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? ....

[spatso]

For some reason the sight is not coming up for me this morning I have tried several times to return to get the exact link for you. Anyway the article was in Insight Magazine Online.

[Pietro]

"But what if all of this is terribly wrong?"

Oh no! Do you mean to tell me there are more than two different types of people in the US?

Heavens to Mergatrude.

[Pietro]

"If people have no souls either, they are the same as animals."

Interesting point. And, of course, many on this thread would agree.

Except they would see that as a good thing.

[Durus]

You seem befuddled about the nature of God.
If there is a G_d then I admit to being befuddled by it's nature.

BTW, if you think you won't offend God by using his gift, your brain, what makes you think typing the entire word God will offend him? Or are you afraid of offending someone else? There are some people who are offended by people typing out G_d. While I don't really understand their complaint It takes no effort on my part to type it that way. If I am going to offend someone I would rather do it with conviction rather though carelessness.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The first passage does not reference "kidnapping and rape." The second does not reference "aggravated assault." Since you do not accept the authority and accuracy of the biblical texts, what makes you think anyone should accept your interpetation and application of them?

[js1138]

You tell us what it is, Fester. Spin away.

[Little Ray]

Opportunist - Realist. That's fine.
What I see right now the Constitution is pretty much a dead letter that means what various lawyerly types want it to mean. For example "Freedom of Speech" means that porn and treason is is okay, but that whites can't use the "N word" or tell a dirty joke in the office.
The right to keep an bear arms is a collective right of the states, not the right (and DUTY!) of the individual (as was documented in the Federalist Papers - never could figure out why people think we don't what the intents of the Founders really were, when they documented them so carefully...).
The Fifth Amendment, doesn't protect private property, it allows various government entities to seize property to enhance revenue. The doesn't really matter, since the interstate commerce clause, at it has been interpreted in the past, pretty much negates all control you might have over your property, anyway.
The Eighth Amendment protects the guilty from just punishment, but it doesn't protect unborn innocents from being hideously murdered, etc.

Give the circumstances, I'll take what I can get, using any means I can get away with to get it.

[Tribune7]

Why are you asking me questions that are already answered in our law?

To point out that privacy has not been generally considered to be a right and unlike restricting government from regulating speech or RTBA, it doesn't make much sense to restrict government from invading privacy as privacy is commonly defined and traditionally understood and note: property and freedom of movement are different than privacy.

[ahayes]

Here, let's put this into a different context, maybe that will help illuminate the situation. Suppose back in the beginning of the war in Afghanistan one of our military servicewomen was captured by an Afghani warlord. Suppose he thought she was a pretty infidel and married her. Similar to what is prescribed by Mosaic law, he allows a month or so to pass in accordance with the Koran's demands before taking her to his bed. Would you consider the consummation of that marriage consensual? I would call it rape, but maybe I'm mistaken. . .

How about if one of our servicemen was captured by the same Afghani warlord and put to forced labor. Say he he offended the warlord in some way--attempting to run off, not digging trenches fast enough, failing to grovel sufficiently. . . If the warlord then becomes angry and beats this man so badly he almost dies and has to lie on his bedroll for a week before being able to hobble around again, do you think that's aggravated assault? Or is it all right because this soldier is his property?

[ahayes]

I disagree, the right to privacy is clear in the enumerated rights. As just a few examples, the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and protection from being forced to board miliary in one's house all depend on the assumption that a person has the right to run one's life as he or she wishes without undue interference or supervision by the government.

[Protagoras]

I am adamantly opposed to slavery as well.

None of which has anything to do with his "credentials" to define sin.

[Tribune7]

This pretty much sums up the Bible and slavery.

Maybe Coyote will start saying the Bible supports divorce and polygamy too.

[Protagoras]

If you wish to know where it came from, it came from God.

All things come from God, except the sinful ones, those come from man's choices.

But even if you don't believe in God, it still works.

And even if you don't believe in God, it is still true.

[Protagoras]

If there is a G_d then I admit to being befuddled by it's nature.

There is, and if, (as you readily admit) you are befuddled as to his nature, perhaps you shouldn't post on a website what you think his nature is.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You tell us what it is . . .

I might, but lower animals tend to eschew fine jewels.

[Tribune7]

Freedom of assembly and freedom of religion have nothing to do with privacy. :-)

It means the government can't arrest you for holding meetings -- meaning you don't have to meet in seclusion (privately) -- nor can it persecute for going public with what you believe.

The 3rd & 4th amendements protect property rights and freedom of movement i.e. police cannot search your person at will although that's another thing that has been twisted all the while legal pundits scream privacy is a right enshrined in our Constitution (and I don't mean you).

[tacticalogic]

Opportunist - Realist. That's fine.

Give the circumstances, I'll take what I can get, using any means I can get away with to get it.

Than you don't care about living in a free republic, you just want to live in a Christian society, and don't really care how you go about getting it.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It is not the specific civil laws of ancient Israel that form the basis for our current moral code, but the Decalogue.

[js1138]

I might, but lower animals tend to eschew fine jewels.

That would be an example of the Christian art of discourse.

[Durus]

There is, and if, (as you readily admit) you are befuddled as to his nature, perhaps you shouldn't post on a website what you think his nature is.
I have not posited anything concerning the nature of G_d.