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? ....

[ml1954]

The regligion of those who vote Democrat is mostly atheism,

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I think the demographics would show that the vast majority of people who vote DIM would describe themselves as religious people, as opposed to secularists.

[King Prout]

well... in a good symbiosis, who-owns-who *ought* to be highly subjective, no?

[etlib]

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?

I think if you were raised in a different culture you might think it OK for someone else or yourself to punch me in the nose.

Very few think it acceptable for someone to injure them but things get dicey when someone else is the injured party.

• Many in Islamic nations think it is OK to treat non-mulims as inferiors.
• In Hindu societies the poor were looked down upon and it was necessary to treat them as inferiors.
• In ancient Rome it was considered fine for gladiator to kill others for sport.
• ....

[etlib]

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.

Sorry, but I believe you are wrong when it comes to human society.

The impetus is toward protecting the self and the tribe (i.e., the immediately related group) and the other be damned.

[ahayes]

-- Find Constitutional rights that were never passed -- much less considered -- by a legislative body

Perhaps you might review amendments 9 and 10 to the Constitution:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Junior]

If God tells you to kill heretics, does that make it right?

[ahayes]

That wasn't the question. The answer is, pretty much everyone in every culture thinks it is wrong to assault that person.

Now please provide me a rational reason why it isn't wrong for me to hurt you for no reason if we proceed from the assumption that it is wrong for you to hurt me for no reason. There is none, so it follows that it is just as wrong for me to hurt you as it is for you to hurt me. Voila, the golden rule. It doesn't take a genius or a prophet to figure it out.

[Tribune7]

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".

Then you are old. Church-going Catholics overwhelmingly went for Bush.

Many devout Episcopalians vote Donk -

Firstly, I strongly suspect you are much wrong. The "devout" Episcopalians -- those who take the traditional teachings of their church seriously -- I suspect vote GOP. And those who don't take Scriputre seriously and thing Jesus would have no problem with the gay lifestyle, I would not call "devout" nor are there than many of them. The church, like most Mainline churches, have experienced a huge drop in membership.

Did you stop to consider the accuracy of your assertions before you posted?

More than you I suspect.

[etlib]

etlib: But, I suggest, you mean a right and wrong derived from Christian ideas of right and wrong.

RadioAstronomer:Nope. Evolved societal right and wrongs that is required for any society to exist. We developed those as a necessity to species survival.

Since our understanding of the universe was pretty primitive, we “invented” deities to describe or enforce such. I also believe much of the deification thru history was either a power play by folks as they developed organized religions or a god-in-the-gaps mentality. And back then, basically it was almost all “gaps”.

IMHO even emotions, such as love, compassion, etc are strictly evolutionary developments.

Typical atheistic reasoning.

The point is that the Evolved societal right and wrongs differ in time and place. Right and wrong as used by most in the US are derived from Christian principles. Atheists deny that but true none the less.

[Tribune7]

Perhaps you might review amendment 14 to the Constitution:

Amendment XIV

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[etlib]

You are conflating "one-shot" game theory with iterated game theory. Iterated game theory converges on the same strategies regardless of starting position, and real life is definitely iterated in nature.

Not true. Game theory (iterated or not) generates results based on the position in the game. A "player" in a stronger position has different "moves" than a "player" in a weaker position.

In fact, there is only one mathematical assumption that I can think of that could lead to this strategy [a person in a position of power doing whatever is necessary to stay in that position] being optimal, and it does not apply to human societies.

Also not true.

[ahayes]

Another good one, but I'm afraid it in no way supports your assertion that our rights are assigned by legislative bodies and are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution.

[ml1954]

Then you are old. Church-going Catholics overwhelmingly went for Bush.

The Catholic demographics were 52% Bush, 47% Kerry. Hardly an overwhelming majority. And this doesn't jibe with your assertion that 'The regligion of those who vote Democrat is mostly atheism', and with other assertions you've made.

[Tribune7]

I think the demographics would show that the vast majority of people who vote DIM would describe themselves as religious people, as opposed to secularists.

Less than 10 percent of Americans call themselves atheists. I haven't seen a poll on those who call themselves "secularists" but I wouldn't be surprised if most of the Dem votes should term themselves such.

Anyway, the closest I can come would be this survey of voters which indicate that 58 percent of those who attended church weekly voted for Bush over Gore (and that would include the black church-goers who went for Gore), while 65 percent of those who never attend church went for Gore.

So it seems pretty safe to say that secularists vote Dem.

[etlib]

Durus: Is it in your rational self interest to become a murderer and a thief?

tortoise: Generally not in any kind of game theoretic sense. Quite the opposite in fact.

PatrickHenry: I should think that in a game were everyone wants -- first of all -- to assure his own survival, and then to maximize his prosperity, the strategy of being a mass murderer wouldn't be all that smart. Such a player wouldn't be tolerated for very long. They can have brief streaks of apparent success, but in the long run it looks like a losing hand.

It may not be in tortoise's best interest to become a murder and a thief but there are certainly those for whom it could be and is.

The problem is that not everyone starts in the same place or has the same goals. In some circumstances being a murder and/or thief can have short term advantages which outweigh the long term disadvantages. In some cases the long term disadvantages are the same whether a murderer or thief or not. In still others there may be long term advantages to be a murderer and/or thief.

[Dumb_Ox]

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.

Traitors who brought in a foreign king. Were there many atheists among the so-called Glorious Revolutionaries? As I recall, Locke, the prime ideologue of the revolution, declared atheists as intolerable as Catholics.

[ml1954]

Anyway, the closest I can come would be this survey of voters which indicate that 58 percent of those who attended church weekly voted for Bush over Gore (and that would include the black church-goers who went for Gore), while 65 percent of those who never attend church went for Gore.

So it seems pretty safe to say that secularists vote Dem.

So you assert that if someone doesn't attend church every week, they are not religious, and by your definition secularists? BTW, does the church they attend matter in your calculations?

[etlib]

Protagoras: I would never kill anyone because of my morality, but if I had no morality, I might kill you for disagreeing with me if I felt like it and thought I would suffer no ill consequences to myself.

Junior: But you will suffer consequences. Your victim's family might come after you or your family. Your society might decide that you're too dangerous to keep around (you might kill one of them next).

You would suffer consequences because you live in a society where the consequences exist. In some societies it is permissible to kill those with whom there is a disagreement. For example, the duel for honor.

[js1138]

The problem is that not everyone starts in the same place or has the same goals.

But of course that is exactly why we have governments, laws and police. And why such institutions can fail so quickly when they lose the support of the majority.

[etlib]

The Bible specifically addresses slavery as a good thing. If God says it's okay, then it must be moral, huh?

The Bible addresses slavery as an existing thing not as a good thing.