If not “secular,” then what? December 5, 2007
Posted by Zack in Missouri , trackback
Ok. As I turn 38 (today!) one lesson I can say I have learned is: Don’t comment about a blog comment thread. Yesterday, I wrote about my disappointment with the tone and content of the responses to Brian McLaren’s posts at TPM Cafe. But, of course, a handful of commenters represent nothing, and it’s impossible to make an objective count of how many were negative, rude, etc.. and how many were not. Also, since I wrote, the level of the discussion over there has come way up.
What I saw in so many of those comments were the same stereotypes and misconceptions about Evangelical Christians that I hear coming from so many otherwise smart, open minded and well-intentioned activists on the left who are outside of the church. I hear it in meetings, at dinners, on conference calls, in one on one conversations. I hear it all the time.
At this point, I really can not say that I belong to one or the other culture. But for the purpose of this conversation, I’m putting on my “outside of the church” hat.
My point is NOT that we should change our views for Christians’ sake. Not at all. They don’t care what we think. My point is that they are something like half the country — and as long as we carry this false and negative understanding of their culture, then we are cutting ourselves off from having a productive social and political relationship with HALF THE COUNTRY. We may as well quit politics.
Please understand what I am NOT saying: I am not saying that we should try to find common ground with a group that stands against everything we believe in. I’m saying: “Surprise! This huge group stands for almost everything that we stand for—and they’re on the move, organizing tens of millions of Americans around our own very same values: people over profit, the environment over mindless growth, meaning over consumerism, means of making a living and health care for all, care for the needy, peace and more.” But we are divided from them by stereotypes and misconceptions.
Instead of pointing to some chaotic comment thread, I should just lay out these stereotypes and misconceptions that are in the way.
But wait — before I can get to that, there’s another problem. Last night I had Matt Stoller yelling at me on the phone (ok, I did some yelling too) about my very use of the categories of “secular progressive” and “progressive evangelical.” Others have criticized me for that too, including Pastor Dan at Street Prophets, several people on the TPM thread and friends in the thread to my last post here.
There has got to be some acceptable way for us to talk about these two different cultures. Yes, they overlap. (More and more, I’m an example of that myself.) I know lots of people who fall into the “progressive evangelical” category working on Democratic presidential campaigns, “secular” progressive orgs, and so on.
Nevertheless, there are two different cultures that we can talk about. And anyone with a foot in each one knows how different they are and how awkward it can be to straddle both.
So I’m asking Matt, Pastor Dan, Mave and others to please help me out here: How would you rather refer to “secular progressives”? First of all, “secular” does not mean atheist. Check out the substantial wikipedia article on Secularism. And here’s a dictionary definition:
Secular: (1) denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis : secular buildings | secular moral theory. Contrasted with sacred. (2) Christian Church (of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order.
As with any political label, to say, “Secular Progressive” bends the definition of “Secular” a little bit. But it works well in the sense that a secular progressive, like a “secular priest” is not acting in the world directly in the service of a religious community. In other words, all of us “secular progressives” can have a range of religious and atheist views.
By “Evangelical Christian Progressives,” on the other hand, I mean people who are tightly woven into an intimate Christian church community that pervades all aspects of their life and politics. Likewise, all aspects of their life and politics are guided by a very specific theological belief set — those beliefs vary somewhat from one community to the next, but all Evangelical Christians have a core theology in common.
Equally as important for this discussion, they mostly (but not all) have a lot of cultural practices in common that stand in stark contrast to most (but not all) “secular progressives.” They don’t approve of sex before marriage, think divorce is unacceptable, find common expressions that “take the lord’s name in vain”—and cussing in general—jarring and believe homosexuality displeases God.
Those cultural differences rule out simple social gathering, let alone intimate political collaboration, between “Secular Progressives” (soon to be renamed!) and “Evangelical Progressives.” It is those cultural and ideological/theological differences that need to be bridged—accepted where possible and negotiated where necessary.
