Secularism is a technical term that was coined by mid-19th Century atheists. It was specifically designed to operate as an ideological substitute for religion. In fact, secularism is precisely the political application of atheism. In this article we will first look closely at a statement by Holyoake, who has been called “the brain of the Secularist Party,” the man who is credited with having coined the term secularism (English Secularism: A Confession of Belief, Publisher’s Preface: Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 1896; pg v). Thus peering into the heart of secularism, we will find, as the preface to Holyoake's book states, that "Secularism espouses the cause of the world versus theology… [and] claims that religion ought never to be anything but a private affair.” We will also find that there is something yet more sinister lurking in secularism than may be readily apparent.
Holyoake says that "Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life" (Charles Bradlaugh: a Record of His Life and Work, Volume I, pg 336).
Looking more closely at this, notice that in stating that he is not attacking the "pretensions" of Christianity, he adds, "it [secularism] advances others," i.e. other pretensions.
Now, on the face of it this could look innocent, but notice how it subtly changes the secular state from being a neutral place where no single religion holds dominance, a place of separation, to one where secularism actually "advances" other pretensions. But which ones?
He goes on to say that secularism "maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth." In other words, secularism is a stand alone truth. Secularism, not generically advancing simply other "pretensions" so as to protect, say, some minority religion its right to a voice, it is actually advancing its own pretensions. Secularism's "truth," whatever that is, functions to provide its own light and guidance to people. It promotes itself as an alternative to religion, which is to say it can function in the same place religion does.
The statement goes further to hold that secularism's "conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever." In other words, secularism is explicitly claiming for itself the status of eternal truth, acting “forever”! It also has its own "conditions" and its own "sanctions" that "exist independently," and therefore like religion it is its own independent system of truth and governance. It is thus not functioning to merely protect the rights of other religions, or the state from ideological takeover, but is itself taking over the state with its own eternal truth, with its own internal demands, conditions, and sanctions which function to replace the eternal truth of religion with its own eternal truth. Hardly a neutral ideology.
The paragraph concludes by saying that, "Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."
In other words, its knowledge is now boasting to be an entire epistemological system! It has the quality of eternal truth, as noted above, and also provides true and comprehensive knowledge for its adherents. Furthermore, it is "manifestly" rooted in "this life," which is to say there is no actual room in secularism's functionally atheistic eternal truth for any spiritual truth, or room for consideration of that which transcends this world. It also "relates to the conduct of this life," which implies that secularism has its own moral program, an eternally acting light and guide of human morality, complete with its own conditions and sanctions.
Finally, he says it can be "tested," as if rounding out the entirely religious form that secularism assumes, and thereby asserts that it is somehow able to be confirmed in its complete self-sufficiency! Within its own logic, then, it must therefore function religiously, as a total worldview system and way of life, and so cannot serve to merely offer people a safe space from religious monopoly when it is operating and advertising itself as a substitute (for) religion.
Now, the separation of Church and State is nothing at all like secularism, and secularism cannot be the application of the separation of Church and State, but it is the political application of religious atheism. In case this is not clear, let’s go further and take a look at Holyoake’s contemporary and ally in the forging of secularism, Bradlaugh, a man also at the center of the development of Secularism and who thought Holyoake did not go far enough in spelling out the inherent logic of secularism.
As Bradlaugh’s biography states: “Secularism, [according to Mr Holyoake,] should assert its own principles, but not assail others, neither needing to assail nor condescending to assail theological systems. These ideas will doubtless commend themselves to many, especially to those who do not look under the surface of the words; but we know that before we can put nature ‘in the place of’ theology, we must depose theology” (Ibid, 334).
Note especially how the last sentence, after criticizing Holyoake for not being forthright enough, says: “we know that before we can put nature ‘in the place of’ theology, we must depose theology.” Looking “under the surface of the words” we see that secularism is therefore specifically designed and engineered with the deposition and replacement of theology in mind. Whether it is made explicit or not, it is and cannot be a freely open space for religion to be practiced freely as per the First Amendment, but stands as an antagonistic rival system to any and all theology, which is to say, it opposes religion, and even religious faith.
Bradlaugh maintained, quite explicitly, “The Secularist finds the kingdom of faith impossible, he finds belief in God impossible, he finds belief in religion impossible”(Ibid, pg 334).
Bradlaugh also said, “Although at present it may be perfectly true that all men who are Secularists are not Atheists, I put it that in my opinion the logical consequence of the acceptance of Secularism must be that the man gets to Atheism if he has brains enough to comprehend.” In other words, Secularism is either the cause or the consequence of Atheism, and they cannot be neatly disentangled from each other, if at all. Secularism is therefore the movement which seeks to lead all within it wittingly or unwittingly to atheism, if not in belief then in practice.
Finally, although Holyoake would veil the moral implications of his form of secularism, we noted above that even his form has clear moral implications, and as Bradlaugh states, “You cannot have a scheme of morality without Atheism. The Utilitarian scheme is a defiance of the doctrine of Providence and a protest against God"(Ibid, pg 334). Secularism and Atheism therefore go hand in hand, and so Secularism is not only intrinsically religious in that it claims to carry its own eternal truth and way of life, genetically it also must manifest Atheism’s religious principles in the moral and political spheres.
Now, since we have shown the intrinsic relationship between religious atheism and secularism, it should be clear that, destroying the rightful separation of Church and State, secularism is a problem for religious freedom, totally privatizing religion. At the moment it is unconsciously being absorbed by our country and its political institution because, being a form of scientism, it does not use obviously religious rhetoric to make its claims. To shine light on this, the relationship between Secularism and Atheism has been shown to be not at all accidental, but necessary, and is right there at the very inception of Secularism. They are a total package. The only real hope is to identify Secularism as rooted intrinsically in pseudo-religious Atheism so that it cannot wield untold power as it attempts to slip into the separation of Church and State, destroying it, and therein turn the State into an Atheist Church.
