...if you believe that people are basically good, God and religion are morally unnecessary, even harmful.Here, and elsewhere, you've put your finger on one really crucial thing: the secularization--or better, "de-Christianization"--of our society is starting to have its effects on a mass scale. This de-Christianization, which is a phenomenon throughout the West, has now reached epidemic proportions in America. I think we can still fight it, but it's more of an uphill battle than it used to be.
For example, conservatives could always count on the default support of the "evangelicals." This group of Americans always held to the Bible-based, Protestant Christianity that set the moral tone of our cultural consensus. There were certain things that were right and certain others that were wrong. Pretty much everybody agreed with that consensus, whether they were Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or some other faith. Even the seculars tended to give it lip service.
Now however, the "evangelicals" are led not by the likes of the late Jerry Falwell or Oral Roberts, but by Rick Warren, Joel Osteen and their like. The former haven't disappeared completely, but the latter now set the tone. Now, Warren, Osteen, et al aren't necessarily bad people, but they are much more under the influence of the new "get-along" ethos, rather than the "Old Time Religion" of Falwell, Robertson, et al. There is a distict possibility that over time, the current crop of evangelicals voters will simply give in to a creeping secularism. How to fight this? The attenuation of simple, Protestant Christianity may be reversible, but I'm now wondering if anything like the Moral Majority or the Christian Coalition is possible again. Just a thought.
The political calamities you've alluded to (the Nazi-Zeit, etc) all were proceeded by wide-spread secularization among the tone-setters of the societies affected. This process played out over centuries in Europe. We can go back to the French Revolution, the Reformation, or even the late Middle Ages. One of America's unique traits in the modern age was to preserve at least an effective core of Christian faith, while other societies were dissolving theirs. I wonder now if we aren't being caught up in the same tide of secularism as Europe was.
I'm curious: you now live in Germany. I lived there in the '90's (Nurnberg 90-92 in the Army and in Dresden from '96-99 as an English teacher and translator). One of the things that most impressed me was how secular those places were, even though they had all the monuments to their Christian past surrounding them (more so in Nurnburg, less so in post DDR Dresden). The contrast was even more striking in Prague, which is dense with monuments to Europe's Christian past, but even sparser in living faith in God. Do a thought experiment: Could a legistlature in any of these countries open its proceedings with a prayer, or could the highest court could be opened with the phrase, "God save this honorable court"? In my view it is unthinkable. I wonder if any of this comes up in conversation with your German neighbors?
The three post WW II leaders of Italy, Germany, and France (di Gasperi, Adenauer, and de Gaulle) were brilliant at overcoming the physical depredations of the war and setting up political institutions. But a third goal that each had hoped to acheive--the reinvigoration of Christianity--proved beyond them. That was probably inevitable and necessary. It's beyond the power of politics to bring about. Yet I think the sweeping secularization--better, de-Christianization--of the West is one of the central issues of the time, maybe the central issue.
Anyway, thanks for another thought-provoking post. I think we're all in some perplexity about what to think these days. At least we can all be perplexed together!
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
My observations here in Bavaria parallel your observations in northern Germany. I think you are right, America is about a couple of years ahead of Germany in Pop culture and 10 years behind on religious trends. I think that the visceral and almost involuntary negative reaction to George Bush had to do with his open profession of faith. Of course Clinton had ostentatiously done the same thing but everyone knew that he was lying about it so there was no need to react.
Obamas religiosity, I think, is a different matter. He paid no forfeit not only because people did not believe that he would be affected by serious commitment of faith, but mainly because he was immune from all criticism so long as he was able to portray himself as a white man campaigning in dark skin. As long as he remained non threatening, (i.e. he did not act like Jesse Jackson or Reverend Sharpton) then America was not inclined to ask hard questions. America marched to the polls as though overmedicated.
The Liberals have managed to stand the truth about faith on its head. The truth is that faith in a greater being is liberating but liberals have convinced the secular world that it is smothering. Since I believe the theme conservatives should strike in fighting the tsunami Obama represents is to emphasize liberty, the freedom of the individual, I think that the great liberating power of faith can actually be expressed in public without embarrassment. Conservatives of faith should confront liberals without embarrassment on these issues. Every time bondage of the self results in the destruction of some one like the governor of New York, spiritual hubris can and should be indicted. If preachiness is avoided and a vocabulary free of tainted religious terms is employed by way of euphemism for words like sin, repentance and redemption, some souls might be persuaded in some votes might be changed.
