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? ....

[VictoryGal]

> 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.

I wasn't aware that the wages of sin is death if you're a man, rape by your husbands' and fathers' killers if you're a woman or girl. That's an awfully sick lesson, isn't it? Smells like Islamofascism.

To me its a lesson of how badly people can pervert God's love.

[HairOfTheDog]

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?

Hence the rise of the "South Park Conservatives"

[Dumb_Ox]

Right-wing believers are still freeloading off the accumulated political and scientific capital of the English Enlightenment.

Yes, Newton was a notorious atheist, as was Locke. Oh wait, no they weren't. Are you thinking of Hobbes?

[King Prout]

social/pack vertebrate animals do display systems of behavior control and modification analogous to those displayed in human societies.
such systems are required for the integration of relatively intelligent and willful individuals into a harmonious and competitive unit.
all of these can be observed in at least rudimentary form among pack animal societies: right and wrong. offense, retaliation, repentance, restitution. hierarchical dominance. remorse. empathy. solicitation. kindness. self-sacrifice. delayed gratification. obedience.
humans are no different in kind, only in degree.

[Tribune7]

Which ought to give the religious some cause for pause, since it demonstrates that people tend to believe anything coming down the pike.

Sure. Like we're all here by accident and only what can be measured is what exists.

[spatso]

"Know you are not alone."

Recently it has felt very alone. I have no great desire to be motivated as an angry rebel. But, the other day, I heard something on the radio regarding Barry Goldwater that caused me to wonder. I loved Barry Goldwater, a real straight shooter, perhaps his voice would be most helpful today. Apparently one of his relatives is writing a book on his political philosophy. The discussion point that I heard is that Goldwater favored allowing gays into the military. The matter did not bother him at all. If they could serve effectively, he thought, let them serve.

For years, I was never able to get excited about the debate on gays in the military or gay marriage or the morning after pill or the need to ban stem cell research. I came to wonder if it was possible to be a conservative yet, not have strong feelings on all these social issues. I know what it means not to be a liberal. But I am not so certain anymore what are the essential qualifying criteria of conservatism today within the Republican party.

[balrog666]

> Know you are not alone.

Big dittos here, too.

I am Spartacus!
I broke the dam!

[Tribune7]

And the massive population of the Soviet Union could not be kept in check through intimidation alone --

That's exacty what he did.

the Czars tried this and look what happened.

It was half-liberalization that caused the Czar's problems along with bad judgements in wars.

Stalin gave the peasantry land, education, and other goodies in return for support.

Stalin did not give anybody land.

[elkfersupper]

Big dittos here, too.

Ditto that ditto.

Dittos squared?

[headsonpikes]

No, I was thinking of those Englishmen(and Scots), who defied the Monarchy, defied the Church, and by means of the Glorious Revolution and its 17th Century political blossoming, laid the groundwork for the American Revolution and Parliamentary governments in the British Commonwealth.

Which, largely, are the only worthwhile political accomplishments of mankind.

[Wormwood]

Know you are not alone.

Now *that* is good news. The last couple of years have been a little rough.

[spatso]

"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."

I don't understand what social conservatism is all about. I understand conservative fiscal policy, I understand the bias of conservatism toward free enterprise, small government and minimal government involvement in private affairs. I don't understand conservatives who conspire to impose a dubious religious morality on an unsuspecting public.

[HairOfTheDog]

You are a conservative without a busy-body social agenda, or possibly libertarian. It's getting so that there are so few of your kind left that they may try to capture you and put you in a museum, as a curiosity. Know you are not alone.

I don't think we (those without the busy-body social agenda) are at all a minority. I think those with the busy-body social agenda are merely the loudest in the debates about those issues. Many people I know (apart from FR) who vote Republican care not for the religious evangelical wing of the movement... Most are fairly secular, some are even [gasp] gay, they just like to pay lower taxes and they like their guns, they support the war on terror, and so they see themselves more republican than democrat.

Personally, I've seen enough of the busy-body types here on FR, that I'm quite wary of ever letting the 'religious' right have too much power, they're as scary as the left fringe. And I think in the end, the rest of the country agrees.

[headsonpikes]

In my post #190 I meant to say, "I was thinking of those Englishmen(and Scots), 'believers and non-believers',....

[b_sharp]

"From my perspective, in a world without God, there is no right and wrong, only actions and consequences."

Yet in a world without God we developed that set of morals some currently attribute to a God.

In your perspective what you are really considering is not a world without God but a world started by a God who quite generously gave a set of morals but where that God suddenly disappeared.

You are also asking two questions. The first is 'where did the morals we have today originate' and the second is 'how would we act if we did not believe in retribution from on high'. You will note that the second question does not depend on the true origin of the set of morals.

If you want to answer the first question you cannot simply assume God then ponder a 'what if' - you need to look to both assumptions; that the current moral set has two potential origins, one with God and one without, and then compare their explanations.

To answer the second question you need to examine a number of cultures (not an individual), current or historical, that does not have a retributive God figure.

[Wormwood]

Personally, I've seen enough of the busy-body types here on FR, that I'm quite wary of ever letting the 'religious' right have too much power, they're as scary as the left fringe

Amen!

(Oh sweet irony)

[HairOfTheDog]

Christians have led the way in many of the most important discoveries in science.

I think Galileo would disagree... he was prosecuted and lived under house arrest for suggesting the sun did not revolve around the earth.

This is a false choice between "religion" and "science." If we had a perfect understanding of the meaning of God's Word and a perfect understanding of the physical universe, there would be no contradiction between the two.

While I agree it is a 'false choice' in that it shouldn't have to be contradictory, people with an imperfect understanding are trying very hard to limit the discussion in our public schools.

[js1138]

Social conservatism is the child of the southern democrats who became Republicans under Nixon and Reagan. On the plus side, they had to give up racism as public policy, and that's not a trivial thing.

[spatso]

"Social conservatism is the child of the southern democrats who became Republicans under Nixon and Reagan. On the plus side, they had to give up racism as public policy, and that's not a trivial thing."

I am still reflecting on a comment you made a few posts back noting that some persons had been censured for politely disagreeing with the party line. I have not been exposed to that practice. But I was wondering if anyone has been censured for the religious rights favorite tactics of stupidity, bullying or rudeness. Giving up racism is good. But, redirecting the energy of that venom on me and people like me is unfortunate.

[tacticalogic]

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

What do you see in front of you right now? In terms of respecting the Constitution, right now you're camping with the enemy. If you're happy to change sides if it looks like the constitutionalists are winning, then you're simply an opportunist.