And I don’t see how we can do that without at least having words to use for these two different, albeit overlapping and fuzzy, groups. Without words, we can’t talk. Without talking, we can’t work things out.
But, as Matt said last night, “secular” has become derogatory term used by the right wing against progressives. OK. Then what term can I use?
Tags: Brian McLaren, matt stoller, pastor dan, secular progressives, tmp cafe
Comments»
Happy birthday Zach. Hope you have a great celebration and also get to reflect a bit on half the sand being in the lower part of the hour glass.
Question: Does anybody on the right or the left ever feel uncomfortable with using words like “progressive” to describe themselves? To say, “I am progressive” is a huge value laden statement that, to me, sounds arrogant and condescending. Others are backward by I am progressive. I’m better then the ones one aren’t progressive. When you stop for a minute and think about it doesn’t it sound a bit unseemly and arrogant in the ear?
Proverbs 27:2 (ESV)
2 Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips.
Great — now I need TWO new words!
I see your point, but I think that it might be appropriate actually. Some very powerful people do not believe in progress. They believe that the current form of government and economics in America is the best possible state of things, and they just want to keep everything exactly as it is now. But the vast majority of people, in my experience (there is no—and really can be no—valid polling on this) want more democracy and an economy that offers the means to make a good living to everyone willing to work.
So, as long as the term applies only to economics and political systems, it works. But when it applies to cultural traditions, it gets complicated — because then there is no big consensus on what progress means there.
What I’d like to see is the great majority of America working toward our shared idea of economic and political progress — and agreeing to disagree (and not to legislate) how we raise our kids, etc…
But…do you have any suggestions for a replacement for “progressive”? “Left” and “Right” just don’t work anymore—they are terms from the French Revolution after all!
just a thought - but why worry about names and labels that focus on our differences? why not come up with a name that encompasses our similarities and apply it to all of us, regardless of our religious views?
Mave — it might be that “progressive” will do that. (Unless Chosenrebel comes up with a better word!)
But my point in this post was to explain that we do need to talk about the differences among different subcultures of progressives. (Maybe I did a bad job of making that point.)
We need to talk about differences in order to be able to work together. In the same way that friends or colleagues need to understand each others’ idiosyncrasies to work together, so do different subcultures.
Why pretend the differences don’t exist?
Hey, here’s another new word to add to the lexicon: STRATAL, as in “And anyone with a foot in each one knows how different they are and how awkward it can be to STRATAL both.”
Darn dyslexia — Thanks!
I see your point. I personally have no problem at all with “secular” or “progressive” or any permutation of the two. I know secular doesn’t mean atheist, but atheist does necessarily mean secular, and I don’t have any problem with that.
there is also “humanist” which is a great term that most people surely wouldn’t object to.
Thank you Zack, for taking this on!
It is unfortunate that the Right-wingers have used the term “secular” as an epithet. It is hard to see why doing things in a secular way, or defining oneself as a secular person, should be a bad thing, in an of itself. But all that aside, these are two very different subcultures, and we need to name them before we can try to bridge the divide.
I also have a foot in both worlds, since I simultaneously attend a very evangelically-oriented church AND work very hard in progressive politics. I can testify that it is very difficult to straddle both of these worlds. We have to name these differences. They are very real, and they are not just the product of hte Right-wing spin machine. We can’t make them disappear just by defensively dismissing them as “just another conservative meme that we shouldn’t reproduce”, adn demonizing anyone who brings up these differences.
I will also say that my more conservative Christians friends are far more gracious in the way that they talk about secular people, than my secular friends are in the way they talk about Christians. My conservative Christian friends take it for granted that they should try to see things from the point of view of non-Christians. By contrast, it is very rare for my secular friends to say, “Oh yes, we should take a minute and try to see things from a more conservative Christian point of view, just as a thought experiment.” Whenever a secular ally of mine says that, I am very grateful and I almost fall out of my chair with surprise. But the conservative Christians that I know are constantly trying to see hte world from other points of view, so they know how to bridge the divide. And though secularists often assume that faith means never doubting, I often hear Evangelical Christians saying things like, “You know, there are things that secular people are right about, we should listen to their critiques. It will help us recognize our own fallenness, if we understand why the world doesn’t want to be like us.” Have you ever heard a secular progressive say the opposite thing about Christians? If so, thank your lucky stars that you have such wise and gracious political allies!
