Humanists Applaud the Withdrawal of Religious Pilgrimage Subsidies

Will someone please inform Katherine Harris that we're ALREADY a secular nation?

Sen. Barack Obama's recent speech outining his vision of the proper role of religion in political and public life was met, as I wrote at the time, with mixed reviews. But it did not take long for those of us who offered thoughtful critiques to be the subject of, well, less than thoughtful critiques. Now that the dust has settled a bit, I want to respond to some of this, and to restate that the secular baiting emanating from Inside the Beltway is not only unconscionable but politically counterproductive.

But as I said at the outset, there is much in Obama's speech that I think hits the right notes regarding the role of religion in a democratic pluralist society. At the same time, the speech is indelibly marred by propagating one of the central frames of the religious right. (See also Chip Berlet's discussion of the religious right's framing of Christianity vs. secular humanism.) This is a problem that is not going to go away as long as Obama and other leaders continue to frame part of thier argument in this way.

Last week, I wrote that the religious right has for a generation, framed the principal
struggle in America as one between Christianity and secular humanism. The wording varies, but the frame remains the same. Variations include faith vs. secularism; people of faith vs secular fundamentalism, and so on.

We also hear a variation on the frame when we hear people speak of "secularists"  or "the secular left," supposedly trying to drive expressions of faith from "the public square."  The alleged perpetrators, whether individuals or organizations, are rarely, if ever named. Thus strawmen are repeatedly knocked down in colorful rhetorical barrages.

Unfortunately, the frame has been deeply internalized by people who are not part of the religious right, most notoriously by author Jim Wallis, and by Sen. Barack Obama, in his speech last week at a conference sponsored by Wallis' organization Call to Renewal. Obama's usage in particular shows the way that that term and its variants are routinely used to disparage rather than to describe; as the speaker works off of the frame.

After taking Obama and Wallis to task for their counter-productive contributions in this area, (while also acknowledging other of their good words and good works), I followed up with a quiz that sought to show the various ways that the terms are being used and abused. They may mean very different things depending on who you talk to. So in the interest of further underscoring the many ways the problem is manifested, here is Who's Secular Now? Take the Quiz! (Part 2).

To make it extra fun, the pool of characters has  changed a bit from part I.  In this quiz you have to identify ten quotes from different people, out of a pool of 20 well known public figures.

See if you can figure out who said what.