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? ....

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The same point applies with morality. A person may have the virtues...

Virtue is an esoteric ideal... and subjective...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The same point applies with morality. A person may have the virtues...

Virtue is an esoteric ideal... and subjective...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I find it interesting (as well as downright irritating) the level of illiteracy concerning the Judaic roots in American culture, law and Constitutional freedoms.

From where are the rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution derived?

Let's clarify that...

"...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them... that all men are created... Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence..."

Clue: They took a page right out of Mosaic Law...

[Fester Chugabrew]

The general inclination towards morality may be attributed to a residual knowledge of absolute right and wrong, whether the individual recognizes the Source or not. It is this common ground that secular and non-secular conservatives need to exercise in the interest of us all.

As a Christian I am inclined to believe there are secular leaders who perform their duties more prosperously than others of non-secular persuasions who are simply incompetent. As such the former are gifts serving in the interest of the ultimate Authority, whether they know it or not.

Without question there is a rift between secular and non-secular conservatives. If we read the Constitution the way our forefathers wrote it, the tent is VERY LARGE. The question is, can we as citizens accept the variety of faiths manifest upon this planet, and incorporate them in such as way as to live peaceably and prosperously as a country. 200 years says, "Yes."

But that isn't much time in view of the billion year history those secular evolutionists are so dang sure about. Ha!

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Both Buddhism and Taoism are non "thiestic" religious philosophies (religions), and each contain mechanisms for distinguishing right from wrong.

They are both esoteric, just as much as theistic religions are...

In the martial arts, there is no right and wrong... only raw power counts...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The question is, can we as citizens accept the variety of faiths manifest upon this planet, and incorporate them in such as way as to live peaceably and prosperously as a country.

It would appear the answer is no, unless you are willing to convert to Islam... no thanks...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Aw, that's so cute.

You are jealous of wit?

IT IS OUR WITS THAT MAKE US MEN...

[TAdams8591]

Marking.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I tried to start a discussion of the origin or authority for morality and had pretty much no takers.

Morality and all of those associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior...

[Fester Chugabrew]

Yes. At the same time, Mosaic Law was exceedingly specific about Who God Is and what He does. Our forefathers seemed to have granted some elision to allow for any kind of God one might want to conjure up as a "supreme authority."

If we are not going to favor any particular religion by law, then we must accommodate all religions. Which is it? It seems to me the latter option is what we subscribe to as citizens.

The secular conservative, or citizen in general, ought to be aware that whatever tends toward chaos and anarchy, is not good for the country. I would not expect anything more. No secular conservative ought be expected to believe and understand theology as myself or some other person of a different faith. But they ought be expected to abide by general rules of civility. There are best reflected by Mosaic Law.

[Boxen]

If it is your wit that makes you a man, you are a poor man indeed.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

But they ought be expected to abide by general rules of civility. These are best reflected by Mosaic Law.

This is something both the neo-pagan Left and pagan Islamic thugs cannot abide and wish to destroy...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

If it is your wit that makes you a man, you are a poor man indeed.

And you are bankrupt...

[Boxen]

:D

[jennyp]

discovered-the-thread-way-too-late PLACEMARKER

[ahayes]

Why are you asking me questions that are already answered in our law? Due process and the limits on our government in investigating crimes are laid out in the Constitution, and examination of other laws clarifying these things should answer your question.

[Junior]

letting the sixers in on the meaning of vi?

They didn't seem capable of figuring it out for themselves. I wasn't too ... graphic ... was I?

[Junior]

[ahayes]

I'm not sure if you were aware of this, but the Bible doesn't really have a lot to say about the equality of all people and the rights of all to life, liberty, and property.

[ahayes]

But they ought be expected to abide by general rules of civility. There are best reflected by Mosaic Law.

Let's see . . . Deuteronomy 21:10-11, "When you go to war against you enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman, you may take her as your wife." Kidnaping and rape, that's not very civil. How about Exodus 21:20-21? "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." Ahh, aggravated assault okayed and the notion that people are chattal, not very civil. That passage doesn't have much to say about the rights of all to life, liberty, and property, does it?