I think this principle of “double vision” is very helpful. I wish secular progressives would cultivate the practice of “double vision” in the way they engaged Christians. You don’t have to accept other people’s views just because they’re sincerely held. But you should at least try to see things from there point of view, at least for a moment. It’s a lot of work, but ultimately, it will only make your own point of view much richer. Not to mention that it makes it easier to recognize points of common concern and address lasting points of disagreement.
Maybe I’m not deep enough into the culture wars but “secular progressive” sounds accurately descriptive to me.
You think it’s hard being an individual straddling between religious progressive and secular progressive, try being in a spiritual community that’s split this way. I’m a Liberal Friend and that’s our state (I’m trying to get my hands on a good survey that I’ve heard recently concluded we’re two societies split on this line). I strongly identify as a “Quaker” and I likewise strong identify as an “activist” but rarely as a “Quaker activist.”
It’s often considered bad form to point to this split but I think we’re going to have to if we’re going to have any balance and I wonder if this is true for America as well, at least for religiously progressive America. Let’s not worry about the words, let’s just have the conversations.
Zack, this reminds me of the whining you often hear from the right about how newspapers so often define Republicans as “conservative,” but don’t call Democrats “liberal” (see: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20031113.asp#4). They leave out in their whining that Republicans gleefully take on the title of “conservative,” but had succeeded in attaching a negative connotation to the word “liberal” in the public mind, so few Democrats used it about themselves. So, in effect, Republicans were whining about the fact the media wouldn’t help them tar Democrats.
“Secular” is the new word certain Republicans want to use, even though it’s really just a code word allowing Bill O’Reilly to pretend to be even handed and attack “S-Ps” and claim to be “traditionalist” instead of admitting he hates liberals because he’s a conservative. The term doesn’t even have a real meaning in terms of religion, however, as the religious and secular realms are separate, as Jesus pointed out by saying that we should “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Yes, the two realms inform each other, but one could be a “secular progressive” and also quite religious.
I think the term you might be looking for, though, is “worldly progressives.” For the non-religious, it has a connotation of sophistication that might please them, but, for the piously religious, it does have the right hint of bitterness and separation. It should make no one happy, which means it’s just about right.
Spot on Lydia. I don’t think I could possibly agree more.
Another word that avoids the arrogant ring of calling ones self a “progressive” — tall order.
I have always liked the simplicity of simply being a seeker of truth. A truth seeker doesn’t declare an allegiance to a political party, a popular philosophy or perspective. He/she simply wants to follow the truth. If the truth overturns their most treasured beliefs, so be it.
If truth takes them to the left today on issue A, it may take them to the right tomorrow on issue B. In a week, the truth might lead to a third or previously on thought of perspective.
I have told all my evangelical Christian friends that they ought not to identify with any party. All Christians, in my mind, ought to Independents. We ought not allow either or any party feel that we are in “their pocket.” Our allegiance is not to a party but to Christ and his will.
Christian “progressives” and Christian “conservatives” and Christian “liberals” and “Red Letter Christians” are all devisive terms. The most important thing about The most important thing about Christians is no matter what our ethnicity or culture, no matter what our socio-economic status, no matter what our attainments or education, is that we are Christ-ones.
Christians are people who believe we have been puchased by His blood, and we are daily involved in
imitating His sacrifice for us by His blood, imitating His sacrifice for us in the sacrifice of our lives for others. It (the cross-shapedness and cross-boughtness) of our identity is the reason why we live as sojourners in the land.
