Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mthom

Thats not however the sentiment of the author of the article. The author suggests that the religious right should be supplanted by the secular right.

I didn't read that in the article. Here's what the article says.

The right needs to have a long, open, honest debate about the role of religion. We need it now more than ever because we are in the middle of a war with an enemy that is defined by his religious fervor and by his attempt to make his religion dominate the "public square," to borrow a catchphrase from the religious right. If we don't understand the real nature and value of Western, Enlightenment secularism, then we can't fully understand what is at stake in this clash of civilizations, and in the long run, we won't know how to win it.
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.
220 posted on 08/29/2006 3:09:06 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies ]


To: ml1954
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.

459 posted on 08/30/2006 12:11:32 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson