Mr. Hume: Concerning your correspondent:
Modern rationalistic secularism is clearly a product of the left. (Think of the origin of the terms left and right.)
That is only half true. How many of the French revolutionaries were unbelievers? Robespierre was not; Danton I don’t know; … someone should do a tally. Their religious commonality was a hatred of the arrogance, power, and corruption of the established church. That left plenty of room for other religious opinions. And the Right they were opposing was not, to put it mildly, congruent with American conservatism. Your correspondent may, of course, be a clerico-monarchist; but if so, he is in even more of a minority among American conservatives than we are! (And would have been in an even smaller minority among our nation’s Founders.)
Contrariwise, leftists have often been driven by religious impulses: I wrote an essay about one such here, and there is a partial list of prominent Christian Socialists here. The Labour Party in England was founded by Nonconformists, not atheists, and drew great strength over many decades from the chapel-goers of Wales and the English North. Your correspondent has an extraordinarily simple-mimded conception of the relationship between religion and politics.
I really don’t think this is a disputable contention.
He’s saying this to a chap traveling under the pen-name “David Hume”?
I think someone can be a person of the right and have a secularist tic.
Tic, schmic. What your correspondent thinks fails the reality check. There are many people like us: people who cherish limited government, fiscal restraint, personal liberty, free enterprise, self-support, patriotic defense of the homeland and its borders, love of the Constitution, respect for established ways of doing things, pride in Western Civilization, etc., and yet who cannot swallow stories about the Sky Father and the Afterlife, miraculous births and revivifications. What does the one set of things have to do with the other? We are secular conservatives. What else are we? Figments of our own imaginations?
I don’t deny that Derbyshire is generally a man of the right.
Jolly decent of him.
But there can not be a secular right in mass,
What does that mean? I doubt anyone on this site imagines that the American right will swing secular next month, next year, or in the next decade. I certainly don’t. There are lots of us though, and that’s a mass.
… because the right opposes secularism almost by definition.
I think this means: “Most Americans who think of themselves as on the right are hostile to secularism.” That is true, but there is a great deal more to be said. Here is David Frum saying some of it in Dead Right:
[T]he conservative movement is secular to its toes. Even those conservatives, like [Irving] Kristol and Pat Buchanan, who believe that excessive secularism is a genuine problem, believe it for secular reasons. They expect that a more devout America would be a better-behaved America … But … American churchgoers will almost certainly disappoint the intellectuals who trust in them … Fundamentalists will go on giving conservative Republicans their votes, but it is not from them that the conservative movement of the future will draw its ideas.
Conservative movers and shakers, David implies — correctly, I believe — are in the position of the magistrate in Gibbon’s famous quip about the various modes of worship in ancient Rome, which “were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful.” To say this does not preclude individual cases of the magistrate himself being religious, as (for example) Pat Buchanan certainly is.
There can not be a secularist right (or secular conservatism) in mass in America because America is a particularisticly Christian country …
See above. I have already agreed that secular conservatives are not going to take over American conservatism any time soon. We just want to play in the band.
I’d add another point. America’s “particularly Christian character” is a thing of the moment. In my lifetime (which hasn’t been that long) I have seen two deeply Christian nations lose their religion. I mentioned one of them up above: Wales, whose chapels were packed every Sunday in my childhood, and were centers for communal life in a way few American churches are. Those chapels are now derelict. In 2001 they were closing at the rate of one per week.
Ireland, too. Forty years ago there was hardly a more religious nation in the world. The 1951 census showed only 64 atheists in the entire Republic of Ireland. Nowadays the single-digit stats for Irish religion concern vocations: just nine priests were ordained in 2007 (when 160 retired or died).
I have no idea whether this de-religioning will happen here. Neither does your correspondent, though. I see no strong reason to think it couldn’t happen here. Modernity is a force not to be underestimated; and religious particularism is a shaky foundation on which to build an enduring political philosophy.
… conservatives, if they are actually conservatives …
Here we go with the litmus test. What next, public self-criticism sessions? I smell ideology. Where’s my garlic?
… should seek to conserve that particularity.
Well, religious conservatives perhaps should, but I don’t see what’s in it for the rest of us.
Secularism is virtually the opposite of Christian particularity.