The most important thing about me is NOT that I am a white, middle class, seminary educated, easterner, married, father of four kids, who now resides and pastors an Evangelical Free Church in Illinois. The most important thing about me is that I belong—body and soul, by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice of His life’s blood—to God. I have been bought by Him and now my life is shaped by His sacrifice.
I must not think of myself as a white male, with a middle class upbringing of German ancestry who has a seminary education, blah, blah, blah . . . The most precious, life-absorbing truth about me is that I belong to God by virtue of a brutal and bloody sacrificed on a hillside outside Jerusalem that purchased my redemption from the slave market of sin and now am called to sacrifice my life for my fellow man in a cross-bearing imitation of my savior.
Christians shouldn’t need any other designation.
Picking up another thread … The nature of modern TV and Radio is so purposefully polarizing that there is little benefit to using media figures personas (Bill O’Reily, Hannity, Combs, et al) to tar and feather those who may lean in one direction or the other. The personas at the top of the media pile on both the right and the left simply don’t represent the general population of the nation.
They may be entertaining. They may have larger or smaller media shares. They may have legions of people who listen or watch. But the legions are knee jerk followers (by and large), no matter what O’Reiley’s and others want you to believe.
Book recommendation: Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman
One more thought. Zach, one of the things that makes your blog so attractive is that you do appear to be seeking truth (and taking some hits for it).
It bothers me (a teensy bit) that you are helping evangelical Christians to define themselves as the norm for what it means to be religious in the US.
This community, important as it is (and worthy of respect) is still only one and quite divided part of the US religious spectrum.They are not the ‘norm’ in many parts of the country, where religious folks might be overwhelmingly Catholic, Mainline Protestant, or so diverse that there is no norm.
Secondly, it is possible to be a secular religious progressive. My personal belief system has everything to do with my religion, but I do not want my particular religious theology to have a universal impact. I don’t give two craps if non Jews eat pork. It’s the fact that evangelical Christians do want to impose their beliefs on others that makes them religious as opposed to secular.
Many of us ’secular religious’ are just deeply tolerant religious folk. I want to be seen individually as part of a faith community and progressive. But I think I come down on the ’secular’ side of this debate.
Happy birthday!
When talking about Republicans, we talk about evangelical Repubs, business Repubs, libertarians, and so forth. There isn’t a blanket term for “non-religiously-motivated Republican,” only a bunch of terms for other specific kinds of Republican, or reasons people are Republicans.
Probably the same should go for Democrats. You can be Democratic because of our support for the working poor, unions, racial equality, education, and so forth. Pollsters would more crudely list suburban Dems, union Dems, African-Americans, and so forth. But we’re probably just as well off not creating an even cruder category consisting of all non-evangelical progressives — we’d be lumping a lot of wildly different people together. We’d also be defining them only by what they’re not, which is off because that isn’t how they define themselves.
If you want to avoid lumping all non-evangelical lefties together, how would you title a post like yesterday’s? I guess you’d say MacLaren reached out to the whole netroots.
clenchner - you raise some very interesting points. I agree 100% on the ’secular religious’ designation. I have many friends and family who are religious and yet who don’t try to influence or direct the beliefs of those around them, and I think the term ’secular religious’ really puts into words what they are about. well said.
and all this reminds me of what I like to call “the jerk test”. if there is a view you hold strongly about your own personal lifestyle - be it vegetarianism, religion, musical interests, clothing, tattoos, sexual conduct, etc - do you believe that everyone else should also believe and act as you do? if you do, you are a jerk. if you don’t, then you’re cool with me. variety is the spice of life.
Hey Zack,
Here are a few thoughts.
Populism and progressive thought were once a strong part of the Christian movement. Does anybody remember William Jennings Bryan?
But there is one issue that has and will continue to stop “secular progressives” and “evangelical progressives” from reuniting politically. That issue is abortion. Simply put, most evangelicals believe abortion is murder. I don’t care what their economic or environmental views are, they will not vote for what they consider to be a legalized massacre. The republicans have exploited this deeply rooted belief, and have successfully wedged America into two, even though we are united on most fronts
What’s the answer? More anti-abortion Democratic politicians?
Truthfully I can’t really think of another option. If we want the Progressive Evangelical vote, I think we are going to need an influx of anti-abortion populist/progressive Dems. Now that leaves us with a difficult question, if we have to sacrifice (even partially) a principle most of us hold dear (the right to choose) do we really want their votes? What do you think Zack? Are there any other options? And if there aren’t, should this option be considered? Great work with the blog, I love it.
-Barak Wouk NOI 2007
P.S. Speaking of words, I think humanist should be used more often. Secular + Progressive = Humanist.
I have great respect for anti-abortion activists who choose to help women through persuasion and services. It’s then they try to use the courts of the law to limit options that I have a problem. But there is a reason why they do use the law, and it’s the same reason I support fair wage laws: because god mandates not only that we personally act in certain ways, but that our society adhere to certain norms. Fair wage laws don’t have a religious veneer (yet) because that struggle is led by unions. But if it were led by the faith community, it could legitimately be seen as… wait for it….
A form of religious coercion. After all, libertarian capitalists think that state intervention is wrong when it comes to freely agreed upon wage contracts.
So… let’s have some open religious warfare in the field of political battle. All positions might as well be seen as religious if people of faith deem is to be so. And all opposition to any view point is anti-religious if any part of the proponents camps justifies itself with reference to a belief system.
Hope that helps….
I was typing too fast in post 11. Left out an important word. Next to the last paragraph is missing the word “not” before “knee jerk.”
I know I’ve brought this up before, but I think it’s important to keep in mind that there are more than two camps. There’s a third group (which I am in) of progressive mainline Protestants who are somewhere in the middle. We have a history of alliance and good rapport with the “secular left” and unfortunately also a history of distrust of evangelicals.
This distrust has caused a rift which has been deepened by Christian Right groups like the IRD who are working to infiltrate and undermine mainline Protestant denominations using our own church structures against us, in order to neutralize our influence in accepting gay and lesbian believers, opposing war, etc.
Enough with the ever expanding group of categories. This is tribalism at its worst. Christians, define your life by Christ. Non-chrisitians, define your life around your belief structure. All, find common ground to care for a world that is tearing itself apart. Throw the rhetoric of “us” and “them” away.
You’re my neighbor. That is enough. I will treat you with respect and honor your perspective even when I disagree and I will not villifiy you with language tha poison’s the well from which others draw their conclusions.
I agree with Mark completely. Remember, too, that there has been a very politically-active group of evangelical progressives providing leadership on issues of social justice for many decades now in this country. They’re called African Americans.
I like your blog, I’ve been lurking for months, but at times it does suggest that Christians caring about poor people is some kind of new wild phenomenon. How about some props for those churches that have been fighting for the social gospel all along?
Happy Birthday! Hope you had a great one!
“Surprise! This huge group stands for almost everything that we stand for…”
Speak for yourself, xian! I stand against nearly everything that many xians stand for.
My thoughts here.
clenchner - I’m not trying to say here that evangelicals are only kind of Christian, they’re just the topic of this blog.
And yes, you can be “secular” and religious — even an evangelical — at the same time. Which is part of why “secular” is a flawed term for this purpose. But it kind of works because it indicates that someone isn’t organizing their whole life around their religion vs someone who’s every decision is based on their faith (even though they believe in separation of church+state, etc..)
But yeah, as I keep saying, I’m happy to stop using “secular” - just give me a replacement, cuz I can’t think of one.
Chosenrebel wrote: “Enough with the ever expanding group of categories. This is tribalism at its worst. Christians, define your life by Christ. Non-chrisitians, define your life around your belief structure. All, find common ground to care for a world that is tearing itself apart. Throw the rhetoric of “us” and “them” away.”
