[headsonpikes]

Live without lies.

[kesg]

Very interesting...read the whole thing.

[driftless2]

One of the most common misconceptions about the Right by people who are not on the right is that all Republicans and conservatives are super religious and use the Bible for daily reference. I'd have to say that a great percentage of Republicans, like my wife and I, are non-religious but have great respect for those who are. Neither of us are atheists, but we don't go to church or pray. Still I give to The Salvation Army, don't mind religious symbols in public places, like to sing spirituals for fun, love Christmas, and don't mind being called a Christian. That doesn't necessarily make me a good one, but I don't mind being called one.

[tumblindice]

Interesting article. I still say my prayers but the facts are, there are millions of people just in this country:
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html
who believe that they are right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_Wager
and that everyone else is going to:
http://www.hell.com/

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

If a young person is turned off by religion or attracted by the achievements of science, and he wants to embrace a secular outlook

This is a false choice between "religion" and "science." If we had a perfect understanding of the meaning of God's Word and a perfect understanding of the physical universe, there would be no contradiction between the two.

Christians have led the way in many of the most important discoveries in science. Christians would do well to remember that "we see through a glass darkly" on this side and hubristic atheistic scientists would do well to remember that if the history of science teaches anything, it is that whatever the scientific theories du jour are, they will not be the last word on the subject.

But to derive a secular morality, we need more than narrow conclusions drawn from sociological studies. We need broad philosophical principles drawn from the grand lessons of history.

The notion of "secular morality" is a contradiction in terms. Morality is based on distinctions between right and wrong. It is impossible for atheistic philosophy to make anything but relative assertions when it comes to right and wrong.

In the final analysis, all of the laws and morality of our civilization are ultimately founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. The belief that all human life is worthy is based on God's word that we are all created in the image of God and that the human race is of one blood.

There is nothing in, for example, atheistic evolutionary theory that compels the principle that the life of all human beings should be respected.

Calling on philosophers to create a new morality to replace Judeo-Christian beliefs is exactly what Nietzsche did.

Those who call for this are imagining that what will result will be a belief system that is just slightly altered and "improved" from the Judeo-Christian version. But there is no reason at all to belief this will be the result, and every attempt so far has been an utter catastrophe.

For those "skeptical conservatives," if they cannot believe, then the next best course would be not to try to replace the underpinnings of our civilization with a philosophical leap in the dark, but to accept the Judeo-Christian basis on at least utilitarian grounds, perhaps in the same spirit that Churchill once characterized democracy: "Democracy is the worst form of government; its only virtue is that it is better than all of the other systems of government."

[Little Ray]

I think this runs on a false premise.
The "religious right" is the source of social conservatism (count me in!). Capitalism is the source of fiscal conservatism. The two have some interests in common; despite the delusions of Libertarians, social liberals believe in spending lots of money to promote every sort of perversion as "normal and healthy" and establishing "social justice." It is hard, if not impossible, to be a REAL fiscal conservative AND a social liberal.

But the choice isn't "Religious Right" or "Secular Left."
(BTW: the "Religious Left" is, if anything, larger than the Religious Right - it just doesn't stand for much of anything, except not being "judgmental." Oh, and "social justice.")

[tutstar]

read later

[GOP Poet]

bump for later

[Mamzelle]

Oh, poor little secular right, all picked on by the Big Bad Bully of religion. Boohoo.

From the outset of the Religious Right having a place at the table of politics, and it's been less than thirty years, there's been a lot of whining from the non-religious who would really like the RR to leave the GOP--or at least stay very, very quiet and never remind the urban libertarians that JoeSixpack is in the room.

The snobs sob, but the Religious Right still expects a share in the pie and also expects to help with the baking. And we're the only real energy the GOP has.

This is just another essay that expresses a feeling--distaste. Not our kind, dearie. Too bad.

[Protagoras]

believe in the importance of morality, but without believing in God? ....

There are people who happen to live moral lives who do not believe in God. Which is not to say that there actually is such a thing as morality in the absence of God.

Neither of which addresses the point of the article however, so it's just a comment on one line of the excerpt.

[Tribune7]

That's a pretty long and rambling article by Trascinski but his point that one can be a doubter in God and still be a doubter in government is correct.

Regardless, it should be remembered that it is the believers in God that get things done whether it's a William Jennings Bryant or Martin Luther King Jr. on the left, or a Ronald Reagan or Billy Graham on the right.

In the fight against communism, the atheists were generally cheering on the Reds or sneering from the sidelines.

[Protagoras]

If a young person is turned off by religion

Another comment on a line there; One can believe in God and be spiritual in the absence of "religion". God is not religious.

[Dumb_Ox]

That question has been raised, most recently, in a courageous article by Heather Mac Donald.

