Review of Bill O'Reilly's "Cultural Warrior" by Roberto Diego

Note: This review contains relevant edited content from a number of Mr. Diego’s writings.

For years I’ve studied the nature of secular society because I think the analysis holds the clue to understanding a proper society. In my time, according to Bill O’Reilly in his book Cultural Warrior, the debate is being waged between those who favor a traditional society and those who favor a so-called secular-progressive society. But I think this is a false alternative and, as long as we operate on the premises of this debate, we are drifting toward disaster as a nation.

In his book, O’Reilly is jumping into the fray as a warrior for traditionalists against what he calls secular-progressives. Secular-progressives are trying to mold America, as he says, “in the image of Western Europe.”

However, I think this is a pedestrian interpretation of culture wars and only indicates two non-essential views that are so removed from reality that O’Reilly doesn’t even know what he represents and the enemies that he is fighting. Certainly, his “war” is real and many are fighting based upon these premises, but it is only one aspect of the entire field of culture wars. I find James Davison Hunter’s definition of culture wars much more informative.

“America is in the midst of a culture war that has had and will continue to have reverberations not only within public policy but within the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere.

I define cultural conflict very simply as political and social hostility rooted in different systems of moral understanding. The end to which these hostilities tend is the domination of one cultural and moral ethos over all others. Let it be clear, the principles and ideals that mark these competing systems of moral understanding are by no means trifling but always have a character of ultimacy to them. They are not merely attitudes that can change on a whim but basic commitments and beliefs that provide a source of identity, purpose, and togetherness for the people who live by them. It is for precisely this reason that political action rooted in these principles and ideals tends to be so passionate.”[1]

In my view, this definition takes a broader view of culture wars than the perspective offered by O’Reilly and places cultural conflicts within the realm of competing commitments and beliefs that provide nothing more than subjective value for the believer. A culture war, in this view, can be interpreted as various disagreements over beliefs that define a person or group culturally. Such disagreements are animated by some peoples’ religious/emotional commitments; and in our time, the cultural war discussed by O'Reilly is not a true cultural war because his "conflict" is waged only by religionists against an enemy that cannot answer for itself because it barely exists. Given the fact that most religious beliefs are based upon rationalism that gives rise to many different interpretations of the same religious documents, a cultural war is merely a euphemism for a religious war without a defined enemy.

In fact, true culture wars can take place among several religious groups and even within a given religious group. The cultural war that O’Reilly talks about is merely one minute slice of the entire range of culture wars that have been spawned by religious advocates for the last two or more millennia. In fact, the divisions claimed in O'Reilly's culture war do not even square with the facts. What is a traditionalist or even a secular-progressive? And do they form real divisions? I suggest that they represent nothing more than O’Reilly’s individual view of the world, a view that he expounds endlessly by means of ginning up outrage against a straw man that seldom speaks out in his own defense. As I wrote in my article, “Immigration”,

“O'Reilly is not about news and real issues; he is about inventing issues that spur ratings. He is not a news journalist; he is an entertainer pretending to be a news journalist.”

News reportage, if it is serious reporting, is a major responsibility for a correspondent because of the huge megaphone that he has earned. If people are given false stories or are led by a story to over-generalize about innocent people, then the reporter of the story is doing a disservice, not only to the public, but to the truth as well. The consequences for peoples’ lives can be highly negative, with lives and careers destroyed, hundreds, thousands, even millions of people being discriminated against, politicians writing bogus laws, and worst of all, elevating a non-problem into the national debate that ignores the real problems of our nation.”[2]

“Where honest commentators try to find fundamental issues and frame them objectively, people like O’Reilly will frame them in the most negative way by identifying clear villains and clear victims. This is why he always says he is “looking out for you.” But he is not looking out for anyone other than himself. He is all about collecting large advertising fees with his television and radio shows and selling large numbers of books, not by being objective but by framing issues in a way that draws attention to him.”[3]

O’Reilly’s tactic is to create a myth called "secular-progressives" that he uses as a package deal to discredit legitimate disagreement. But secularism and progressivism are not proper allies. One need not be a secularist in order to be a progressive. There are even religionists who are progressive, even Marxist. Secularism is what has kept our country free for several hundred years and progressivism is a serious problem. O’Reilly is making money on a book that lumps secularists (freedom lovers, atheists and free thinkers) and progressives (socialists and totalitarians) into one deceptive package.

What does O’Reilly mean by calling the “good” side in the culture war “traditionalists”?