I totally agree that that is the goal. But that tribalism won’t go away without a little bit (or a whole lot) of discussion and getting to know each other.
That’s what I’m trying to do on this blog — and there’s no way to introduce these two particular (yes, overlapping) groups to each other without referring to them.
Mave - On your Jerk Test… I think there’s a slight problem with that.
I’d want to modify it a little bit and say “If you want to pass a law or in some way *force* me to change my life” as opposed to just wanting me to change.
Because isn’t it appropriate for us to all struggle with each other about how we live? I’d love to see more struggle against frenzied consumerism, selfishness, and other traits that have become so fundamental in the culture I come out of (and these “revolutionary Christians” are sturggling to change them).
But you’ve brought up exactly one of the things that divides these two cultures: they often find each other contemptible for wanting to change each other. — and both cultures have plenty of people who want to change the other, it’s not just the evangelicals.
I agree that there are some problems with the “secular” term — which, if I understand your intentions, when used to refer to Christians would be opposed to your previous coinage, “covenantal”? I’m a bit leery of “covenantal” since I think most Christians (and Jews) consider themselves to be part of God’s covenant — but as someone whose background was in an oldline denomination, and who still has plenty of ties there, I am vividly aware of the need for some term like that to acknowledge the worldview difference. (I’m also sure that you’ll continue to get comments objecting that other groups of Christians are on the record as being politically liberal… which as you say above is fine, but not the topic of this blog.)
The story I would tell, parallel to your story about the coffeeshop conversation, would be attending a dinner party awhile back with a group of (to try on your term) “secular” (ehh) Christians who were active in a church a family member worked at, part of an oldline denomination well known as progressive, with a long track record in civil rights, lobbying for progressive causes, etc. The dinner was part of a church-sponsored social evening series attended by mostly very committed members.
In conversation around the table, I mentioned that I had been positively impacted by a group of Christians that met Friday nights to cook together, hang out, learn more about applying the Bible in daily life, and pray for each other and the world. I gave some examples of ways we’d invested in each other’s lives and done things to serve the community together. The rather shocked consensus among the other diners was that it was a dangerous and unhealthy thing to take part in a group like that, because it might somehow manipulate you into applying Christianity to areas of your life/the world where it did not belong and had nothing valuable to say.
It reminded me of an old tract that I think Campus Crusade used to use, picturing the fullest and truest mode of existence as one in which Jesus was “on the throne” of your life… as opposed to a way of life in which Jesus was one department of your world and you were seeking to integrate him into your life, rather than letting him integrate you into his. This is a version of the image (S is “self”). http://www.lyntonmissionarychurch.org/foursp5.gif
Forgive the complete and utter 1970s cheesiness of mentioning this tract, but I think again it speaks somehow to the different set of assumptions. The folks at that dinner party, and most oldline Christians I know and have worked with, would specifically reject the image that evangelical culture wants to foster as an ideal.
But as for what to call the groups… it’s hard for me to imagine a term that in a neutral and nonjudgmental way can distinguish between these two habits of construing what role God plays in the formation of your way of being in the world.
I agree that we should always remember mainline Christians. I partly come from that tradition, and I’m grateful that they’ve maintained the traditions of discipleship in times when Evangelicals focused too much on the emotional, one-time decision with no follow-up.
That said….I don’t think that mainline Christians realize that a lot of the progressive movement is controlled by secularists, who only tolerate the presence of even the most liberal Christians because they don’t have a choice. All the Mainline Christians I know within progressive politics STILL feel alienated from the aggressive secularism that dominates progressive politics. It’s not just evangelicals that are alienated–all Christians in progressive politics often feel pressured to compartmentalize their life in ways that is simply not compatible with following Jesus. And I think Mainliners don’t push back enough, because they don’t want to be…heaven forbid…FUNDAMENTALISTS, and assert that they have a right to be honest about where their values come from.
zack - I’d want to modify it a little bit and say “If you want to pass a law or in some way *force* me to change my life” as opposed to just wanting me to change. Because isn’t it appropriate for us to all struggle with each other about how we live?