Hard to argue with that. But wouldn’t, say, Judaism, also be “virtually the opposite of Christian particularity”? How about Hinduism? Back to the Founders:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. (Jefferson, Notes on Virginia)
One distinction that I have observed, is that while religious conservatives and secular conservatives may share many social/political beliefs, there will not be as close an alignment on whether the law should compel behavior changes to comport to those beliefs. For example, groups of religious conservatives and secular conservatives may agree elective abortion is morally wrong, the former group will be more willing to have the government prohibit those abortions than the latter group.
I am currently developing a survey on abortion, that seeks to illuminate the differences between what people feel is right or wrong personally, versus what they think the government should prohibit by law. My hypothesis based on preliminary interviews, is that some people who hold strong positions regarding abortion, nevertheless are not strong proponents of government regulation codifying those positions into law where those changes compel compliant behavior.
Bradlaugh’s enfuego….he’s really throwing rocks tonight!!
First a little banal suck upping. Thanks for this blog.
Second, there are more of us on the secular right than the article being refuted “believes”, or fears.
However, I have a hard time thinking there can be an authoritarian secular right and, if there is, it might be a bad thing, it sounds too much like hero worship. It’s in the emphasis on the inherent rights of the individual that the secular right stands on its most solid philosophical ground.
Perhaps we can use Britain as somewhat of a predictor of the rise of secularism in the US.
See the chart overlaps, and non-overlaps.
One hypothesis is that the rise of rise of the welfare state obviates the need for local service providers, like your Welsh churches, Fraa Bradlaugh.
The New Liberal Alignment coupled with the need to enact welfare legislation post the econopalypse may shape the permanent decline of religious belief in America.
Like Pethokokoukis says.
Pethokoukis, sry.
You make a good point about Wales and Ireland turning secular rapidly. In a religious area, much professed religion is false, based on conformism and socializing. I doubt many on that list of Christian socialists were really Christian either. They retained Christian morality, but did they believe Jesus died as a sacrifice for their sins and then rose from the dead?
I think people on the left are clearly more religious in their beliefs — it’s just that in their religion, one worships different impossibilities than the ones we think of when we say “religion”. I’m thinking primarily of the Fundamentalist Faith of Anthropogenic Global Warming, From Which One Must Not Dissent, although there are others.
The FFAGW is religious in nature, because there are no falsifying conditions. If it’s an extra-cold winter? That’s because of global warming. More hurricanes this year? Global warming. Fewer hurricanes? Global warming. An increase in Antarctic ice? Global warming. Mars’ polar ice decreasing? Not just global warming, but anthropogenic global warming — and don’t ask so many questions, you heretic.
The left is “secular” only in the sense that they are opposed to what we think of as Judeo-Christian thought, ethics and morality, which I credit with providing the social framework that led to the Enlightenment. Other leftist religions, e.g. Multiculturalism, are deeply pro-religion, as long as it’s not a Western religion. Islam? Wicca? Crystal worship? No problem….
Pingback: The Secular Left «
Since you are quoting Frum, I think it’s owrth pointing out that in that same book, he devoted a whole chapter to arguing that the the religious right is a “pseudo menace” that conservatives do not need to worry about. He devoted another piece to that idea (“Dead Wrong) in his 1996 book, “What’s Right.” Basically it’s all alarmism. Now, I’ve often argued to my left friends that the menace from the Evangelicals sometimes approaches a paranoid fantasy — these Christians are not sitting on their porches plotting how to lynch all the gays, blacks and Jews. And indeed, the constitutitional separations limit the damage that can be done. The main damage, however, is one of perception — we conservatives are associated with people who do not accept the fact of modernity, who are in revolt against it, refuse to accept evolution, etc. As if we didnt’ already have enough problems being regarded as “the stupid party” (Mill). And does anyone pretend that the abortion plank in the GOP is there for any other reason than to please the religious? For every 1 Evangelical who votes GOP, I’d reckon we lose more than 1 centrist as a direct result of the abortion stand alone. Frum hasn’t seemed until recently willing to grapple with this — he kept saying don’t worry, it’s okay. After Obama’s win he’s saying that we need to “modulate the social message,” but just last year, part of his precription to win in “Comeback” was that we needed to give “new life to the pro-life.” So I guess I woudl just point out that Frum is at best a mixed bag on the whole religion thing — like many I admire the thrust of his 1994 book but am not sure the record bears out his analyses — I note in his last NR post he said he had been rethinking his conservatism over the last 3 years, so maybe he would agree that he would agree that was not quite right in downplaying the TheoCons 14 years ago.
Wow. I see I have inspired two threads.
