A less religious nation

In this season, following a time of Thanksgiving, and rolling right into the true celebration of Christmas, I happened to run across this intriguing CNSNews piece by Ben Shapiro, who takes a different approach in addressing how Obama won a second term through the exploration of religion in America, as well as the dire consequences of abandoning it: "Mitt Romney lost for the same reason that traditional marriage lost on Election Day: America is becoming a less religious country. And that bodes ill for the future of the United States."

Even with 78% of the electorate identifying themselves as Christians (Protestant and Catholic combined), 57% said they only attended church rarely, if at all. Added with the 12% of voters who didn't report a religious affiliation at all, and Shapiro presents us with a percentage of the population that broke for Barack Obama.

This isn't to argue that secular people can't be good, hard-working Americans; the vast majority of them are. It isn't to argue, either, that they don't vote Republican; many of them do. But the increasing secularization of America means the increasing importance of the state in American life. For generations, the religious community looked to two sources for inspiration and support in times of crisis: God and fellow members of the community. The secular community looks to one source: the state. Where the religious believer understands that it is immoral to deprive someone else of their property by force, even when such stealing is given legal cover by the state, the secularist believes that the morality of redistributionism takes precedence over the morality of respect for the rights of others. The same folks who voted for gay marriage and abortion voted for a broad expansion of the state and for higher tax rates.

That's not because Republicans are pro-life and pro-traditional marriage; even if Republicans ignored the issues — as, indeed, Mitt Romney tried to do — secularists would still link a larger state with a pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage position. That's because the same position that rejects the sanctity of unborn life tends to reject the sanctity of private property; both are based on the John Locke-ian premise that man is special in the universe, and that the product of his labor is an extension of his special place in the universe. Ignore man's Godly origins and his property becomes a dispensable commodity rather than a fulfillment of a divine mission.

More than that, the religious society rests on two fundamental principles: personal responsibility and belief in responsibility to future generations. Secularism rejects both principles. Personal responsibility becomes societal responsibility in the secular view; we are all shaped by our genetics and our environment, both of which are out of our control.

How, then, can we be held responsible for our actions? As for responsibility to future generations, the prophet of modern day leftist economics, John Maynard Keynes, summed it up best: "In the long run, we are all dead." Tap out the public treasury now, and grab your redistributionist cash for there is no kingdom of heaven — and you won't be around to reap the consequences of your decisions.

From here, Shapiro ventures into how every godless society has turned towards radically Marxist economic schemes, as opposed to the way traditional Judeo-Christian philosophy has advanced capitalism. But I think there's a powerful message that's worth repeating in understanding the difference between a voluntary, communal perspective advancing liberty and that slippery, dictatorial slope of the statists. While there is the desired inclination to view the state as a broader composite of the community, that perspective is a generalization of what Shapiro is precisely addressing. He sees 'the State' in much the same way that Levin and other conservatives have expressed: a top-down, authoritative, governing system, by which the people (the community) become beholden to that system, Statism.

Also, the nod to Locke is an exceptionally fitting way to put this topic into its proper perspective. Divine Providence surrounds our very existence; and ignoring that, shrugs off the notions of both free will and personal responsibility, leaving everything to mere inconsequential chance. What a bleak, meaningless outlook on life. And if that's the outlook shared by more Americans today, is it any wonder why we find ourselves facing so many cliffs, unconcerned with the future?

Finally, Shapiro leaves us with something to ponder, as well as something to strive for: reviving American Exceptionalism through Principle.

So, can American society survive its turn to secularism? It can, but only in a different form — a more European form. The best hope for a return to fundamental American principles is a return to the fundamental American philosophy embodied on our coinage: E Pluribus Unum on one side, In God We Trust on the other.

And Dennis Prager would add, Liberty.



So while certainly not explaining every nuance of what's happening with our society, I think the shift to a more secular America, away from religious practice and principle, poses a significant concern for the future of America as we've known it.