Berlinerblau’s request for more secularism confuses its meaning for the U.S. with that of Europe. On the sly, he introduces the canard that unless one rejects religion he/she cannot be secular. I suppose that in this post-modernist age, anyone is allowed to make up a new definition for a term. However, solipsism is not conducive to constructive dialog. I would humbly argue for a preference for the historical roots of secularism in this country. Mr. Berlinereblau, I fear, may have mistakenly linked secularism to no-religion-at-all instead of to civil religion.

I would concede to a necessary rebellion against the strait jacket of the civil religion of the 1950s. The triad “Protestant-Catholic-Jew” of the Camelot decade has now vanished. During the radical 60s and into the 70s, I was witness in a-coming-of-age way of how anti-religious values waged war with the Mainline Protestant-Catholic-Jew civil religion of the time. The real evidence of faith was coated over with the gauze of “multiculturalism.” For instance, Christian belief in the historical birth of Christ was erased from “Holiday Celebrations” that had to be multicultural. Only the “cultural” side of religion could be celebrated: nothing based on fact, historical institutions, established artistic forms, literary compositions and – not even Christmas Carols.

Those cultural forms – which had been created by faith – were now supposed to have been contaminated because of faith. The most stupid of a series of stupid decisions in the public schools came in reference to Latino celebrations. "Since the schools now have to be culturally sensitive to Latinos and Latinas," it was argued in an official proposal to me, "the posadas should be introduced alongside symbols of Christmas such as Frosty the Snowman." That reasoning seemed to have been formulated by a person without knowledge either of the culture of the posadas or of the religious meaning of Christmas. In sum, what should have brought a widening of civil religion, had brought a closing down of it.

I prefer the widening of human thought and experience, with tolerance for all everywhere. That is my understanding of what secularism is about. A Jewish student should be able to recognize the child held in the arms of a Renaissance Madonna painting without being accused of believing Christ is the Son of God. Similarly, a voter should be able to appreciate the Methodist ethic of social outreach in Hillary Clinton’s policies without joining the Methodist church. The same applies to Mike Huckabee’s frequent references to his Evangelical faith and (in my book) an over-the-top comparison of his campaign to a miracle from Jesus’ Hand. In the later case, as contrasted with that of Senator Clinton, secularism seems to be a victim. While she advocates policies out of personal commitment without requiring the same commitment to understand the policies, the governor seems to do just the opposite. What he is about cannot be understood, he said, without reference to a uniquely Baptist understanding of Christian scriptures. Thus, his reference to religion is against secularism, while hers is not.

Berlinerblau, I think, was reacting to the posturing about faith and its meaning within the political sphere that entered the campaign through the same Huckabee and the now dearly departed Mitt Romney. Yes, neither of them was secular; both were narrow and right-wing in rejecting secularism, as if its only meaning was atheistic. I resented Romney's statement and wrote about it on this website at the time.

But reference to belief, conversion, and religious commitment IS secularism à la Uncle Sam as long as it does not require the listener to adopt the same faith in order to understand it. The problem with civil religion is not that it exists, but that it has not been expanded quickly enough to embrace our diversity. If and when U.S. civil religion has been expanded to include Muslims, Wiccans, santeros, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. – and yes, atheists who believe there is no God – then we will have progressed. To march backwards to the darkest days of the French Revolution’s meaning of secularism –only atheism -- would mean we had lost our heads.