“How many of the French revolutionaries were unbelievers?”
A better question is how many of the French revolutionaries were devout orthodox (small o) believers? Same is true of Christian leftists in America. Religious liberalism (for our sake a rejection of the truth of the orthodox creeds) and general liberalism tend to run together. And as Machen made clear, Christian liberalism is not historic Christianity.
“Your correspondent may, of course, be a clerico-monarchist”
I don’t know exactly how I should be labeled. I tend to identify myself as a Christian particularist, similar to Patrick Henry for example. I believe Christians should be Christians first and foremost. Christians should have a Christian “worldview.” This is what the Bible suggests and what the Church has historically thought. The Church used to take this for granted and as intuitive. That is why the Church viewed elements of the Enlightenment as hostile.
As for America’s particularly Christian character, while there were prominent “big names” who were Deists, the majority of the Founders (as far as such things can be ascertained) were orthodox Christians. See Mel Bradford’s “A Worthy Company” for example. As were the majority of the people. See Richard Weaver’s “The Older Religiousness of the South” (or something like that.)
Among the orthodox, there was toleration of pluralism and tolerance. (The Founders almost certainly took for granted the Christian nature of America into perpetuity, and foresaw a sort of denominational pluralism.) Many even thought tolerance an admirable thing. But tolerance and pluralism were not goods to be celebrated unto themselves. It was the Christianity that was the good.
Now the Bible tells us that there is a wide path and a narrow path, so it may not be true that the majority was devout, pious, believers, but Christian presuppositions were overwhelmingly accepted and orthodox Christian positions were taken for granted. Openly denying the Virgin birth, for example, might have gotten you punched in the mouth even by the irreverent, instead of admitted to the company of the enlightened.
“I’d add another point. America’s “particularly Christian character” is a thing of the moment. In my lifetime (which hasn’t been that long) I have seen two deeply Christian nations lose their religion. I mentioned one of them up above: Wales, whose chapels were packed every Sunday in my childhood, and were centers for communal life in a way few American churches are. Those chapels are now derelict. In 2001 they were closing at the rate of one per week.
Ireland, too. Forty years ago there was hardly a more religious nation in the world. The 1951 census showed only 64 atheists in the entire Republic of Ireland. Nowadays the single-digit stats for Irish religion concern vocations: just nine priests were ordained in 2007 (when 160 retired or died).”
This is precisely my point. As a Christian and a conservative, I find this tragic. Wales has ceased to be Wales in a very meaningful sense. As has Ireland. A conservative in Wales, Ireland, or America would seek to conserve the older nature. This is what conservatives do, they conserve.
That Wales, Ireland and Europe in general has lost its Faith is well known and should be much mourned by Christians and conservatives. This loss of Faith is one of the main reasons that Europe is in decline, unable to muster the will to even procreate at replacement rate or repel invaders.
But why has this happened so quickly and so recently? It is the result of the widespread indoctrination of rationalistic secularism, systematized unbelief, scientism, particularity is bad if you happen to be a Christian white person Cultural Marxism, etc.
These are leftist influences. Again, this is as clear as the sky is blue. But the secularist conservative finds at least some of those influences just dandy. A secularist conservative will always have one foot in and one foot out of the grand project of restoring the Old Republic, a Republic that while maybe not a Christian Republic, was a Republic that was Christian.
A better question is how many of the French revolutionaries were devout orthodox (small o) believers
The rump of French Huguenots were over represented, and there was a reason there was joy in the Cevennes.
The Founders almost certainly took for granted the Christian nature of America into perpetuity, and foresaw a sort of denominational pluralism.
At least two did not from what I recall; John Adams & Thomas Jefferson. The former was a Unitarian Christian (you would not consider that Christian since you keep putting the onus on ‘orthodox’ and ‘historic’) an the latter a Unitarian Deist for most of his life (though later on he did shift toward a more Christian outlook). Both thought that Unitarianism would be the American religion of the future.
Openly denying the Virgin birth, for example, might have gotten you punched in the mouth even by the irreverent, instead of admitted to the company of the enlightened.
That has the depend on where seeing as to the widespread secession from the Congregationalist Church of the Unitarian Christian faction in the early 19th century. Arguably the first 5 presidents would also have demurred on the issue of virgin birth, as well as other prominent statesmen such as John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, a Unitarian. I think you’re pretty much making this part up actually.
This is what conservatives do, they conserve.
