Condoleezza Rice and America’s Secularism Problem

Condoleezza Rice is being considered as Romney’s VP pick. Musically talented, smart, a great speaker, but what does she really believe? The picture I can’t get out of my mind is Rice swearing in homosexual physician Mark Dybul as the United States Global AIDS coordinator at a ceremony on October 10, 2007 with his “partner” and Laura Bush in attendance.

There is a battle raging today over the role religion plays in public and political life. To hear secularists tell it, religion is the problem and reason is the solution. Fundamentalists of all types are being singled out as the inhibitors of progress and the instigators of terror. Christian fundamentalists are no different from Islamic fundamentalists, according to liberal politicians, scholars, professors, and pundits. If given political power like their follow Islamic fundamentalists, terror at all levels would be the norm in America. Here’s how Dinesh D’Souza describes how liberals paint the picture in his book The Enemy at Home:

Liberals typically define the conflict [with Islam] as one between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism. Many liberals consider these two groups as essentially equivalent, “kindred spirits,” in the words of novelist William Styron. Al Gore finds in President Bush “the American version of the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia.” According to [atheist evolutionist] Richard Dawkins, the dogmatic beliefs of each side lead to violent enmities that “fuel their tanks at the same holy gas station.” In her book The Mighty and the Almighty, Madeleine Albright frets that “hardliners can find in the Koran and the Bible justifications for endless conflict. . . . From the perspective of the left, the best solution is for liberals to stand up for the principles of secularism and oppose both Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism.”

First, these assessments lack historical support given what we know about how much religion played in the founding of America and the institutions it created. Yes, a lot of awful things have been done in the name of religion, but when compared with what has been done in the name of secularism, there is no comparison.

Second, a secular approach to culture, society, and morals has been tried and found wanting. Have we forgotten the resultant bloodshed of the French Revolution where reason was declared to be god and heads rolled in the streets? The body count from Communism tops 100 million. We mustn’t forget Hitler’s ties to Darwinism and his belief in a master race based on its principles. We saw something similar when the late North Korean President Kim Jong-il pushed for a master race ideology. Secularism is a substitute religion that has dire moral consequences.

Third, D’Souza contends that it’s America’s intentional embrace of “doctrines which banish religion from practical life and restrict it to a tiny corner of man’s conscience so that it has no bearing whatsoever on society and its active life” that is upsetting to many Muslims around the world, most of whom are not terrorists. If America wants to bring its brand of “democracy” to the Muslim world, does this mean pornography, abortion, no-fault divorce, homosexual marriage, and a general moral downgrade? “From the perspective of bin Laden and his allies, the war is between Muslim-led forces of monotheism and morality and the America-led forces of atheism and immorality.” While the solution to the problem is wrong (mass murder in the name of religion), the assessment is generally correct.