When O’Reilly frames the culture war as a conflict between traditionalists and secular-progressives, he is framing the issue in the most “negative way”; as an issue of good guys vs. mean ill-intentioned secularists. Is this a proper way of framing this cultural war? I think not. What is a traditionalist? What traditions are good and which are bad? How does one argue for the traditions of the Inquisition, for instance, or for religious wars or burning at the stake? What are good traditions and bad traditions and who is the authority on this? The answer is that it is difficult to identify good traditions because, in many cases, it is a matter of opinion and different opinions can be held by any number of people. There is no rational standard that enables us to identify proper from improper traditions.

From the context of his writing it appears that a traditionalist for O’Reilly is one who holds that the Constitution was a religious document that established God as the authority over reality and our laws. This traditionalist view holds that to keep religion out of government is to violate the freedom of speech of religious people. It holds that to be against God in government is to encourage wanton immorality because religion, in his view, is the only moral system that keeps people from doing evil. O’Reilly also holds that anyone who challenges traditionalism wants anarchy, or at the very least, wants an “anything goes” society where people can have sexual orgies, parade naked in public, etc., etc.

I think we need to take a step back here before we accept all of O’Reilly’s “facts.” O’Reilly claims that he is an objective journalist because all of his opinions are based upon facts. But all of the facts mentioned above are not accepted by all commentators on the issue. The Constitution explicitly forbids the passing of laws that advance religion and there is a good reason for that. You may interpret it differently than Constitutional scholars and say that the Founding Fathers did not want to outlaw religion because they use the name of God elsewhere but the Constitution forbids the advancement of religion specifically because of Europe’s history of religious wars, witch trials at Salem and other persecutions engaged by one religious group over other religious groups. The Constitution established the idea that religion should not be part of the government in order to protect religious people as well as non-religious people from having a religion imposed upon them. Also, the idea that religion keeps people from doing evil does not square with the entire history of the Church where Church fathers themselves were capable of the worst treachery and sins. My Catholic patron saint, Robert Bellarmine was one of the most cruel and vicious of the Church Fathers responsible for the most vile tortures as well as the prosecution of Galileo. The morality of self-sacrifice, fostered by Jesus, makes of man a sinner by proclaiming that sacrifice is a higher virtue than living honestly among equals. People cannot be consistently self-sacrificial or they would have to give everything they have to others and then die in order to earn heaven. Finally, a society that leaves people free to make their own moral decisions does not relieve people of the responsibility to live a life that brings success and happiness. Wanton behavior is not moral on the face of it and no rational person has a need to act in an irresponsible way just because religion is not there to give him the evil eye.

To define a traditionalist view as O’Reilly has done is clearly not the way to wage a culture war. It is a sure way to combine both good and bad elements in our society into a mixture that is meaningless. To see this, we must look at the other side of O’Reilly’s conflict and ask, “What is a secular-progressive?”

The Free Online Dictionary gives us several good definitions of the word “secular”:

4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.”[5]

None of these definitions imply that the world “secular” is ideological in any way. In fact, they imply that to be secular is merely to be unreligious. To be secular is to live one’s life or to operate in a given context without reference to religion or religious principles. There is no implication that if you are secular you are necessarily communist, socialist, progressive or of any other ideology.

One of the most common views about the source of secular society is that expressed by Hannah Arendt in her book “The Human Condition.” Her view is

“…secularization as a tangible historical event means no more than separation of Church and State, of religion and politics, and this, from a religious viewpoint, implies a return to the early Christian attitude of “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s” rather than a loss of faith and transcendence or a new and emphatic interest in the things of this world.”[6]

Needless to say, Hannah Arendt’s short quote does not cover the entire history of the development of secular society. And it is true that many view this (Render unto Caesar) quote as the authority for the establishment of a separation between church and state, but there are differing opinions about whether that is the case.

Wikipedia states: “This phrase has become a succinct summary of the relationship between Christianity and secular authority. The original message, as is probably the intention, gives rise to multiple possible interpretations about whether it is desirable for the Christian to submit to earthly authority. Interpretations include the belief that it is good and appropriate to submit to the State when asked; that spiritual demands supersede earthly demands but do not abolish them; or that the demands of the state are non-negotiable.”[7]

But the genesis of secular society cannot have been Roman in origin. The Romans had no problem with religion. In fact, they nurtured religions throughout the empire. And it was not uncommon for a Roman Emperor to establish a religion where he, the Emperor, was the Godhead. To say that the Romans ruled the world while the Jewish God ruled the spiritual realm is not exactly what the phrase implies. The Romans ruled everything including the religions that it tolerated…so long as those religions did not challenge Roman authority.

