WE NEED TO WORK FOR OUR SECULAR DEMOCRACY

Last Friday night I spoke about a topic that has become something of a passion of mine: the future of our secular society. My presentation was prompted by a recent piece in The Free Press (TheFP.com) written by two secular and humanistic scholars, Dr. Steven Pinker and Dr. Marian L. Tupy. In their piece—“The Golden Age of Humanity? We’re Living in It”—they took on what were once marginal, but are now increasingly influential, voices in American life nostalgic for a return to the old world of monarchy, theocracy, and even feudal hierarchies. Pulling no punches, they presented abundant evidence that it was Enlightenment values that supercharged human progress by inspiring the secular democracies that made life so much better than what came before.

More than convincingly, Pinker and Tupy demonstrate that despite our frustrations, divisions, and anxieties, the modern world remains the most humane era in recorded history. Longer lives, expanding rights, scientific advancement, and unprecedented opportunities for human freedom and flourishing were never the result of old-timey religious revivals or moral purification. They emerged from the Enlightenment values of reason, science, freedom of inquiry, democratic governance, and the separation of religion from state power.

None of these achievements were accidents. Nor are they—given the fragility of our secular order—guaranteed to last.

For Jews, their argument lands with particular force. Jewish flourishing in the modern world has depended on secular democracy. Where political authority fused with religion—which was almost everywhere—Jewish life was precarious. It was only when governments moved toward neutrality, pluralism, and equal citizenship that Jews had any real chance to thrive.

My Friday night talk led me to three basic recommendations—three tasks I think we must take seriously if we want secular democracy to endure.

First, as committed secularists, we must learn to tell the story of secularism better. Far too many Americans have become convinced that secularism is nothing but godless, morally empty nihilism, thoroughly hostile to faith. I think the first secularists—just about every single one of whom believed in a deity—would have something to say about that. The truth is almost the opposite. Secularism certainly includes the godless (yes, that includes us), but it in no way excludes people of faith. In reality, secularism is the principle that binds us all to freedom of conscience without coercion. It does not demand atheism. It asks only that the state not enforce religious truth. This distinction matters deeply in a nation where people of faith remain in the majority.

Second, I argued that education must be central to our response. This includes educating young people, who today spend precious little time learning about the achievements of neutral constitutional government and perhaps too much time focusing exclusively on its many flaws. To the young people we should add the need to educate newcomers who often arrive here from societies where religion and government are tightly bound together. The bottom line is that we need advocates for secular democracy who can explain clearly that neutrality protects religious freedom across the board. When secularism is mischaracterized as a tool to restrict non-coercive religious practice, it becomes far more vulnerable.

Third—and perhaps most challenging for committed secularists—we must better model what secular democracy should look like in practice. This means finding ways to compromise that are not punitive, but both confident and humane. A truly secular society protects rights firmly while minimizing unnecessary coercion of conscience.

To illustrate this challenge, I offered a highly personal example: same-sex marriage. I pointed to the challenges raised by Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who objected vocally to the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage and who has recently asked the Court to revisit the case. Now I'm no fan of hers, to be sure. I raised her example not to defend her behavior, but to highlight how difficult it can be to navigate secularism honestly when competing claims about religious freedom are at stake.

In the United States, secular democracy rests on two constitutional commitments that exist in real tension. The Establishment Clause keeps the government from favoring one religion over another. The Free Exercise Clause affirms the right to practice religion in non-coercive ways. I argued that dismissing one of these commitments weakens both. Surely, I suggested, there must be a way to honor my marriage without requiring a religious believer to be the one who stamps the license.

A neutral state is strongest when it seeks workable accommodations that protect dignity and equality together, rather than defaulting immediately to punishment.

My example prompted a lot of discussion afterward. I was told, more than once, “It’s her job. If she doesn't like it she can quit.” I understand that reaction. I support my own same-sex marriage fully. My example was not theoretical.

Still, I stand by the argument. For most of my life, I would have responded with exactly the same thing: it was her job and that should be the end of the discussion. But it occurred to me that what religious conservatives often hear when liberals speak prescriptively sounds like this: You must comply, because this is the way that Kentucky records marriages and she was the clerk. But should it be the only way? If our values did not descend from on high, why argue that the mechanisms of civil administration are unchangeable? A confident secular democracy should be able to secure Kim Davis's right to follow her religious beliefs without taking away my right to be married. Not every disagreement needs to become a test of ideological obedience.

We have seen what happens when deeply held objections are simply sidelined rather than engaged. The abortion debate offers a cautionary example: decades of unresolved moral conflict papered over by court rulings produced not stability, but backlash. Of course, each issue is different, and no single solution fits all cases. But the lesson remains: ignoring deeply held beliefs is not the same as defeating them.

If our goal is to strengthen secular society and democracy, I think we can find a way to do all of this better. What gives me this hope is that we have extraordinary minds and sincere commitments to freedom on all sides of these debates. If we truly share that commitment—to liberty, neutrality, and democratic restraint—then surely we can move past shouting and at last re-marginalize the deluded nostalgics among us who would dismantle secular democracy altogether.

At the end of my talk, I quoted Spinoza who wrote: “All things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.” Secular democracy is one of those excellent things—and exceedingly rare in human history. As the framework that made our freedom possible as Jews and as Americans, it is worth taking on the difficult work required to ensure that it thrives.

My full talk is at this link. I invite you to view it and continue the conversation about what it will take to defend the extraordinary gains we too easily take for granted.