Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 08/29/2006 6:51:14 AM PDT by 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? ....

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: aspergers; aynrand; aynrandwasajew; betterthananncoulter; crevolist; godless; mntlslfabusethread; objectivism; secularism; trascinski
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 521-526 next last
To: DesScorp
Thats not however the sentiment of the author of the article. The author suggests that the religious right should be supplanted by the secular right.
201 posted on 08/29/2006 1:49:14 PM PDT by mthom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: spatso
But I am not so certain anymore what are the essential qualifying criteria of conservatism today within the Republican party.

That's the price a political party pays when it's not tied to a firm set of ideological principles -- what it stands for politically varies over time, depending on what way the political winds are blowing. And that's why various groups within the party spar with each other for political control, so they can use the party to implement the things on its agenda.

The problem with this is that historically, conservatism has been associated with small, less intrusive government. Modern Liberals, on the other hand, see government as an instrument to be used to achieve their braod range of social & economic goals, whether it be "fruits in foxholes" or redistribution of wealth. When the Republican Party morphs into something that supports massive government spending programs on all manner of pork-barrel hokum, and at the same time tries to use the coercive power of government to achieve social goals (even if some of them be laudable), it betrays its conservative roots, and begins to resemble the Democrat Party, except their respective social and economic agendae may be different: but BOTH parties think it's okay to use tax dollars and the power of the government to achieve THIER respective social & economic goals.

I find that a dangerous idea.... when political parties begin treating government as an instrument of raw power to be wielded in pursuit of the parties' "platforms du jour." Washington warned us: "Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master."

202 posted on 08/29/2006 1:49:17 PM PDT by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: spatso
But I was wondering if anyone has been censured for the religious rights favorite tactics of stupidity, bullying or rudeness.

To be perfectly fair, quite a few creationist posters on these threads have been banned for the behavior you mention. My comment was directed towards those who have been banned for the content of their opinions. Some of the recent ones have been difficult to figure out.

203 posted on 08/29/2006 1:53:55 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
It has been entirely rational though out most of history to take what you want by might.

No it has never been rational although it certainly has been rationalized over and over again. The whole concept of "might makes right" is completely irrational even to those that have used it hence the paranoia of tyrants and criminals. You might claim that the majority of evil people do not reap the just reward for their actions, but I respectfully disagree. You always reap what you sow even if it's not apparent to outsiders.

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.

Many people find it equally bizarre that culture after culture come up with superstitions to explain everything from the tide coming in to a code of morality. I personally muddle along the best I can deriving what meaning I can from life using the faculties I have. If there is a G_d, and this higher power gave me the faculties of reason, I doubt that the power is offended if I use them.
204 posted on 08/29/2006 1:53:58 PM PDT by Durus ("Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Dumb_Ox
Right-wing atheists are still freeloading off the accumulated spiritual and moral capital of Christendom.

Good point, but in good times the people you're talking about won't agree. At some point, when trouble starts, we'll see a return to religion, but for the time being secularists are going their own way.

I don't know if religion is necessary to morality, but so many of the secularist arguments look weak. Morality needs all the help it can get, and religious support is to be welcomed.

I also don't know what the big answer is, but for the past few centuries religious faith has supported skepticism about the all-encompassing secular ideologies. If we lived in the 15th or 16th century, secularism would provide the necessary corrective to the certainties of religion. In the 20th century it was faith that opposed totalizing secular ideologies. Dominant beliefs need to be tempered by a degree of skepticism. A lot depends on whether the dominant faith of the 21st century will be religious or irreligious.

We should be talking about the rest of the TAC symposium of which it was a part.

Agreed.

205 posted on 08/29/2006 1:57:16 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
"When the Republican Party morphs into something that supports massive government spending programs on all manner of pork-barrel hokum, and at the same time tries to use the coercive power of government to achieve social goals (even if some of them be laudable), it betrays its conservative roots, and begins to resemble the Democrat Party, except their respective social and economic agendae may be different: but BOTH parties think it's okay to use tax dollars and the power of the government to achieve THIER respective social & economic goals."

A liberal intuitively understands that freedom is a collective right expressed in a cooperative society. Conservatives understand that freedom is an individual right and cooperative societies are based on free people choosing to work together.
206 posted on 08/29/2006 1:59:36 PM PDT by spatso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

A pox on profligate spending -- placemarker.


207 posted on 08/29/2006 2:03:08 PM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras; All
"But even though you try to personalize it, the truth is, you know that there are millions and millions of people who do that very thing all the time. The history of the world is nothing but the story of people killing each other and taking each other's stuff."

Sounds like a rather large trial and error experiment doesn't it?

208 posted on 08/29/2006 2:04:45 PM PDT by b_sharp (Objectivity? Objectivity? We don't need no stinkin' objectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: js1138

"To be perfectly fair, quite a few creationist posters on these threads have been banned for the behavior you mention. My comment was directed towards those who have been banned for the content of their opinions. Some of the recent ones have been difficult to figure out."

I understood your point. I was cheating a little bit. I tried to sneak in a little revenge attack by name calling and some irrational criticism of the religious right. I deserve to be punished.


209 posted on 08/29/2006 2:08:57 PM PDT by spatso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: All
The whole symposium is here. It's worth a look.
210 posted on 08/29/2006 2:13:48 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn

"there is no recourse to anything but the subjective opinion of individual atheistic philosophers."

You cannot butcher the language and the meaning of words to bolster your argument that there is no morality without religion (not that I am arguing for aetheism).

You've asserted above that "killing = enhancing life," and vice versa, which is just a logical fallacy. Words don't mean what you want them to mean merely because you assert that they do.

You're employing the exact same nihilistic subjectivity which the article argues against.


211 posted on 08/29/2006 2:17:12 PM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ichabod1
"what would enhance MY life the most right now would be to choke the living daylights"

That's exactly the same subjective redefinition of everyday language employed by the left and those out to destroy Western civilization.

If one lives in a solipsistic universe where words mean whatever one wants them to mean, and far outside the common social norms for those words, then one is bound to run into logical (mental) problems.

For example, one might want to "choke the living daylights" out of others merely to "enhance my life".

Here in the real world, we call that a capital crime.

So you can see that no matter how much you may assert it (and even believe it), it's still recognized as being wrong.
212 posted on 08/29/2006 2:24:34 PM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: etlib
On what basis do you claim that enhancing life is right or that diminishing life is wrong?

I suggest this comes from being surrounded by a pervasive Christian society.

Der. . . Do you think I would be unable to recognize it is wrong for someone else to punch me in the nose if I were raised in a different culture?

213 posted on 08/29/2006 2:31:21 PM PDT by ahayes ("If intelligent design evolved from creationism, then why are there still creationists?"--Quark2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: etlib

" On what basis do you claim that enhancing life is right or that diminishing life is wrong? I suggest this comes from being surrounded by a pervasive Christian society."

Sorry, but I think if you look at most religions throughout time, or at most of the enduring social norms in societies, you'll see the impetus toward life and away from death.

In fact there is no higher purpose or calling than the creation and propagation of life. And not just in the human species.

Just look out your window.


214 posted on 08/29/2006 2:32:10 PM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Oh come now. Is the keyword spam really necessary?


215 posted on 08/29/2006 2:46:52 PM PDT by Boxen (:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood

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

There are more of us than you might have thought.

216 posted on 08/29/2006 2:48:35 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: spatso
As a person of faith I am inclined to treat that part of my life more quietly, more introspectively and certainly to keep my faith issues outside the blood sport of partisan politics.

Thank you for this simple but eloquent statement, with which I could not agree more.

There are too many religious bullies around, claiming to speak for 'Christianity' who are narrow-minded hypocrites. They shame my Christian faith, and they damage us all claiming to be 'conservative.'

I do not choose to proclaim my particular religious faith from the rooftops, nor to assault folks with my creed; I hope instead that I strive to live by it.

I find it hard to belive that some, who are so shrill in their religious hysteria, are living by faith in a way that I can understand.

217 posted on 08/29/2006 2:50:07 PM PDT by ToryHeartland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: ml1954; Wormwood; King Prout; longshadow
There are more of us than you might have thought.

Dittos!

218 posted on 08/29/2006 2:53:44 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: angkor
Here in the real world, we call that a capital crime.

Not if the person hasn't been born yet. THAT's what I was getting at. It all depends how you define life enhancement, and that definition has been getting broader year over year.

219 posted on 08/29/2006 3:01:49 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Freedom of religion means freedom to practice IslamĀ®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: mthom

Thats not however the sentiment of the author of the article. The author suggests that the religious right should be supplanted by the secular right.

I didn't read that in the article. Here's what the article says.

The right needs to have a long, open, honest debate about the role of religion. We need it now more than ever because we are in the middle of a war with an enemy that is defined by his religious fervor and by his attempt to make his religion dominate the "public square," to borrow a catchphrase from the religious right. If we don't understand the real nature and value of Western, Enlightenment secularism, then we can't fully understand what is at stake in this clash of civilizations, and in the long run, we won't know how to win it.
It seems to me the author thinks the conservative coalition needs to decide what the role of religion should be within the coalition. There are many religions. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Christian sects. And there are conservative deists, theists, agnostics, and atheists. They all disagree to some degree, some more rather than less, on religious questions and issues. The question I think the author is asking and suggesting should be debated, is if any one, or group, of these should dominate the policies of the conservative coalition.
220 posted on 08/29/2006 3:09:06 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 521-526 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson