In his speech to the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame on October 19, 2019, Attorney General William Barr asserted that secularism and moral relativism pose the greatest test for America in the 21st century.
“The campaign to destroy the traditional moral order," he states, "has brought with it immense suffering, wreckage and misery. And yet, the forces of secularism, ignoring these tragic results, press on with even greater militancy.”
This speech led to a fury of controversy, with one commentator decrying Barr's characterization of an assault on religious liberties as "historically illiterate, morally obtuse, and willfully misleading."
But beyond criticisms of its inaccuracy, both historical and theological, is the rhetorical aim of Barr's speech. Framing secularization using bellicose terms such as "militancy," "militant," "attack," and "weapon" clearly inflames a culture of fear, ignoring other civic postures and possibilities.
It's no secret that politicians use fear to accomplish political goals. Nazi propagandist Hermann Goring famously stated, "The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. National Security Advisor, criticized the War on Terror as an rhetorical tool to inspire a culture of fear. He states, "The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants."
Brzezinski goes on to explain that the term accomplished a singular objective: to stimulate a cultural anxiety. "Fear," he writes, "obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue."
A fear-mongering emotionalism is obvious in Barr's rhetoric. He describes secular progressives as a militant cultural insurgency waring against Judeo-Christian values and presents himself and the Trump administration as moral champions of religious liberty.
In addition to fearmongering, this view oversimplifies the political landscape into a false dichotomy as if the electorate is divided into two camps; either a person is a religiously-minded conservative or a secular-minded liberal elite. This view ignores numerous other demographic possibilities, including deeply religious working-class Democrats as well as elite Republican atheists.
Numerous reactions have cited the irony of Barr's lament over cultural decadence with one commentator noting, "Throughout this lecture, one can only wonder if William Barr has ever actually met Donald Trump."
Lloyd Schaffer, in his article, "There was nothing Christian about Bill Barr’s speech at Notre Dame," adds, "If Barr is living according to his Christian faith, I wonder how he can possibly support such an unprincipled, morally bankrupt, fornicating, mendacious president of a supposed religious country."
Beyond these accusations of hypocrisy, it is also worth examining Barr's call to action: "We must be vigilant to resist efforts by the forces of secularization to drive religious viewpoints from the public square and to impinge upon the free exercise of our faith."
To what extent have religious viewpoints have been driven from the public square? While it is certainly challenging to articulate religious values in a compelling way to a secular society, one need not look far to find examples of a surge of religious rhetoric in public discourse, in part owing to communities of faith seeking to disassociate with the religious right's alignment with the Trump administration.
In his 2018 column in The New York Times, Jonathan Merritt writes, "We must work together to revive sacred speech and rekindle confidence in the vocabulary of faith. If we cannot rise to this occasion, sacred speech will continue its rapid decline — and the worst among us will continue to define what the word 'Christian' means." In his call for a renewed religious rhetoric, Merritt also demonstrates a space for such speech in the public square.
While the New York Times is just one among multiple national newspapers, it holds a unique place of prominence in American civic life for well-educated, left-of-center voters. With this audience, a number of Times columnists embrace religious worldviews and write with religious language.
David Brooks has attributed current racial issues to a division born out of sin. George Yancey, in his article, "Dear God, Are You There?" argues that the current crisis facing American society is not political, but rather spiritual in nature. In another article, Bianca Vivion Brooks recounts how her faith has shaped her progressive politics and calls for the rise of a religious left.
These articles, and other examples--including columns written by Ross Douthat, Esau McCaulley, Elizabeth Bruenig, and Tish Harrison Warren--indicate a far more open environment to discuss religious values and convictions, even among liberal progressives, than Barr depicts in his speech.
Other critics of Barr's speech agree. Michael Sean Winters, in his article "Notre Dame had a right to host Barr--but his talk was ridiculously stupid" for the National Catholic Reporter, observes that Barr overstates the influence of secularism. Americans are still the most religious people of any industrialized nation.
More importantly, Winters argues, Barr's nostalgia for the past ignores the role of traditional morality in propping up racial and social injustices.
A stark contrast to Barr's rhetoric can be found in British theologian N.T. Wright's recent interview in The Atlantic on the state of American Christianity. When asked whether he was hopeful about the future of Christianity, Wright quoted Presbyterian missionary Lesslie Newbigin.
"I’m neither an optimist nor a pessimist," Newbigin had stated. "Jesus Christ has risen from the dead."
"In other words," Wright says, "something has happened, as a result of which the world is a different place."
In the toxicity of the American cultural wars, this declaration reads as a refreshing reminder of how a posture of faith eschews the culture of fear.