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? ....

[Protagoras]

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.

Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt steal, thou shalt not covet.

Seems pretty clear.

[King Prout]

an
AGOG AT THE PARADING IDIOCY
placemarker

[Protagoras]

ascribe

2. to attribute or think of as belonging, as a quality or characteristic

imbecile

Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[im-buh-sil, -suhl or, especially Brit., -seel] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

¡Vnoun 1. Psychology. a person of the second order in a former classification of mental retardation, above the level of idiocy, having a mental age of seven or eight years and an intelligence quotient of 25 to 50. 2. a dunce; blockhead; dolt. ¡Vadjective 3. mentally feeble. 4. showing mental feebleness or incapacity. 5. stupid; silly; absurd. 6. Archaic. weak or feeble.

[Dawsonville_Doc]

My post gave no opinion about souls whatsoever, human or otherwise.
If you have never been cajoled by a pet for treats, have never been shunned by a pet for scolding, or never had a personal item either coveted or destroyed by a pet, purposefully-

Then you have either never had a pet, or you didn't understand your pet. Pets know right from wrong, they know willful disobedience, they know guilt.

[js1138]

1⁷²⁰ alert.

[Protagoras]

Then you have either never had a pet, or you didn't understand your pet. Pets know right from wrong, they know willful disobedience, they know guilt.

I have had pets, not that it is relevant, nor are any other personal details about me.

Your personification of animals is in your imagination. Animals have no souls, they are incapable of right or wrong. They are capable of using tactics to get what they want. They are capable of discerning whether their masters will react to their actions, but they are incapable of right or wrong.

People are important, animals are property. They are to be used for human ends.

I'm sorry for people who think that animals and humans are equal, they are not. Such people are delusional.

[js1138]

ascribe 2. to attribute or think of as belonging, as a quality or characteristic

After a reasonable cooling off period, you might wish to revisit your sentence: [Your experiences are not a religion I ascribe to.] and reconsider your usage (not to mention ending the sentence with a preposition).

[js1138]

http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/ascribe.html

[Protagoras]

Whatever error I make in expressing myself and however awkward the sentence was, it does not qualify me to be called illiterate by an imbecile who can't make his point.

Thanks for your concern.

[js1138]

Whatever error I make in expressing myself and however awkward the sentence was, it does not qualify me to be called illiterate by an imbecile who can't make his point.

Your qualifications are manifest.

[Protagoras]

I'll resist the temptation to join the childish nonsense that a genius like you is trying to accomplish.

[js1138]

You are wise.

[Protagoras]

Yes, and you are not.

[js1138]

Snappy.

[js1138]

Shouldn't evolution have enabled the most highly evolved species (humans) to live in the environment?

What environment would that be, and where?

[jwalsh07]

Pets know right from wrong, they know willful disobedience, they know guilt.

Really? If a dog pees on the floor and the alpha dog is at work does the dog feel guilty?

[Dawsonville_Doc]

If you scold your dog, and later that day find dog crap in your dress shoes, is it an accident? ;-)

[jwalsh07]

So now you're telling me that the pack dog craps in the alpha dogs shoes fearlessly, guiltessly and with flourish? LOL. You're a funny guy.

[Dawsonville_Doc]

I didn't tell you that at all. Pets tear up our favorite shoes, get into things they've been scolded about repeatedly...then hide, and cower when faced with the Alpha.

Don't tell me you've never seen this behavior. Anyone with children or pets has.

And I never said anything about fearlessly, guiltlessly, or with flourish...

[ahayes]

Yeah, if you read the Cliff Notes version. The actual document is much more parenthetical, with all sorts of exemptions. If you're in the right place (Canaan) at the right time (Joshua's genocide) you can kill and steal your heart out!