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 ...
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."
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.
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.
A pox on profligate spending -- placemarker.
Sounds like a rather large trial and error experiment doesn't it?
"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.
"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.
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?
" 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.
Oh come now. Is the keyword spam really necessary?
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.
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.
Dittos!
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.
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.
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.