Ingersoll, Secularism and the 21st Century

This Blog first appeared in the Harvard Humanist on March 20th.

The seed for ‘Secularism – A Short Film‘ was planted when I first met Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll. Richard McNally, who plays Ingersoll in the film, gave a one-man performance dressed as the late 19th century orator at a Los Angeles chapter of the AHA back in 2010. Richard reenacted Ingersoll’s gift for speech writing with an engaging show, and then followed with a Q&A in character. Since that day I have read as much as I can of Ingersoll’s work. The ‘great agnostic’s’ writing is long and florid compared to our contemporary succinctness, so when I came across this particular essay (a slender 528 words), written for the Freethought periodical The Independent Pulpit in Waco, Texas in 1887, I knew I had to make it into a film.

The piece is not without its controversy: calling secularism a ‘religion’ has certainly made the hair stand up on the necks of many atheists, some of whom disregard the humanistic component of the speech’s message. One comment said that my film sounded like a Christian recruitment piece. Several people suggested editing the uncomfortable, unfashionable words out of the essay in order to accommodate a modern audience. But that would be unconscionable: after all, don’t many of the religious pick and choose passages of the bible that speak to them, while disregarding others they find awkward? That is not intellectual honesty.

It was a sign of the Victorian era that Ingersoll couched his rhetoric in religious metaphor, as the United States was a deeply devout nation, even more so than now. He showed the tens of thousands who came to listen to him an alternative to religious superstition and dogma. He talked about the “grand temple of the future” made to house the “religion of Humanity”, where we cease to accept “truth in rags, and superstition robed and crowned” (from his speech ‘The Gods’ 1872). Those are words I can believe in. Those are words that ring out loud and clear in our current climate of religious bigotry and anti-secularism.

In my opinion secularism is not a religion, but a radically enlightened idea to keep the peace between opposing forces of humanity. It is not a message of salvation and redemption, but of independence and compassion. It is not a platform for extremism and bigotry, but of moderation and tolerance. It is not telling you how to think, but instead conveys the importance of independent thought, free from orthodoxy and those who claim the mantle of moral authority. It is interested in new ideas, and protects the progression of humanity. Ultimately for secularism to work, it requires an educated, engaged and vigilant population that desires not to discriminate against others for their beliefs.

I hope in some small way that my film helps to propel the discussion of our secular nation forward, and how important it is to protect minorities, whoever they are, from the persecution by the perceived majority, whoever they are. I also hope this film brings a renewed interest in Ingersoll’s writing and his brave offensive against those who used fear as a means to control. We must remind our fellow Americans that our Founding Fathers saw fit to separate Church and State, despite what the revisionist historians say, for when both powers intertwine the result has never been anything but terrible for humanity.

As for secularism: it has its own public relations issues to deal with. Many Conservative Christians have been told that secularism and communism go hand in hand, and that it is hostile to religious belief. As we non-believers flex our newly found muscle and increase in numbers, we will have to show why a secular government has all of our best interests at heart. We must willing to defend the free speech rights of others who have a different point of view, but be ready to challenge those ideas without the terse name calling and demonization that can emanate from certain atheist circles – a characteristic Ingersoll called “intellectual hospitality”.

On a personal note, I have only recently decided to identify as a Humanist and it has been somewhat of a hard decision. I don’t tend to join groups, and although I am very social, I like being independent. Ultimately I needed to find the antithesis of social-conservatism, of superstition, of political religiosity. Because of the religious right I started to dislike everything about religion, which I never did before. I don’t believe that religion poisons everything, but I know that excessive power cloaked in religion does, as would a dogmatically-enforced atheism.

The fact that I am an atheist should be of no concern to the religious, especially religious progressives. I may be a Secular Humanist, but I want to show a message of unity to secularists (including those who are religious) that we have to stand up to the narcissism and intellectual dishonesty of those who believe that they alone own this country over everyone else.

Is Secularism really a religion?

In my newly released short film, I had the wonderful actor Richard McNally reenact this relatively unknown Ingersoll essay written in 1887. The 'great agnostic,' as Ingersoll has come to be known, suggested that 'secularism is the religion of humanity'. That phrase, and the final words of the piece 'Secularism is a religion, a religion that is understood,' has made some atheists neck hair go up on end; they do not like that word in any form, not even taking into consideration the historical context of when it was written. It has also had some religious people react and comment "Ha! I told you so! Theirs is a theology too!" For both atheist and religious groups it seems that my film has blown a dog whistle and now they are barking.

To be honest I am also uncomfortable with the 'R' word to describe our secular system of government, but it would have been unconscionable to edit it from the piece (as at one point I almost did); that is tantamount to censorship. The rest of the piece is so eloquent, so profound and so humanistic that I couldn't just discard it in its entirety just because of a controversial word. I figured this would be a sticking point for some; but I am not embarrassed by it. On the contrary, I embrace the controversy as it looks like it is getting people to talk about what secularism is, and is not. Secularism has been demonised by the hard right for the last 40 years, with the likes of Gingrich shouting that there is a "crisis of secularism""a government-favored culture to replace Christianity." It's time to bring back the idea of the secular as a positive for all people, religious or not.

As a side note, in my opinion secularism can only be a religion if corresponds to a sub-meaning of that word, "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." (attributed to dictionary.com). In that case, music is my religion.

It is of supreme importance to keep religion out of government. I do not want one groups interpretation of Biblical law used to create laws for our country any more than I want Sharia law. Also, government should have little interest in the personal beliefs of individuals or groups as long as those beliefs do not interfere with another groups beliefs. A secular government is a government that does not side with Christians, Muslims or even atheists. It should have no doctrine or dogma; it should only take the facts, the evidence, and experiences as we have observed and make policy accordingly. Although it would be naive to think that our government is a rational and reasonable entity; after all, it is run by human beings for goodness sake. As Thomas Jefferson said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".