Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism

ETA: I finished it and overall still appreciate it including its use of "snapshots" to give us a sense of the history of secular heroes. The book was written 15 years ago, so can use an update, but it sorta needed another chapter even then.  The history section really ended in the mid-1970s with the final chapter a sort of final thoughts from the present. But, a lot happened in those twenty five or so years! 

I started to re-read this book, written in the middle of the Bush43 Administration, which starts perhaps a bit late in the revolutionary era. Jacoby's more recent books (she actually wrote one on baseball too) have received mixed reviews and her writing style from what I can tell there can be tedious.  But, this one is fairly easy reading for the run of the mill reader though as the review notes it is clearly somewhat speaking to the choir. Not in an over the top way, I think, though I'm not exactly unbiased.  Overall, like Michelle Goldberg's Kingdom Coming, for which modern day analogues can be found, this book continues to be quite timely.

(Looking it up, she started out as a correspondent in the Soviet Union during the 1970s, and published more than one book about her experiences there. She also wrote a book about revenge that I recall finding interesting back in the day.) 

The terminology is important here. "Secular" is a worldly view that also means government that is separated from religious pursuits. Also, "freethinkers" promote a certain freedom of thought without necessarily being atheists or the like.  A prime example there is Tom Paine, who said he believed there is a God but that said God is seen in nature. Most of the stuff that came with that (the details of creeds that provided a lot of the battles) was another matter.  "Religion" in that day and age tended to include an afterlife and some final judgment -- it was seen as a major value of religion, including as social concern (see, e.g., Benjamin Franklin).  Sounds like Paine hoped for that, but being loyal to his rational approach, could not be completely sure that was the case.

I just sent away (see the first link) for a copy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation paper and there is some interesting stuff there, including a speech by someone who left the Jehovah Witnesses.  The "about" page:

The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion. In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery. The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church.

Note the usage of "freethinkers."  I personally would emphasize that term. The term "religion" to me is rather open-ended and the Unitarian-Universalist Church and others  are quite freethinking.  This is suggested in the book as well -- there are various ministers and others who believe in God and have some sort of "religion" but still are liberal minded freethinkers.  Also, there is some particular focus in their litigation to worry about public monuments and such.  I find them troubling too in various cases, but that often is not the major battle we should be facing. The same with a complete blocking of funds to religious charities and schools though the lines there are complicated and open to reasonable dispute.

Discussion about "God" and the like is fine.  Ultimately, the evidence suggests that there is not some independent entity that people label "God" here.  The very concept of some sort of afterlife, especially one where one's sins are judged, is to me a rather unreasonable concept that people like Tom Paine or Thomas Jefferson could only accept because it was so basic to the understanding of the age. It is like suggesting we should have women in government or that homosexuals should marry or something. Plus, especially without modern science, there was so much unknown about how things work. Some spiritual entity is a lot more acceptable there. 

"God" to me comes off as a sort of poetic metaphor like "Justice" or something, which is somewhat akin to ancient Greek and Roman gods that were physical representations of justice or love or death. Fables and parables are useful ways to express oneself here, but telling children stories about Santa Claus and fairies is different than adults believing such things actually exist.  Religion overall to me meets a basic human need including people joining together, repeated usage of prayers and song, ceremonies for special events with emotional/symbolic meaning and so forth.  This all can occur with reason, freethinking, secularism and so forth.

It is on some basic level troubling that a significant portion of society do not simply have some general belief in God (which again seems irrational) but the typical evangelical approach, even if a minority (see, e.g. John Fea) are not Trump supporting assholes.  Some of this are irrational beliefs by people who on average are reasonable types -- e.g., the vast majority of Catholics accept birth control, even in the face of Catholic doctrine.  But, and this is often why "religion" is deemed tainted, a lot result in pushing for discrimination and hindering the free exercise of others. And, religious belief often is tied to the inability to properly reason etc.

It is constantly noted that "religious" includes a lot of good people, which is fine, though the observe is that those not really religious (at least as many define it) include lots of good people too.  Again, "freethinking" includes a range of people here.  And, that to me is my main focus though things like "under God" and so forth are still problematic since it hurts the campaign.

(As noted in The Godless Constitution, one picks one's battles there. Still, there is a basic problem here.  Daily, school children are told, as part of a basic statement of American values, that we live under some sort of supernatural being.  We can -- as Breyer tried to do in the Newdow case -- water that down to mean some open-ended thing, but originally and now, let's be serious -- that isn't what people take it to mean.  There is a reason that some find it appropriate to write "G-D" and not "g--d" for "good.")