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 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 521-526 next last
To: Tribune7

Because it violates rational self interest.


281 posted on 08/29/2006 5:30:21 PM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow

Crying to the mods is what your wimpy Grand Master does. I haven't, and I don't.


282 posted on 08/29/2006 5:31:34 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog; SirJohnBarleycorn
SirJohnBarleycornChristians have led the way in many of the most important discoveries in science.

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

Galileo was a Christian and remained one throughout. His interest in the heavens was partially informed by his view of a God created world. His Prosecution and "imprisonment" were more a result of his intemperate nature when confronted by those who disagreed with him than any religious sentiment about the earth going around the sun.

283 posted on 08/29/2006 5:33:24 PM PDT by etlib (No creature without tentacles has ever developed true intelligence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Then you are old.

Nope: I'm in but my thirty-seventh year.

Church-going Catholics overwhelmingly went for Bush.

wow... 13% = overwhelming in your book? ok.
Now, Tribune7, put your thinking cap on: In what way does 37% of the Catholic vote going to Kerry invalidate my statement: "Many devout Catholics vote Donk"?
37% of the Catholic vote going to a hideous spineless horsefaced Janus of a Donk seems rather to puncture the air of accuracy of your *assertion* that the only sizeable group of church-goers to vote Donk are Blacks.
But... you don't see this, despite (considering the accuracy of your assertions) "More than you I suspect."
You must be using that "New Math" I've heard tell of.

...I would not call "devout" nor are there than many of them....

1. what you'd call "devout" is irrelevant. they are devoted to what their creed.
2. As your stipulation concerned "church-goers" and not level of and debatable standards of devotion, your objection is doubly irrelevant.
3. Yes, there are a whopping boatload of them, and most of the congregations in the Northeast are heavily leftist.
These facts and logical consequences are obvious.
But... you don't see this, despite (considering the accuracy of your assertions) "More than you I suspect."
You must be using that "fuzzy reasoning" we 'old farts' hear rumour of every so often.

More than you I suspect.

mmm-hmmmm... right. sure you did. yeah... that's the ticket.

284 posted on 08/29/2006 5:33:29 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
oops! my bad: in 2004, the Catholic vote was split 47% Donk, 52% Bush.

I don't know how I erred so badly as to post 37% and a 13% difference, especially as the accurate numbers hammer your assertion worse than does my error.
need... more... beer...

285 posted on 08/29/2006 5:37:27 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
I also don't pretend I do.

As opposed to some of the holier-than-thou a-holes around here. Of course, I'm not naming any names.

286 posted on 08/29/2006 5:38:26 PM PDT by wireman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
It means people should be allowed to do as they like without the government snooping and interfering, as long as they're not harming another person unlawfully.

No, it doesn't mean that. It means being apart from company or observation. Wiki defines it as "the ability of an individual or group to keep their lives and personal affairs out of public view, or to control the flow of information about themselves" which seems a pretty good definition and shows why government how government can go too far in protecting it.

How about if the government suspects one is harming another? Can it snoop? How about if you run a red light at 2 a.m.? Can it interfer?

287 posted on 08/29/2006 5:38:31 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn
... In the final analysis, all of the laws and morality of our civilization are ultimately founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. ..

Trial by jury? Freedom of religion? Abolition of slavery? The right to keep and bear arms? Free markets?

288 posted on 08/29/2006 5:38:59 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper; RadioAstronomer; ml1954; Wormwood; King Prout; longshadow; VictoryGal; spatso; ...
DITTOS HYPERCUBED!


289 posted on 08/29/2006 5:39:39 PM PDT by RightWingAtheist (Creationism is to conservatism what Howard Dean is to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

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

The question was specific to particular persons and therefore is irrelevant in a discussion of general morality. It is not true that in "every culture" it is wrong for any person to assault any other person. There are societies in which it is OK and even commendable for some people to assault other people.

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.

I claim that you cannot reason from the assumption "that it is wrong for you to hurt me for no reason" to anything. You need at least one other proposition to get to a conclusion. You are making an unstated assumption that you and I are in some way equivalent (a Christian notion).

290 posted on 08/29/2006 5:42:44 PM PDT by etlib (No creature without tentacles has ever developed true intelligence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Because it violates rational self interest.

That's not why we think slavery is wrong.

291 posted on 08/29/2006 5:42:49 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

I'm sorry, the last part of your first paragraph seems to have gotten garbled in editing?

Your second paragraph raises important questions that are addressed by the amendment that you presented me with. The government can only infringe upon a person's rights when that person is committing a crime and due process of law finds that person guilty.


292 posted on 08/29/2006 5:44:23 PM PDT by ahayes ("If intelligent design evolved from creationism, then why are there still creationists?"--Quark2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

People who never go to church are secularists. (And I typed that real slow for you.)

It seems you have a set of people you've not categorized. That would be those people who did not tell a pollster they attend church every week and those that say they never attend church. Are they secularists?

293 posted on 08/29/2006 5:44:26 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: js1138
etlib:The problem is that not everyone starts in the same place or has the same goals.

js1138 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.

Of course, but we were speaking of morality.

294 posted on 08/29/2006 5:45:49 PM PDT by etlib (No creature without tentacles has ever developed true intelligence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn; angkor
... What if someone believes that "killing all the Jews" or "killing all the non-believers in the Dar al-Harb" "enhances" the greater "life" of the world?

Judging from history, one can conclude that the person making such a statement is a theist, usually (Hitler being an exception) clergy.

295 posted on 08/29/2006 5:46:08 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf; Senator Bedfellow

Well, I've also been accused of trying to entrap for "self-promotion"--and I didn't even point out the irony of the Advertisement in post #37...


296 posted on 08/29/2006 5:46:38 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: etlib
" Typical atheistic reasoning.

The assertion that it is atheistic does not make it incorrect. Atheists are no more biased against God than theists are biased for God.

"The point is that the Evolved societal right and wrongs differ in time and place.

Indeed. However there are a number of moral tenets that cross time and culture.

"Right and wrong as used by most in the US are derived from Christian principles. Atheists deny that but true none the less."

Where are those 'Christian principles' from? If evolution is the driving force behind moral beliefs then those 'Christian principles' are a product of evolution. In fact, if evolution is all there is, the belief in God is an evolutionary adaptation.

Remove God from the equation 'completely' and nothing would change. God, Christianity, Islam, Hindu, atheism,... would all be the product of evolution.

297 posted on 08/29/2006 5:46:45 PM PDT by b_sharp (Objectivity? Objectivity? We don't need no stinkin' objectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: etlib

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

I don't see how that's at all inconsistent with what I've been saying, so unless you sharpen your argument it sounds like you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.


298 posted on 08/29/2006 5:46:58 PM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Correction: That is not why you think slavery is wrong. Most of the rest of us subscribe to the "treat others as you would like to be treated" paradigm of enlightened self interest.
299 posted on 08/29/2006 5:51:19 PM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

"one can conclude that the person making such a statement is a theist,"

Or at least usurping the language and making brazenly illogical equations.


300 posted on 08/29/2006 5:51:43 PM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 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