Which is better, secularism or false religion?

In the recent post about the elections in Iran, tODD commented that he was surprised to see us conservative Christians pulling for the liberal secularists over our fellow conservative religious types. (tODD was thus doing what he had earlier argued the press was not doing, seeing conservative Christians as being equivalent to conservative Muslims–but set that aside.) I responded, “Isn’t liberal secularism to be preferred to false religion?” That provoked some interesting reflection and the sense that we should discuss this issue in our larger forum. Here is tODD’s response to what I asked:

Certainly when liberal secularism in the West is discussed here on this blog, it is always demonized, as if whatever its alternative happens to be could not possibly be “false religion”. But is that so? The assumption seems to be that the entity opposing liberal secularism in the West is Christianity — but is it true Christianity? Or works-righteousness Christianity or some other gospel-less abomination, which is every bit as false as Islam? I don’t think that gets talked about very much. So would we apply the same metric to our own situation, that liberal secularism is to be preferred to anything other than Biblical Christianity, even if there are lots of (ultimately falsehood-embracing) people who use Jesus’ name and make good speeches against liberal secularism?

Also, there is the inevitable charge of hypocrisy. Just as America has too often been fine with “Democracy for me, not for thee”, favoring dictatorial leaders in our pocket over democratically-chosen leftists (or whatever), so Christians could be accused of “Liberal secularism for thee, but not for me.”

And where does this apparent ranking come from, that we prefer, in order, (1) religious right-wingers here, (2) liberal secularists there, (3) religious right-wingers there? Is it out of concern for the Gospel? Or fear of men? Do we, as Christians, prefer liberal secularism over false religion because it makes people more receptive to the Gospel? What about in Europe, where false religion no doubt abounds? I feel like the prevailing sentiment here is still one opposed to liberal secularism, in that region. Why?

It seems to me that pure, undefiled secularism is always to be preferred to false religion. For one thing, I see the secular realm as already comprehended in God’s creation and as part of His reign in the Kingdom of His Lefthand, in which He providentially and through vocation governs the universe. Secular facts–that a water molecule is composed of two hydrogen atoms plus one oxygen atom; 2+2=4–and secular operations (using a computer, making a living, a policeman writing me a speeding ticket) I have no problem with. Indeed, I embrace them. Things don’t have to be explicitly religious to have value, meaning, and, perhaps ironically, religious significance. I can share this realm with people of any religion and no religion.

Here is the problem, though, with today’s secularism (that is, “liberal secularism”): It turns itself into a false religion! It insists on telling me and my children that morality is not valid. (Morality is largely FOR the secular realm!) It insists on teaching me and my children that God did not create the universe, which is empty and undirected, and acts on this premise, most horribly in the child sacrifice of abortion. This kind of secularism insists on attacking or undermining my religion every chance it gets. A true secular realm stays out of such matters. Secularism as a total world-and-life-view, however, is just as much a false religion as Islam.

I do oppose efforts by religious people to impose their faith on others, which cannot be done, and to confuse faith active in love with the exercise of power. I do think Christians as individuals and in their vocations should influence their culture and their government, but this will take a secular form. Again, I think morality has a secular focus, which many disagree with, but confusing morality with religion is something even many religious people do, confusing law and gospel.

In ancient Rome, Christians were put to death on the charge of atheism. They did not believe in the gods of the dominant culture. I believe that our “secular” establishment is getting even more religious, with its own pantheon of accepted deities, its own promises of establishing the utopian kingdom of heaven on earth, and, yes, its own messiahs. Christians will once again have to play the role of skeptics, doubters, and, yes, atheists. We may even find ourselves allying with other kinds of atheists who reject the one true God also, though I rather doubt it: those “atheists” will tend to support what is coming and will run after “the gods of this world.” The mantra of the new religion will be that all religions are the same and that we must embrace them all equally, lest we commit the sin of intolerance and hate. This is what Christians will be accused of and possibly arrested for. It was Christians who “secularized” the pagan view of nature and society (no, the sun is not a god; no, the earth is not a god; no, the emperor is not a god; no, you do not create your own reality; no, you do not create your own morality), and we will probably have to do this all over again.