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? ....

[Junior]

It's a dodge. He has nothing, but he doesn't want anyone to know that.

[js1138]

It's a dodge. He has nothing, but he doesn't want anyone to know that.

Kind of like Liberace pretending to be straight?

[sauropod]

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? ....

What if it's possible to strain at a gnat but swallow a camel...?

[headsonpikes]

What if it's possible to strain at a gnat but swallow a camel...?

Good one!

This has been an excellent thread, imo. There's been a healthy exchange of views.

[Rytwyng]

That "www.hell.com" link was a disappointment. I was expecting fire, brimstone, AC/DC music....

[b_sharp]

"It doesn't sound like an experiment at all. It's an odd concept to have attached yourself to."

What is odd, that I accept science's discovery that morals have evolved along with culture?

[Protagoras]

No, that you think this is all some big trial and error experiment.

[b_sharp]

The first is 'where did the morals we have today originate' and the second is 'how would we act if we did not believe in retribution from on high'

"Another falsehood which some think will become fact if repeated enough. The misleading of people into thinking that those who believe in God do so because they are afraid of retribution is a widespread practice among those of the atheist religion."

"The "fear of God" is the fear that we will displease him, not that he will punish us."

You either ducked or side-stepped, I have no idea which. No matter, I'll just play along by rephrasing my comment.

The first is 'where did the morals we have today originate' and the second is 'how would we act if we did not believe in whatever it is that encourages us to obey God'

There, is that better? You will note that it doesn't change the meaning of my comment at all. Its the belief that counts.

[elkfersupper]

Thanks.

[Protagoras]

I didn't duck or sidestep anything. You ask question, pretend I asked it, then respond to it, then claim I ducked.

Basically, you are having a conversation with yourself. Have at it,,enjoy.

In any case, Christians don't have the attitude that those in the atheist religion ascribe to them.

[b_sharp]

"No, that you think this is all some big trial and error experiment."

But that is how Evolution works.

[b_sharp]

"No, that you think this is all some big trial and error experiment."

That is also how man progresses in life, in technology and in science.

[Protagoras]

Thanks for your opinions on those matters.

[Dawsonville_Doc]

Same as for animals. They are incapable of right and wrong. They do what they do, it is morally neutral. They have no souls.

Methinks Protagoras has either never had a pet, or never understood it.

"If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went" - Will Rogers

[Protagoras]

Methinks Protagoras has either never had a pet, or never understood it.

Methinks you are clueless about me.

Half the people on this thread think there is no such thing as a soul and a few think animals have souls. Some think that animals and people are essentially the same, just biological organisms.

I believe that people were made in the image of God. And animals are not.

You are free to believe whatever you want.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

...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.

It sure does... although I am an atheist, I know it says all are free to choose salvation or damnation...

My only concern is that the filth (druggies, drunks and perverts) do not drag me, my precious ones and my civilization into the toilet of their hell... their rights are meaningless to me... mine are more important...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Some think that animals and people are essentially the same, just biological organisms.

But they cannot explain why humans are the only species that is not naked...

Shouldn't evolution have enabled the most highly evolved species (humans) to live in the environment? Evolution is just an immaculate conception of men...

[Protagoras]

I am not involved in any debate on evolution vs creationism and will not be drawn into one.

[x]

It seems to me the author thinks the conservative coalition needs to decide what the role of religion should be within the coalition. There are many religions. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Christian sects. And there are conservative deists, theists, agnostics, and atheists. They all disagree to some degree, some more rather than less, on religious questions and issues. The question I think the author is asking and suggesting should be debated, is if any one, or group, of these should dominate the policies of the conservative coalition.

Halfway through the article, he still hasn't mentioned any specific religion. He's talking about religion as such, not some specific religion. Tracinski and MacDonald don't seem to have much patience for the vague religiosity that Americans contented themselves with for much of our history. It looks like they want to open the way to unbelief, not just to nonsectarian religiousness.

Debate is fine, but if people come to agree with Tracinski that religion is unnecessary, it will be dropped. He's not just advocating discussion, but promoting a specific conclusion to the discussion, or at least, it's clear that he has his hopes.

Is there room for secular conservatives? Of course. Would it be a good thing if conservatives or America dropped religion to the degree that Europeans have? No. So people who anticipate where Tracinski's and MacDonald's arguments are going are right to argue their own case.

[King Prout]

Your experiences are not a religion I ascribe(sic) to.

"subscribe"

in response to the redacted text - neither, it seems, is literacy.