"We have or may have a religion of unselfish devotion to others and to our own highest ideals," he prophesied, "a religion of character, of abiding enthusiasm for humanity, and of complete intellectual honesty. Into our little human lives it will bring something of the grandeur of these infinite surroundings, a high purpose amid which and for which we live."
-- professor in 1878, summarizing the secularist freethought creed, qtd. by Susan Jacoby in Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism
Freethinkers: Susan Jacoby defines freethinking thusly: "Freethinkers have often been described as people who didn't believe in God, but it's more accurate to see freethought as a kind of a broad continuum, ranging from those who really didn't believe in God at all to deists who believed in a God who set the universe in motion but afterwards didn't take an active role in the affairs of men." Her history, which might not be the determinate volume in the field because it is far from a complete united whole look at the subject, is inspired by this broader meaning. Subtitle aside, it is not just a history of those who are secular or do not believe in God, but an overall look at free thought in this nation from the revolutionary era.
As a blurb on the back by Philip Roth suggests, the subject should be mandatory to those who desire a complete understanding of our history as a people, and this volume would be a fine introduction to the field. Roth notes it is especially important "in the fourth year of the ministry of George W. Bush." As Jacoby notes: "This election is a battle about many things, but one of those things is between a secular view of public affairs, between people who believe in the separation of church and state, as secularists and freethinkers do, and people who don't." As a recent episode of Frontline explained, the President's religious faith is a major (and arguably dangerous) influence of his politics, including his belief that judges ultimately should be guided not by man's law, but God's law.
[Justice Scalia also at times seems to be motivated by this sentiment. An article in the NYT over the weekend discussed his often controversial judicial career and how it probably will make it unlikely for him to be a viable Chief Justice. The idea of him as Chief is rather laughable to me basically because he is not temperamentally suitable for it. He is quite intelligent, if at times not consistent, but the role requires a certain political restraint that Scalia (who many of his opponents do like on a personal level) just doesn't have. On the subject of God's law, it should be noted that liberal justices such as Justice Stevens at times speak of a sort of natural law, directly quoting the Declaration of Independence, but of a more deistic sort more Jeffersonian than these other two might like.]
Though some might argue it is hyperbole, I do feel that the current administration is basically a threat of a special magnitude to the principles of free thought, which is an essential part of our nation's traditions and character. A core aspect of the problem is his penchant toward secrecy, a secrecy that is used to promote the narrow (and quite debatable) dominant views of the administration in part because they fear what will happen if said views had to be promoted via more open and free thinking means. John Dean wrote a instantly successful book on this penchant for secrecy, one that was put to reasoned and productive criticism in today's paper. The review as well as my comments, including the tough road ahead for those who wish to fight this administration successfully, can be found here.
Thomas Paine argued that his mind was his church. I can fully relate to his sentiments, sentiments that are well needed these days, even if the atmosphere for their promotion is being polluted by opposing forces. I'd like to end with an excerpt from a poem by Walt Whitman, one of the heroes in Jacoby's book.
O I see flashing that this America is only you and me,
Its power, weapons, testimony, are you and me,
Its crimes, lies, thefts, defections, are you and me ...
The war, (that war so bloody and grim, the war I will henceforth
forget), was you and me ...
I am for those that have never been master'd,
For men and women whose tempers have never been master'd,
For those whom laws, theories, conventions, can never master.
I am for those who walk abreast with the whole earth,
Who inaugurate one to inaugurate all.
I will not be outfaced by irrational things,
I will penetrate what it is in them that is sarcastic upon me. ...
Eloquent, no? And, yes, Whitman does tend to ramble!