The true genesis of secular society came from the Enlightenment and from ideas that developed out of a new attitude toward the real world. The conflict between religion and science was eloquently put on display when the Church insisted that science was merely hypothetical and that the discoveries of Galileo, Copernicus and others could not contradict the “God-given” view that the world was the center of the universe. When men began to see that scientists were bringing real knowledge of the world, such as that gained from observation and experimentation, people began to insist that men be allowed to think scientifically; in other words without the interference of a religious authority. Though it was not explicit, when the process of induction started being practiced, the development of knowledge through observation and experiment caused philosophy to move away from religion.

The climax of this movement was the Constitution of the United States. Here, for the first time, a secular society was put into action and the freedom of man to explore, think and decide for himself was protected. Certainly, many of the framers of the Constitution were religious men but their intent was to separate the views of different religious influences from the lives of men as they functioned politically. It gave men the ability to go in any direction (religiously or secularly) that they chose. It outlawed religious strife by keeping religion out of government and it enabled independent thinking by means of protecting the rights of men to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights solidified the victory of the independent mind and the result was capitalism, political freedom and brilliant new inventions that revolutionized living.

Secularism is an ideology that is explicitly non-ideological. Nothing in the Constitution said that men should advocate a specific ideology such as those that came along later, socialism, communism, fascism, etc. In fact, secularism enabled men to consider any ideas they wanted and to live by them if they chose to do so – as long as they did not violate the Constitutional rights of other citizens. Certainly some progressives were secular, but it was not secularism that defined their views. What we call progressives (or liberals) today are people with an ideological base in Marxism and socialism but there are religious secularists.

“The result of the separation of church and state, as well as the institution of the idea of the “pursuit of happiness,” was a secular culture where individuals were protected in their rights and property, enjoyed the freedom to think, worshipped God as they wanted and said what they wanted. Inventors were allowed to practice the inductive method that was championed by such illustrious men of the past as Galileo, Bacon and others and, over time, they began creating giant industries that revolutionized and improved peoples’ lives. The resulting capitalist system enabled these men to develop huge amounts of investment capital and over time our lives were made even more comfortable, clean and enjoyable because of these huge industries. The employees of American industry began to demand even more products as they strove to learn new methods of production and took leadership positions themselves. In addition, they exerted the right to influence their government and determine the goals of their society. The result was a new kind of individual, a secular individual who was better educated and better informed; an individual that was important in his own right and interested in maintaining economic freedom in order to protect the political environment where he could continue to pursue the American dream.

Through out the history of our nation, religion thrived because there was no authority for religious persecution, no need for people in a free country to engage in religious conflict. Since no religion was able to take control of government, it could not persecute and destroy other religions and it could not demand that all people tithe for the sake of the poor. The power of religion to exert political power was eliminated. No single religion was the ruling authority as had been the case for centuries in Europe and other continents. Religion was an option for people, not a requirement, and each religion had to use persuasion in order to grow. No religion could legislate itself into power. Religious people could stay in the same religious denomination generation after generation while others could change religions weekly if they chose to do so. This was unprecedented in history and it was caused by the new secular nature of society, by the individuation of each American, by his right to choose. Indeed, the new trend in our society was a trend toward individual self-reliance and individual thinking.

As time went on, the new movements developing in Europe toward dictatorship took hold and began influencing America. The result for Europe was fascism and communism as new movements, fostered by potential dictators, uprooted whatever democratic experiments were in place. They led to racism, genocide, war and the present state of the world. In America, we saw the emergence of socialists, who early on sought to transform our society by means of force (labor unions) and legislation into a socialist utopia with fierce political resistance from a few intellectuals, some politicians and a public that saw socialism as antithetical to freedom and capitalism. The Democrats eventually came to see that socialist ideas were a way of buying votes while the early Republicans correctly saw them as a way to destroy freedom. This struggle persisted for most of the 20^th Century and dominates the present century as well. The socialists have transformed themselves into the present crop of progressives who no longer talk about their socialist roots but are closer to fascism than socialism. The far left has moved closer to fostering anarchy by advancing the idea that America is an imperialist country which led to their successful ending of the Vietnam War and their present efforts to end the War in Iraq. On the domestic front, the progressives cynically seek more entitlement programs as a way to continue buying votes while “neocons” do the same in order to take issues away from the dominant progressives.

