THe Secular Right

Real Clear Politics ^ | Aug. 29, 2006 | Robert Trascinski

[headsonpikes]

We all know the basic alternatives that form the familiar "spectrum" of American politics and culture.

If a young person is turned off by religion or attracted by the achievements of science, and he wants to embrace a secular outlook, he is told--by both sides of the debate--that his place is with the collectivists and social subjectivists of the left. On the other hand, if he admires the free market and wants America to have a bold, independent national defense, then he is told--again, by both sides--that his natural home is with the religious right.

But what if all of this is terribly wrong? What if it's possible to hold some of the key convictions associated with the right, being pro-free-market and supporting the war, and even to do so more strongly and consistently than most on the right--but still to be secular? What if it's possible to reject the socialism subjectivism of the left and believe in the importance of morality, but without believing in God? ....

[Protagoras]

We will never agree that people can make up their own morality. Liberals think that. I disagree with them. You seem to agree with them on that point.

There is such a thing as absolute right and wrong. And it is not defined by Mullah, or Nazis, or Christians, or agnostics, or atheists, or votes of groups, or evolving standards, or societies. Or rational self interest.

For animals, there are only actions and consequences, I don't believe people are only animals, even allegedly smart animals. Liberals mostly do. Some others do as well.

We will never agree. Peace

[Doctor Stochastic]

Wage and Price controls and the EPA were the upfront costs.

[js1138]

I tend to avoid formal statements on things like morality. Formalisms always seem to leave out important elements.

But I do have a personal opinion on how morality evolves.

I think that morality arises more from empathy than from a calculus of self interest. Empathy is perfectly consistent with rational self interest, and operates in the absence of analysis and great intellect. It is also amenable to being codified, which is what religions do. When morality gets codified it is subject to rational analysis.

I think that in any given age, the brightest people tend to support codified morality and rational analysis. That's their strength and the path of their self interest.

Codes of behavior always fall short of perfection. There are always bright people looking for loopholes. So there is always tension between those who support the codes and those who attempt to subvert them. And there are always reformers.

Now suppose we have a reformer who says the codes are OK, but irrelevant. All the codes are based on the principle that you must act from empathy. You must put yourself in other people's shoes and make their interests your own.

Of course this is just the meandering thoughts of an infidel.

[spatso]

"Just out of curiosity, if Republicans don't live up to your expectations, what is your response?"

I honestly don't know what to say. I have remained silent for a long time. I just think politicians are being what they are and have always been. But, I wonder how much of this mess is my fault for allowing a self righteous religious element to hijack the soul of the Republican party.

[Durus]

If what one "thinks" is in conflict with reality then their thoughts are not rational. Regardless of ones moral upbringing people are still capable of evil.

You mention "only" actions and consequences. One could easily claim that Christians obey the dictates of G_d not out of a sense of morality but to escape eternal pain in hell. This, if accepted, and I don't, would indicate that there is not a higher morality but simply actions and consequences.

Is an irrational person capable of right and wrong? Of course but likely by mistake.
There is nothing rational about Muslim extremists and there is nothing rational about Nazi's. Bushido, as I understand it, is neither an ideology nor a religion...but regardless I don't know enough about it to determine its rationality.

[Senator Bedfellow]

...your team of advisers...

You forgot to give the link. You'll never earn affiliate points like that.

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

You contend that God is unrighteous for killing the Midianites, that there is a “moral objection” that persists.

But what if God used the Israelites as His instrument, using this episode in this material world to illustrate a greater spiritual truth for our benefit?

That truth is, that the wages of sin is death.

Man by nature is spiritually dead and rebellious toward God, and does not want to hear that truth, but nevertheless God has made it abundantly clear in example after example and scripture after scripture.

After all, we all die. Everyone reading this post will eventually die. Death is total in every generation. Does it seem fair or righteous to your mind that we all must die?

But we know from scripture that we are all sinners; none of us is righteous; this included the Midianites.

And God has told us, in many ways and many words, that the wages of sin is death. And the death that God has in view is not the mere physical death, but an eternal spiritual death.

Nevertheless God, for his own glory and not for the glory of man, has provided a payment for sin, a way to repair our fallen nature and give the gift of eternal life. If God has caused this event with the Midianites to be an example and means by which he has chosen to reveal once again to man the seriousness of sin, and then in turn to show His mercy on mankind, who is man to contend with God on this point?

As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!
For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”
So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose have I raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”
Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?
But indeed, O man, who are you to reply to God?
Will the thing formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”

Romans 9:13-20

[Mamzelle]

I suppose it'll be up to you to rectify the omission.

[longshadow]

Wage and Price controls and the EPA were the upfront costs.

"Down payment."

[Little Ray]

You have to choose wisely...

Typically, if it involves leavin' folks (and their stuff) alone, I'm for it.
But if it involves leavin' folks (and their stuff) alone who are trying to hurt me, I'm against it. (Possibly include folks who inadvertanly hurt me, as well...)
But its easy to use the second to counter the first. For example, I'm all for domestic spyin' by the NSA against Al Qaeda and friends. But who can't say that Hillary! won't be all for domestic spyin' against the NRA usin' the same laws with a little help from some liberal judges?

Likewise I'm against special rights for folks. But there are folks who'd argue that I'm already privledged, and they're just tryin' to catch up. Don't see it that way, myself and it seems to violate my "leavin' folks alone" criteria.

I s'pose its like art or porn - I just have to hope I know it when I see it.

[GrammaLou]

My thoughts, also.

[Senator Bedfellow]

So you can cry to the mods about self-promotion? Nah, we leave it to helpful outsiders for just that reason. Thanks again ;)

[js1138]

I honestly don't know what to say. I have remained silent for a long time. I just think politicians are being what they are and have always been. But, I wonder how much of this mess is my fault for allowing a self righteous religious element to hijack the soul of the Republican party.

I care not what people believe or what church they attend. I care if they argue nonsense in public. I care if they want to inject nonsense in public schools. I care if they post nonsense on this forum.

The opposition to science is not something I want associated with conservatism. I am not happy with the knee-jerk opposition to the findings of science (even in cases where I think the mainstream is ahead of the facts, so to speak). I hate the fact that it is difficult to discuss facts on this forum. I hate that people get banned for expressing unpopular opinions politely.

[celmak]

Where do you think the Divine Right of Kings came from?

When the Jews rebelled against God.

[Junior]

We will never agree that people can make up their own morality. Liberals think that. I disagree with them. You seem to agree with them on that point. There is such a thing as absolute right and wrong. And it is not defined by Mullah, or Nazis, or Christians, or agnostics, or atheists, or votes of groups, or evolving standards, or societies. Or rational self interest.

Really? Right and wrong are determined by society, not by gods. Is killing heretics right or wrong?

For animals, there are only actions and consequences, I don't believe people are only animals, even allegedly smart animals. Liberals mostly do. Some others do as well.

For humans there are only actions and consequences. You believe the consequences happen after death, but you still believe in actions and consequences.

We will never agree. Peace

Well finally, you're right about something. ;^)>

[Scarchin]

Well said! I get tired of pointing out that my opposition to abortion is not a religious issue. I'm just against killing people!

[VictoryGal]

> Know you are not alone.

Big dittos here, too.

[RobbyS]

Do you doubt that the governments and/or organizations described in the Bible tend to be top-down as opposed to bottom-up (democracy)?

Well, Baptists don't see that, and they read the Bible literally. And if you think they are often mistaken, they are right in pointing out the humbleness of the origins of the Church. Certainly Christ as a "man of the people" often opposed to the priests and scholars.

While the poverty of the Apostles is not what the spiritual Franciscans imagined (Peter owed the equivalent of a commercial fishing boat and was probably well-fixed; Paul was the son of a man of means--the Romans didn't hand out citizenship to plain folks) they would be counted as middle-- rather than high class. Our Lord did not even seek out the sons of the well-born as Socrates did, although he attracted a few. In any case, the Apostles launched what we would call a mass movement which spread to everywhere in the Empire, into Persia and wherever Jews and persons attracted to Judaism could be found.

They attracted persons of every class but mainly the humble, and had to face a suspicious Roman authority which sometimes slapped them down hard, even--after 250--made an effort to suppress them entirely. By that time they had become a state with the state and in a perilous time for the Roman Empire, the emperors sought to scapegoat them more or less the way that Hitler scapegoated the Jews. Fortunately they found an ally in the Roman politician Constantine. It was here that the pomp and circumstance arises. The Church becomes the state religion and in a time of decline, the leaders of the Church become in effect state officials. For the next fifteen hundred years, the Church is closely identified with monarchy.

Still the religious authority of the Church was never said to come from the emperor. Indeed the Church of Rome especially always tried to make it clear than even the emperor was a subject of Christ. This meant in practice that they had to submit to the authority of the Church leaders, and of course they resisted this. "The divine right of kings" came from the claim of the emperors. kings and princes to have a holy office, like David.

[Junior]

[Protagoras]

I disagree with you on the rationality of evil Islamofacists and Nazis and other dictators. It has been entirely rational though out most of history to take what you want by might. The vast majority of evil doers never get their just reward in this world.

Or any world if there is no afterlife.

Everyone is going to leave this existence, so in the mind of atheists, if you do whatever you want and suffer no consequences here, you did no wrong. If you do wrong and no one finds out, you did right because it's right for you.

I find it to be a bizarre concept, but I understand if someone is committed to the idea of no higher authority, they have to come up with something to make it square in their own minds. Bizarre, but understandable.

Peace