I think it goes much farther than just politics and law. for me, it’s a bit of a litmus test as to whether I can have a comfortable, personal relationship with someone. if someone can’t accept me and respect the fact that I’ve made my own choices based on where I am coming from in life, then I might tolerate them and get along with them on a superficial level, but it would be highly unlikely that I’d want to let them get much closer than that. I love learning about other people’s views, lifestyles and just about anything else, but when sharing becomes proselytizing then it really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. and I’m not just talking about religion, either - this applies to many other things.
I think this is a really important issue, because it speaks to one of the biggest rifts between some religious and non-religious people. there is a huge, vast difference between inspiring and challenging each other to be better people (which in my opinion is best done by leading by example and/or asking questions as opposed to prescribing ideas and behavior to others) and pushing an agenda or judging others who are not like us.
christians are often asking “why are we under attack? why do so many people mistrust us? why don’t jews, muslims or buddhists get some of the flak?”, and I think that is a big part of why. it’s easy to “live and let live” if the other is actually reciprocating. it gets a lot harder when they are actively trying to force, coerce, entice or train others to be like them. at best it’s cultural imperialism - at worst it’s just plain rude, arrogant and intolerant.
christians aren’t the only people engaging in this behavior, but they unfortunately are known for it - whether they all deserve the label or not. and the thing is - I know that they are often doing it out of love for their fellowman and have only the best intentions, and want to share something they think is extremely important. but it’s something that in our global culture is just not going to wash anymore.
I think that a concise way of describing the difference between what some are calling the “secular religious” and their opponents that avoids the word “secular” is perfectionism vs. anti-perfectionism. “Perfectionism” is a concept from the lexicon of political philosophy that describes the belief that the purpose of the state is to help its citizens become better people, and so a state is legitimate only to the extent that it is such as to succeed in achieving that purpose. A perfectionist, for instance, is more likely to recommend that the state should enforce legislation designed to reinforce a specific moral or religious point of view; If observance of a specific code of moral conduct, or the profession of a specific faith, is how the perfectionist understands a person being better rather than worse, the state is abdicating its fundamental purpose when it fails to take measures that at least have a reasonable chance of resulting in citizens’ observing the conduct or professing the faith.
An anti-perfectionist would not view citizens’ moral improvement as a legitimate state purpose. Not that anti-perfectionists contend that the purpose of the state is to make citizens morally worse, of course; they just don’t see the state as a useful or legitimate means to that end. Legitimate state purposes might include securing individual and collective interests (e.g. property, security, etc.) and upholding basic rights, among others. The achievement of these purposes might even result in citizens’ moral improvement. It’s just that the improvement wouldn’t be a legitimate reason that would serve to justify state action.
In contemporary America and elsewhere, most anti-perfectionists are liberals (if we define “liberal” as meaning something like “believer in significantly limited government”). But anti-perfectionism isn’t the same as liberalism, for two reasons: (1) There are perfectionist liberals who argue that, given the conception of the good life they consider best warranted, liberal political institutions are the best way in which a state can foster citizens’ moral improvement. (2) The proper opposite of “liberal” isn’t “conservative,” but “authoritarian.” An authoritarian is prone to argue that, since obedience to authority is productive of social goods like stability and order, citizens have extensive (perhaps total) obligations to obey state authority independent of any other reasons citizens may have for acting otherwise. (In other words, authoritative directives provide independent reasons for action that pre-empt and trump most, if not all, others.)
I take it, then, that the difference between the “secular religious” and those who would not describe themselves this way is really as narrow as the difference between those who think the state should be in the business of reinforcing morality and religion (perfectionism), and those who think that morality and religion need reinforcement, perhaps, just not from the state (anti-perfectionism). Neither creed is bumper-sticker-ready, but I rather think that that is a virtue rather than a vice.