A new “conservative” movement arose during the latter part of the last century called the religious right. This movement was an effort to create a society dominated by religion. It sought to attack the secular nature of our society and to undermine the separation of church and state. It reinterpreted the intentions of the Founding Fathers and insisted that the Founders never wanted a society where religion could not have political power. It also fostered the idea that our society was founded upon religion, ignoring the truth of the fact that our society was founded as a non-religious, secular society. In addition, they have taken other tactics such as interpreting the recent history of our nation as an attack on freedom of religion. This fabricated issue is their wedge that would allow them to re-interpret the Constitution in favor of establishing a theocracy. The religious right has brought religion to the forefront and has even captured the tacit agreement of a President of the United States. [And it has brought O’Reilly and “Cultural Warrior.”]

“…since the Enlightenment, religion is no longer able to compel men to live according to its precepts because they are now free to do as they wish. This freedom, for religious preachers, provides more fuel to the contention that we are in a moral crisis and creates the “need” for far right religious leaders to get into politics in order to assert the word of God into our political processes. In effect, this violates the separation clause to the extent that these leaders seek to implement legally the precepts of religion in such issues as school prayer and abortion to name a few, and it points out that their war against a moral crisis is merely an extension of the debate about Church power that was settled by the U.S. Constitution.

Secularism is the foundation of a society rooted in reality and in a morality for living on earth. It does not create a moral crisis since it is founded upon the idea that man should be free to make his own moral decisions and enjoy his life. Only the view that morality is cosmic and collective can come up with the idea of a moral crisis created by freedom and pleasure. Properly, a secular society prohibits religion from imposing its faith-based view that God rules the universe. Secularism holds that knowledge, even moral knowledge, is founded upon the precepts of science, that faith has no place in the political, educational and moral lives of people, that no one has the right to impose a religious view because that imposition in the public arena is coercive and unreasonable. Religion demands that people “believe” without proof while secular life demands that man focus on reality, on the real world, in order to thrive. Religion gives confusion, doubt, guilt and denigration of man while secularism makes a truly moral life possible since it frees men to seek knowledge that enables decisions relevant to the life of the individual.”[8]

But whether we are religious or not, “…in order to continue the fight against the tyranny of religion,…we must champion a “secular” society, one that refuses to accept the imposition of religious premises into men’s lives. A secular society is one that is based in reason, science, freedom and property rights. A secular society is a fully free capitalist society whose hallmark is that it considers any attempt to impose religion, either privately or publicly, as evil. When men learn the meaning and importance of reason in their lives, they will learn that only reason has sway in life and society, and they will begin to create a society that is positive, moral, free and affluent. Only a secular society will enable man to hold survival as his standard and establish cultural institutions that advance life, love, morality and hope.”[9]

What is the consequence of a secular society? Why are we still living under its light today while so many are attempting to denigrate it, like O’Reilly, by connecting it with progressives, communists and atheists? The truth is that secular society is the only true “open” society. It does not take sides ideologically but promotes the principle that when men are free to decide for themselves, free to live and prosper without religious or state control, they will inevitably choose correctly. When men are free to analyze, investigate and choose the kinds of ideas by which they will live, men will choose wisely. In other words, secularism is evil for religionists because it leaves men free.

Also keep in mind that O’Reilly’s arguments are full of secularism. In fact, he is a secularist because he has to argue, to propagandize for traditionalism and he must convince people that he is right. Such an approach would not be possible in a theology because religion would decide all these issues for us and punish us if we strayed from “the truth” of God’s word. O’Reilly is a secularist while he denigrates secularism.

Today, religious leaders (like O’Reilly) seek to bring down the edifice of secularism by associating it, not only with moral crisis, but also with totalitarianism. Their whipping boy is “secular-progressivism.” Within this hyphenated term, there are essentially two unrelated movements: Secularism, as we’ve already discussed, and Progressivism. Progressives, in our society, advocate government coercion as the solution to human problems. They are not secularists in the sense that they do not advocate the scientific foundations of the Enlightenment nor the justifications founded by the Enlightenment for the rights of man (In fact, many progressive movements of the past claimed to be scientific but were in fact pseudo-scientific). Philosophically, [progressives] are descendents of Kantianism which was an effort to rescue religion from the Enlightenment. …progressives are totalitarians and they seek to impose the very same view of morality on people…the altruist morality…that the Church seeks to impose...”[10]

The fundamental political question that secularism raises is whether religion, altruism and collectivism should be allowed to have roles in government and culture and this is the issue upon which secularism, as distinct from progressivism, is founded. Secularism seeks a non-religious form of existence and as such it means a free, politically civil and educationally scientific form of thinking. Secularism is pro-freedom, anti-altruism, anti-collectivist and therefore not related to progressivism. In terms of political fundamentals, secularism is the opposite of progressivism. One is either a progressive or a secularist; one cannot consistently be both.

Indeed, [political] secularism rejects the collectivist nature of both religion and progressivism because it rejects religion as an influence on our government. And it rejects the very idea that morality consists of only self-sacrifice - it is the antidote to the moral crisis myth fostered by religion. For instance, if a progressive like Hillary Clinton sought to impose upon all children a progressive form of school prayer (let’s say a prayer to the mother goddess of feminism), a true secularist would fight her. Read the Constitution and you will be reading a secular document that sought at all turns to leave men free to think without the imposition of religion or dictators. The legacy of secularism is not fascism but capitalism and freedom. The fundamental premise of secularism is a positive view of man as a moral agent that leads himself and is not led by government or God.

What I am speaking of here is the essence of secularism. Historically, there has been a confusion about the real nature of the philosophical movements that generated scientific investigation, the nature of the universe, man’s role in the universe and how he should live a moral life. Many secular thinkers were religious in many ways and many religious thinkers were more secular than some of today’s progressives. The essence of being non-religious meant being secular. Once a truly secular society became established in the United States, men began to experience the freedom that secularism brought and the beneficial results were startling. We are literally the happiest society in the history of mankind.

Secularism implies a scientific process for gaining knowledge. It has nothing to do with imposing anything on anyone. It is a view that acknowledges that men gain knowledge by looking at reality and they should be free to do so without guilt or penance. Secularism is about freeing the mind of man; both religion and progressivism seek to enslave the mind of man. You could say that the real [culture war] is between secularism against collectivism/altruism with the progressives and theists [especially O’Reilly] as members of the latter group.

“Indeed, there is a clear division between religious values and those of a secular society: secular society includes the pursuit of happiness on earth (religion pursues happiness in heaven), secular society institutes individual rights (a concept developed by the Enlightenment and unheard of in Christianity) and secular society establishes property rights (a term developed in the Enlightenment and contrary to the view that God created and owns the universe).”[11]

What we should understand about these different philosophical and political movements are the fundamental principles that created them rather than what the propagandists for one movement or another want us to believe. Progressivism, in terms of fundamentals, trended toward dictatorship and altruism. The secularism created by the U.S. Constitution trended toward the scientific method, reason, capitalism and individualism and is therefore inconsistent with progressivism. Progressivism does not have to be atheistic, contrary to O’Reilly. And because individualism is incompatible with altruism, [secularism] is…incompatible with collectivism. Therefore, altruism/religion is the foundation of progressivism. We should not be surprised at the professed religious sentiments of politicians who are progressives. Indeed, the progressive movement is just as religious as the far right radicals; they advocate and seek to impose altruism and they seek to rule the lives of people.

“Contrary to what is often felt by religious people, atheism is not a fundamental tenet of the progressive movement. Most philosophers in the Kantian axis were not atheists. It was only Marx, the father of communism that was an ardent atheist and he is hardly representative of all progressives. Even Hume, the arch “empiricist,” was unclear on the issue of God. It is possible for a progressive to have secular aspects in his thinking but it is not possible to be a true secularist and a progressive. The term is a package deal, a conman’s slight of hand.

“Indeed, it is the members of religious organizations, if they truly oppose progressive ideas, who should be the strongest advocates for the separation of Church and State. It should be religious people that stand up to have minor contradictions removed from our official seals and coinage, not the atheists. Each imposition by one faith is a threat to the freedom of worship of all faiths. If you, as an individual, want to prevent tyranny from developing in our government, the first person who should not be allowed to impose his views on others is yourself. That is the best way to ensure that your freedom to live as you see fit, to think what you want and to speak as you want is not encroached upon by others who are bound by the same restriction. “[12]

Bill O’Reilly’s book ignores the positive value that secular society is, and by advocating a traditionalist view that could mean anything, he is not advancing the cause of freedom or of a better society. In fact, he is muddying the waters, confusing the issues and creating a steam roller of opinion against those who truly seek to advance the cause of the Constitution. By denigrating secular society, tying it unfairly to progressivism and accusing secularists of advocating dictatorship he is creating an atmosphere of hatred against the only idea in our society that keeps us free and affluent. Sooner or later the fragile thread that holds our freedom in the balance will be broken and the consequences will be as dire as some of the most brutal times of our past.

[1] James Davison Hunter, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America (New York: Basic Books, 1991), 34; 42. Quote found in Render unto Caesar…and unto God A Lutheran View of Church and State http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/chandst.pdf

[2] http://www.robdiego.com/immigration.htm

[3] Ibid

[5] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secular

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...

[8] Imagine No Religion by Roberto Diego, self-published

[9] Ibid

[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid

Roberto Diego

See below for a selection of my works available for sale:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------