MacDonald's article showed about as much courage and insight as a drunken dorm room bull session. We should be talking about the rest of the TAC symposium of which it was a part. However, the author of this article is one of the least insipid Rand admirers I've yet read.

Right-wing atheists are still freeloading off the accumulated spiritual and moral capital of Christendom. Though they often aren't actively subverting it like the secular left, neither are they contributing to its strength. Reason itself is a divine capacity, requiring a certain amount of credulous trust even among those who reason only in service of skepticism.

[capitalist229]

Only in religion are you immune to the challenge of rational discourse.

BUMP

[Liberal Classic]

There are a great many people who are unobservant, and yet they are moral, support the troops, believe in free enterprise, etc. I believe it is in the benefit modern conservatism for the Republican party to establish itself as the big tent and welcome these people with open arms, instead of calling them freeloaders and snobs like we have seen in this thread.

[DesScorp]

The difference between the secular right and the secular left is that the right has respect for Christians, where the left sees them as a threat.

[ChessExpert]

I have long recommended a two, rather than one dimensional view, so this article interests me. Instead of simply right or left, consider: religious right, atheist right, religious left, atheist left. These are continuums and have a place for agnosticism as well as varying degrees of Government involvement in the economy. I often use Ayn Rand as an example of the atheist right. I also reject the curve that puts National Socialists (Nazis) on the opposite side, but near to, International Socialists (Commies). Socialists are on the left.

Naturally, I was interested in this article. I didn't think it was exactly neutral. When I read the author admired Ayn Rand, my surmise was confirmed. So, it was kind of Randian sales pitch. That's alright. Still, I sensed he was looking down his long nose at religious people.

He comes across as thinking that the religious do not value rational thought or science. The atheist left has taught this for years and I'm sure the belief is ingrained in many. It's not true of all. Off the top of my head, Copernicus and Newton were just two famous scientists who were religious. Long lists of famous religious scientists have probably been compiled and posted on the Internet. If you want to read a really bright guy, try "Intelligent Design - the Bridge between Science & Theology" by William A. Dembski.

It is true that some religious people are not intellectuals. They have family, work, church, and are happy and productive. The economist Joseph Schumpeter defined intellectuals are people who are interested in matters for which they have no responsibility. He cautioned that, lacking regular involvement in topics of interest, they fail to realize when their policy prescriptions go awry. There is nothing absolutely wrong or right in intellectualism. I think I'm an intellectual, by Schumpeter's definition. But I think it marvelous that so many can do so much for themselves, their families, community, and society at large, without spending (wasting?) their time pondering the great issues.

[x]

That question has been raised, most recently, in a courageous article by Heather Mac Donald. In a symposium on the nature of the right, she argued on behalf of "skeptical conservatives" who "ground their ideas in rational thinking and (nonreligious) moral argument."

Some would argue that religion is rational. I don't know which side is right, but Heather MacDonald certainly could have phrased her argument differently. That may be the problem: not so much that she's wrong as that her language turns people off, either through clumsiness or because she wants to be provocative.

One of the great myths spread by religious conservatives is the idea that the political left is founded on an overweening confidence in the power of reason. But any notions about a hyper-rational left can be refuted by ten minutes' conversation with an actual leftist. It can also be refuted by an examination of the ideas of the left.

What he attributes to "religious conservatives" was a common belief in the 1940s and 1950s. Now that communism and other secular messianic ideologies have failed we can see that they were "irrational." In the thick of political argument in the Thirties and Forties it was much harder to come to that conclusion.

It was precisely the idea of the dignity of the human person founded in religion that moved many to resist totalitarian ideologies which at the time looked to be extremely rational. The idea of original sin and awareness that even the most apparently "rational" of systems can be flawed and corrupt did a lot to convince people not to surrender to such ideologies.

The lessons of history reveal the basic requirements set by man's nature for his survival, success, and happiness here on earth. That is the secular foundation for morality.

But the ideologies that promised to bring a heaven on earth earlier in the century turned out to be delusionary and dangerous. The next scientistic ideology that comes along will likewise find plenty of adherents among secular "rationalists" and opponents in the religious camp.

I'm probably more secular than religious, but the partisans of secularism in this debate don't seem to be making the best case. They sound shallow and arrogant and don't seem to have been affected by the catastrophes of the last century.

[steve-b]

But any notions about a hyper-rational left can be refuted by ten minutes' conversation with an actual leftist.

Ten minutes? Heck, thirty seconds of skimming a DUmmie FUnnies post will do the job....

[HairOfTheDog]

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?

Hence the rise of the "South Park Conservatives"

[Boxen]

Oh come now. Is the keyword spam really necessary?