So are you sad at the Westernizing (and yes, socially liberalizing) effects of the spread of Christianity in South Korea and parts of Africa? IOW, I am wondering what portion of your sadness is because you are Christian and what portion because you are conservative.
It is the result of the widespread indoctrination of rationalistic secularism, systematized unbelief, scientism, particularity is bad if you happen to be a Christian white person Cultural Marxism, etc.
There are many nations where de-Christianization happened in an all white context. e.g., in parts of northern Europe it occurred in the 1960s, just as it church affiliation dropped in the USA. Wave 2 of American secularization crested when the high tide of identity politics had receded on campuses in the 1990s.
You say a lot. So much that much of it is arguably right, but in the process you spray your arguments all over the place, presuppose semantic understandings which don’t exist, force your interlocuters to smoke out clarity in your arguments. You should have just stuck to a few sentences of assertion and refuted us on *a priori* grounds.
“The rump of French Huguenots were over represented, and there was a reason there was joy in the Cevennes.”
If they supported the Revolution and the overthrow of the Catholic Church because they supported another denomination of Christianity which they felt was closer to the Revealed Faith, then that isn’t exactly representative is it?
“That has the depend on where seeing as to the widespread secession from the Congregationalist Church of the Unitarian Christian faction in the early 19th century. Arguably the first 5 presidents would also have demurred on the issue of virgin birth, as well as other prominent statesmen such as John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, a Unitarian. I think you’re pretty much making this part up actually.”
You will get no argument from me, a Southerner, that Northern Puritanism quickly morphed. I was mainly referring to the South, the traditionally conservative part of the country and the “real America” as Clyde Wilson and I would argue. Jefferson’s trendy religious liberalism quickly fell out of favor in the South even among the elite and was never accepted by the masses. Again read Weaver’s “The Older Religiousness of the South.” (I think that is the title. I’ll look for a link.)
I was mainly referring to the South, the traditionally conservative part of the country and the “real America” as Clyde Wilson and I would argue.
This is ahistorical. Look at the 1896 electoral map. Was William Jennings Bryan conservative? Or the 1932 electoral map. You can make points that what it means to be “conservative” and “liberal” have changed, but you have a tendency to gloss and assert in a very sloppy manner. e.g., that the South is the “real America” is a highly tendentious and particularist claim. I guess no surprise from you, but the revolution did start in a city named Boston, and Philadelphia does have some historical importance in the founding of this nation.
Jefferson’s trendy religious liberalism quickly fell out of favor in the South even among the elite and was never accepted by the masses. Again read Weaver’s “The Older Religiousness of the South.” (I think that is the title. I’ll look for a link.)
Jefferson’s liberalism was extreme, but I think we need a better accounting of the religious attitudes of the Bourbon Episcopalian elite. The gay bishop of New Hampshire learned his religious latitudinarianism at the University of the South. I think that you are exhibiting a tendency to simply equate the Scot-Irish/Jacksonian American tradition (e.g., Patrick Henry being an exemplar) with America, and a conservation of that tradition with conservatism. But Mr. Republican Bob Taft was the lax Episcopalian son of a Unitarian president (yes, I’m sure you’ll find a way to explain this way ex cathedra with a shell game of words. Preach it, don’t reason).
Well Bryan was a conservative in a sense, the sense in which we are discussing here. He was one of the original Fundamentalists. Hardly I think a secularist who would have thought the loss of Faith in America a good thing.
Politics isn’t the only or even the primary measure of a region’s conservatism, although the Solid South voting for socialist FDR is in hindsight a bit shameful, but might have something to do with the South being made destitute by Mr. Lincoln. It is not a controversial statement to say that the South has generally been the primary bastion of resistance to change and modernism in the Country. This is why it is so hated by Yankee (and otherwise) progressives. It was not the Northern Agrarians who wrote “I’ll Take My Stand” was it? No I recall it was the Southern Agrarians.
The very sad fate of once Christian Universities in the South such as the University of the South, Duke, Emory, etc. is well known. Although I suspect they went in the tank well after Harvard and Yale although perhaps not Princeton. This followed the trend in the rest of academia unfortunately. I highly suspect there are more Bible Colleges in the South.
For the record, my comment about the real America was mostly in jest.
It is not a controversial statement to say that the South has generally been the primary bastion of resistance to change and modernism in the Country.
