

That’s why I’m worried about a new book out, my servants.  The book by Nancy Pearcey is entitled Saving Leonardo, and although it has a fairly innocuous title, its contents are deadly to  my kingdom.  I found out about it when someone sent me a link to an equally dangerous blog where Ms. Pearcey was interviewed about her book.  I knew her name because she is a troublemaker, having already written a book entitled Total Truth that also attacked my kingdom by exposing the roots and results of various worldviews.  You can guess how she treated worldviews of which I approve!

Ms. Pearcey, it seems, has something against the pristine political notion of a secular society.  According to Pearcey, Saving Leonardo is about how the arts reflect ideas. 

The arts?  This is serious, my servants.  The arts are one of my prime stealth lie vehicles.  According to Ms. Pearcey:

[Saving Leonardo is] not about art theory, but about how secular worldviews are communicated through art and literature. After all, this is how most people’s worldview is shaped. Ideas do not typically come neatly packaged with a warning label attached.

Now that is low, folks.  She thinks my ideas must come with a warning label?  Does she realize how many labels that would require?  It’s too late for warning labels, my friends.

Ms. Pearcey even pays me a great compliment by acknowledging my stealth strategy:

Saving Leonardo shows how the arts “channel” secular worldviews deeply into people’s minds and emotions. As a result, people are often co-opted by secular worldviews without even knowing it.

Co-opted?  Not really.  Humans are born to love a secular worldview; my sin is ingrained deeply into every un-aborted human’s mind and emotion.  I just ensure they never have a chance to know anything different.

Nevertheless, I take Ms. Pearcey’s compliments; and you, my servants can thank me that you get to live a life free of any Godnonsense in the public square.  

But what really has me worried is Ms. Pearcey’s insight into the true result of a secular worldview, a result that is happening right before people’s eyes, but they are blinded to its root cause.

Ms. Pearcey states:

The problem (the need for “saving”) is that these secular worldviews fail to give an adequate basis for human dignity or political liberty.

Ouch!  That one’s gonna hurt if it gets widespread attention.  And it gets worse.  Pearcey states:

There are essentially two versions of secularism today, and both lead to a low view of the human person.

Hang on, my servants.  You will wince with me, but it’s important to know what we are up against here:

In the sciences, the dominant view is scientific materialism, which regards humans as little more than biochemical machines—no free will, no mind, not even a unified self. The human person has been reduced to a product of natural forces.

Do you know what she’s attacking here my servants?  Evolution.  Darwin.  The cornerstone of Everything Good in the world, and one pillar of my worldview, my non-creation creation story.  My creation story is one of unguided, purposeless atoms in motion from the Big Bang.  She is right–my lie’s implication is that you have no more free will than a billiard ball sent bumping around its confining walls.  You are just a meaningless product of nature.

The value in my lie is that once I get little chillens to believe they are nothing more than a worthless product of blind, uncaring nature having no intrinsic purpose, they act like that.  Suicides, homicides, infanticides, you name it, the apple of this secular lie has led to many ‘ciders

Almost finished, my servants.  Pearcey notes another secret of my kingdom:

In the humanities, the dominant view is a form of multiculturalism that subverts truth to race, class, gender, and ethnic group. Here the human person has been reduced to a product of social forces. Both versions of secularism are dehumanizing, and thus they fail to sustain political and social freedom.

Yes, and it’s a beautiful thing.  Dehumanizing is what I do.  And secularizing is how I do it.

And don’t worry, my servants.  As Ms. Pearcey notes:  mine “is a kind of “stealth” secularism that permeates society through books, music, movies, and television.”

And I still own popular books, music, movies, and television. 

At least as long as books like Saving Leonardo don’t become popular.

Let’s hope, my servants.  Let’s hope.


7 Responses to “Saving Secularism”

  1. Heavy-handed proselytization for Christianity is lame and ineffective.

  2. Brilliant blog post!

  3. Should be interesting, to see the range of reply’s you get from this..

  4. Tweeter Says:

    Blog is neither heavy-handed, nor lame. Funny. To see actual heavy-handedness, go to apprising or letusreason. That’s where the real pharisees are.

  5. Your prerogative to pretend to be and worship Satan, the devil, or whatever you want to call it is your right in this country, freedom of religion is all of ours. It’s your choice to be tolerant or intolerant. Because someone chooses to worship or not worship in a different manner than you should not exclude them from your society. Tolerance is what you need. You can’t hijack or condemn my soul because I don’t choose your same religion, you don’t have the right; although your self-righteousness tells you otherwise. My forefathers fought for my freedom of religion whether I choose to be a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim or any one of the thousands of other religions. Can you tolerate that?

    • Thank you for reading, and thank you for assuring me of my rights in this country. And please know that I not only tolerate a plurality of religious convictions, I encourage all but one. Toleration is my weapon, my friend.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: