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 ...
"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."
One of the great difficulties for me is the struggle I have in simply comprehending the meaning of an aggressive religious evangelization of political issues. A man, who I deeply respect, once told me that when someone presumes to speak for God it is because his own ego has a need to be heard. The same person told me when someone goes on at great length talking about his wonderful relationship with the Lord he is probably lying through his teeth.
"Not if the person hasn't been born yet. THAT's what I was getting at"
Oddly, Scott Peterson was convicted for murdering his unborn child.
Dawkins would say, "Your selfish genes tell you that you aren't the only carrier of genes like yours and you need to take care of similar genes."
Doesn't literally explain why I love my fat old cat, of course. We're not very related, genetically. Dawkins might say my parenting instincts, evolved to propagate and preserve my genes, have perverted along non-working lines.
Maybe. Doesn't matter, right? Warm and fuzzy is warm and fuzzy.
They want to:
It seems the secularist are the ones that just won't let things be.-- Let homosexuals have the same privileges of marriage a man and woman seeking to raise a family have in violation of eternal tradtion.
-- Prohibit parents from being informed -- much less vetoing -- their minor daughter's abortion.
-- Force the taxpayer to pay for those abortions.
-- Allow books ranging from Soul on Ice to Heather Has Two Mommies be taught in public schools while keeping the Bible, the most read book in history, out
-- Allow to be taught in our public schools that everything might be by accident while prohibit the teaching of arguments for the existence of God.
-- Find Constitutional rights that were never passed -- much less considered -- by a legislative body
-- Ignore those that were.
-- Publically funded art mocking Christianity while demanding that long-standing monuments featuring the Ten Commandments or crosses be removed.
The liberal coalition has both secularists (whatever that means) and religious people in it. I think the religious people in it are appalled at many of the things you listed. However, they've decided to vote DIM anyway. Why do you think that is?
interspecies partnerships have given humans a competitive advantage.
case in point:
cats kill vermin -> they thus effectively safeguard food-stores, property, and inhibit disease vectoring -> they thus act as auxiliary forces for preserving your selfish genes.
indeed. the Grand Master must be smiling.
All cat-owners know that all human civilization is a macro-evolutionary mechanism whereby cats are regularly fed.
I believe Howard Bloom would call the Morris Principle.
I didn't say the fringes on the right were the ~only~ busy-bodies... Both sides have them. I'm concerned about both :~)
About the only cultural conservatives that vote Dem are blacks, and that's because of an extremely effective, generations-long propaganda effort that the Pubs have not been able to counter.
About the only cultural conservatives that vote Dem are blacks, and that's because of an extremely effective, generations-long propaganda effort that the Pubs have not been able to counter.
I said 'religious people' who vote DIM in spite of their abhorrence of some of the things you listed, not cultural conservatives. So you haven't answered my question.
About the only significant body of regular church-goers that vote Dem are blacks, and that's because of an extremely effective, generations-long propaganda effort that the Pubs have not been able to counter.
About the only significant body of regular church-goers that vote Dem are blacks, and that's because of an extremely effective, generations-long propaganda effort that the Pubs have not been able to counter.
I said 'religious people', not regular church-goers. So you still haven't answered my question.
It's not keyword spam, it's a cry for help from someone with obvious Asperger's Syndrome!
The regligion of those who vote Democrat is mostly atheism, and they do so because the hate God and the freedom He gives us by preventing us from worshipping a government. Satisfied?
Right and wrong come from God.
It is wrong to kill heretics. That is a Christian value.
Just because people calling themselves Christians have done something does not make it a Christian value.
Chicken/egg?
he said "religious people" not exclusively "church-goers"
for reasons I cannot fathom, Jews, for example, have long been a bastion of the Donks.
that point aside, your statement is false: Many devout Catholics vote Donk. Indeed, one of the jokes in my old (Jesuit) high school went: "The last communist wil be an American Catholic nun". Many devout Episcopalians vote Donk - that congregation is facing schism and excommunication as a result of its leftward drift. Indeed, quite a few of the American Protestant congregations are heavily infected with leftism.
Did you stop to consider the accuracy of your assertions before you posted? Perhaps, in the future, you shall.
Busy-bodies are often in the eye of the beholder :~)
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.