I will broadly agree with this in the generality. I have more quibbles on the specifics, but for later. re: religion, what say you about the rise of Baptists as the numerically dominant southern sect in 19th century? I have no read Weaver’s particular book you reference, and can accept the ubiquity of unchurched religiosity…but the locus of confessing, active, involved spirituality was long in the north, not the south. That has reversed itself, but it is an innovation of the middle republic, not of the era of settlement or founding.
people who cherish limited government, fiscal restraint, personal liberty, free enterprise, self-support, patriotic defense of the homeland and its borders, love of the Constitution, respect for established ways of doing things, pride in Western Civilization…
I can’t resist pointing out that while these are supposedly a list of conservative virtues, they have not been much honored by the Republican party and the conservative movement.
– limited government, fiscal restraint, personal liberty,love of the Constitution
all totally shredded by the Bush administration
– free enterprise, self-support
maybe, although corrupt and incompetent crony capitalism certainly have done better (think Enron, Halliburton, Goldman-Sachs, and Duke Cunningham)
– patriotic defense of the homeland and its borders,
this is the administration that allowed a major terrorist attack and the destruction of a major city, and offered up Security Theater in response.
– respect for established ways of doing things
see above. the “established way of doing things”, such as the rule of law, have been utterly undermined.
– pride in Western Civilization
presumably this would involve some respect for intellectual activity…not notably present in the Republican party.
So, while there seems to be a great deal of examination of the question of secularism here, perhaps you should devote some mental energy to questioning your loyalty to conservatism and if it isn’t misplaced.
@mtraven
To be loyal to conservatism is not to be loyal to the Republican Party. I refused to pull the lever for the GOP this year. If I thought McCain had an ounce of conservatism in him, I’d have thought about it but I got tricked twice by President Bush (actually the second time was more of a protest vote against Kerry) and I wasn’t about to be tricked again.
– respect for established ways of doing things
Part of this is speaking of tradition. Broadly speaking, tradition is neither positive nor negative, I believe. While there are undoubtedly “positive” traditions (being respectful and polite, working hard without complaining, putting your family first), there are some awful traditions as well (slavery and segregation were “traditions” for a majority). Tradition has been used as an argument for restricting or even taking away rights (for example, jailing folks who married interracially). In the 50s, the majority of America opposed the legality of interracial marriage- largely on the grounds of “tradition” or a similar concept. Did that make the “conservatives” in that argument right? I would argue that the conservative point of view in that discussion was the one that valued personal freedom OVER “tradition”.
Sometimes those “virtues” listed can conflict. I would argue personal freedom should be at the top of the conservative virtues, and in most cases trump any conflicting virtue.
The “Real America” in conjunction with the admitted regionalism is really the key here. How is someone from Oregon Country supposed to buy into this. I believe the Western US was founded primarily by people that wanted nothing to do with the East Coast, North or South. We’ve been labeled the most godless part of the country for some time. If conservatism means anything out here it might be a deep respect for Gary Snyder. Do “Real America” conservatives accept that conservative might be completely secular in other parts of the country? How is it that your view of the rightful position of conservatism not leave you with a regional party?
mtraven:nbsp; I am quite sure that my loyalty to conservatism is NOT misplaced. My loyalty (such as it has ever been) to the Republican Party is under severe stress.
Reed: I don’t know about “indoctrination.” Indoctrination isn’t as easy as you seem to think, as despots — not to mention parents! — always learn. The compulsory Religious Instruction classes in my own English schools (1950-61) met considerable resistance from the students, to the degree that they became a dead letter in the 1970s. (Still required by English law, but schools just ignoring the law.) The Anglican/Methodist/Catholic indoctrination in English/Welsh/Irish schools ceased to “take” around 1960/1970/1980, respectively. The graduating generations were not irreligious because of secular indoctrination; they were irreligious in spite of religious indoctrination. I lived through this, I know what happened.
Having graduated irreligious, these cohorts went on to populate the media, teaching professions, etc. You then have a case for arguing that “indoctrination” went on, though I say again, it isn’t as easy as it looks. (Try getting a mainland-Chinese to explain dialectical materialism to you.)
But why did those cohorts go irreligious? “Indoctrination” by evil secularists is just a cop-out. There’s a real problem in social science here — not a simple one, as you have to explain why Britain went irreligious but the U.S. South didn’t, since the modernizing forces acting on both were the same.
Those forces must have had something to do with it. Modernity — the widening of outlook that came with modern mobility and modern communications — was a terrific disruptive force. The post-WW2 generations were exposed to more different places, people, and modes of thought than was usual outside big cities previously. I can remember my grandparents, born in the 1870s and lifelong inhabitants of little coal-mining villages. Dear people, and not stupid, but very narrow in outlook.
You can see the effect in individual cases — see my comments on Billy Graham here.
Modernity; the welfare state; the successes of technology; I’m sure these all played into it. Indoctrination by a cabal of evil secularists is just paranoid fantasy.
And of course Mr. Hume is right that religion is no necessary component of national identity. Who has a stronger sense of national identity than the Japanese, or a weaker attachment to religion? The great enemy of national identity is mass immigration from different cultures, as the Japanese understand. Can you name a significant religious organization in the U.S.A. that is opposed to mass immigration? Can you even name one that isn’t cheering it on?
I was mainly referring to the South, the traditionally conservative part of the country and the “real America” as Clyde Wilson and I would argue.
That way of thinking sure helped McCain win Virginia! Wait, no. Can we call a spade a spade and just label this regional snobbery?
“But why has this happened so quickly and so recently? It is the result of the widespread indoctrination of rationalistic secularism, systematized unbelief, scientism, particularity is bad if you happen to be a Christian white person Cultural Marxism, etc.”
Much of the secularization of Great Britain can be directly attributed to the slaughter of the First World War. The Church was largely complicit in promoting British participation as an article of Christian faith, and the loss of an entire generation of young men on the battlefields of France, with little to show for the sacrifice, shook public confidence in the Church like nothing else.
“It is not a controversial statement to say that the South has generally been the primary bastion of resistance to change and modernism in the Country. This is why it is so hated by Yankee (and otherwise) progressives.”
Nonsense. To the extent that “the South” is hated by progressives, it is, in my opinion, a reaction to white Southerners’ traditional vice of racial hatred, later augmented or superseded by a belief in widespread religious close-mindedness of Southerners.
It had nothing to do with “resistance to change” in the abstract. It wasn’t the preservation, itself, but what was perceived as being preserved (and in many cases what actually was being preserved.)
That is not to say that the hostility of many in the region to progressive ideas hasn’t contributed to the problem, though.
Pingback: Is It Possible To Be A Secularist on the Right? - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought
To be loyal to conservatism is not to be loyal to the Republican Party.
I suppose that is true in the abstract, but in the real world it means conservatives have (at minimum) a branding problem.
The sane left has had to spend a lot of energy this past century differentiating itself from the actions of the USSR or the beliefs of the Communist party. The right is always ready to try to reinforce that connection, as in the last election, where they made an effort to paint Obama as some kind of radical socialist for advocating a mildly more progressive tax. Trying to hang the crimes of Stalin around his neck for that is stupid, but was done all over the place.
So, welcome to the club. The conservative brand has been tainted by the fact that when conservatives held power, they abused it and wrecked the the rule of law, the reputation of the country, and the economy. Just like communists did not actually bring the peace, freedom, and democracy they promised, conservatives did not bring conservation, but wreckage.
Good luck digging yourself out from under that. You have your job cut out for you.
“Can you name a significant religious organization in the U.S.A. that is opposed to mass immigration? Can you even name one that isn’t cheering it on?”
Absolutely no argument from me here. This is evidence of what I said in one of the other threads that most so-called conservative Christians are actually good little Enlightenment liberals with a few principled objections (abortion, gay rights, etc.) thrown in. Many are intuitively conservative and at a gut level opposed immigration because they are uncomfortable with mass demographic change (ethnic and religious), but they are loathe to say so and will vocally deny it. That is why they babble about rule of law, terrorism, TB, or whatever. Your colleague Jonah Goldberg even got this right.
Why would a Christian conservative be afraid to say that they would prefer less or no Muslim immigration for example? Because of widespread Cultural Marxist INDOCTRINATION or perhaps you prefer brow beating. I didn’t say that all the indoctrination happened at schools although certainly some of it does. In the cases you cite the schools were not able to counter the mass culture outside its walls.
Nor did I say that religion was necessary for national identity. I said the Christianity is an indispensible part of the national identity of America, a part of Christendom. How anyone thinks they can conserve Christendom without the Christianity is beyond me.
If you don’t like the Christianity, I think that is unfortunate, but fine. But it is folly to think you are conserving. You are not. You are actively or passively advocating fundamental change.
Pingback: On Not Accepting What You Are Told, Unless Elevated « Just Above Sunset