Comments on Ronald A. Lindsay's "The Necessity of Secularism: Why God Can't Tell Us What to Do"

A few years ago I read Ronald A. Lindsay's The Necessity of Secularism: Why God Can't Tell Us What to Do. I meant to reread it and then thoroughly review it, but I'm in a fit of Konmari & I need to send my copy to the person who requested it from me. So, I'm writing a few comments based on my skimming a few passages I had highlighted.

I hope readers of this blog, Muslims in particular, will attempt to understand secularism in a non-polemical manner. It isn't licentiousness (الإباحية), and it can be uncommitted on essential religious positions, so it is not equivalent to atheism.

Lindsay's layman definition of secularism is "the view that: government should not involve itself with religious matters; religious doctrine should play no role in shaping public policy or in the discourse about public policy; and religious institutions and beliefs should not enjoy a privileged position within society." [p. 18]

Lindsay's book, in my recollection, doesn't advance leading-edge new arguments, but this short volume synthesizes for the general reader a large number of arguments related to secularism, and its chapter notes allow for further investigation. For example, can morality exist without religion? What, in our particular human experience, has caused morality to be associated with religion? Are objectivity and subjectivity, when discussing morality, important or misleading concepts? Historically, morality has changed. What has caused these changes? What is the relationship between facts ("is" statements) and morality ("ought" statements)?

Were I to speculate on how some Muslims might respond to the book, they might say something like:

• This is a reprise of the ilm al-kalaam (theological) discussions of the Asharites and the Mu`tazlites, and, historically, Muslims preferred the former, so there's no need to revisit these issues.
• Lindsay's reading assumes that we humans are actually moving in the right direction. In reality, what has actually happened historically is one group of humans has imposed its morality by force, not inherent virtue, upon the rest of humanity.
• Humans may misunderstand the relationship between facts and Lindsay's standard of morality, namely those norms which promote a more peaceful, cooperative society, and God's guidance in the form of revelation should take precedence over humans' perception of right and wrong because God is benevolent and knows what is best for humans.

In previous blog posts, I have advocated for secularism and the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. And this is not where I'd want to explain my reasons for rejecting these potential responses.

I'm more concerned about those Muslims who assume that it is their religious duty to support politicians who want to use the government to clamp down on what they interpret as immoral or religiously impermissible activities, usually defined as gambling, prostitution, intoxicants, abortion and LGBTQ civil rights (but never lack of health care, inadequate housing, foreign wars, mass incarceration, immigration enforcement and environmental degradation). I may embrace a discipline in my religious path. I hope reading this book will help a person understand that there is no straight line between that personal decision and public policy.