Oh dear, Andrea. How right you are. I’m talking about your comment to my earlier post, below, re some libertarian types who can get quite a bit religious about their non-religion. And I don’t mean that in a good way.
Maybe Tanya is right; perhaps there are only 27 people like me – folks who mostly side with the religious social conservatives on the issues but who are not religious. And are not about to be, either; I’m not areligious because I never experienced life in the Church – quite the opposite. I don’t know. But I hope not to be mistaken for a militantly secular libertarian just because I’m not religious.
I was quite excited about a week ago when I heard that a few guys were starting a new blog called Secular Right. I thought I’d found a new home; I thought they were going to discuss conservative ideas and ideals more or less like we discuss life issues here at PWPL – without justifying our positions on the Gospel. But so far, that’s not what SR is doing. They seem more intent on demonstrating that religion is somehow inferior to reason, as though the two were necessarily mutually exclusive. I find that annoying.
It doesn’t have to be that way. There ought to be some room between the oogedy-boogedy and the dry (and aggressive) libertarian brand of militant secularism.
Oh well. It’s early in the morning and I’ve got to dash out for a couple of hours, so who knows what’ll await me when I log in again this afternoon.
Happy Saturday morning, everyone. Hey, Andrea, how’s Thunder Bay?
_____________________________
Andrea adds: On numbers–it could just be me, but my world has always been made up of vast numbers of secular conservatives/libertarians, making very clever comparisons between those who oh, say, support traditional marriage and racists in the deep south. (No word of a lie–wow did I ever wish I was somewhere else for that particular luncheon.) I tell ya–I got stories. (And back to the Super Annoying Religious Christian–Brigitte, most people are areligious because they have an experience with the church, not because they never went. Back in the day, I do believe it was those sitting in the pews who convinced me that I didn’t want to.)
by
Janette says
As someone who lives in the deep south and supports traditional marriage, I can personally attest to the fact that many secularists leap at any chance to recite the claim that support of traditional marriage is the equivalent of overt racism. One might think that the deep south would be a cushy haven for conservatives, especially religious ones – think again. I’m required to exhibit triple the amount of intelligence and integrity as my liberal peers to avoid being socially black-listed as a typical right-wing, intolerant racist and homophobe.
By the way, I love this site. It’s a breath of fresh air for this rabid pro-lifer. (Even in this small Alabama town, our local Save-A-Life pregnancy center was recently vandalized. Disrespect for human life is spreading like a cancer, even here in the “bible belt.”)
Rachael DeBruin says
About the religiously secular….my thoughts:
I think growing up I was quite ‘religiously secular’ in many respects. Even after starting to visit a church with some neighbours I didn’t immediately embrace the faith of my new found friends. I did, however, find their social values appealing….
To me what actually attracted me to ‘cross the floor’ to join with the people in my life who would be considered sincere christians(can I classify them as ‘principled people of faith’? I know to some that hasn’t been their experience in what they saw demonstrated in the name of christianity, but that’s what these ones were and what I saw) was the fact that their lives were in order! Order and success attracts attention and when my neighbours had a family that was functioning properly (2 parents, their kind children), had financial stability and lived in almost a ‘euphoric’ and commonsense way I was drawn to it like a magnet.
I think you can be a secularist and agree over many issues with the social conservatives. To me social research and life experiences (over time) demonstrate the validity of timeless truths in human relationships . I believe it can attract many people to its reasoning.
(Brigitte, I am so glad we agree about the life of the unborn,etc.. however I hope one day you will give people of faith who are very intellectual such as Ravi Zacharias & Josh McDowell a chance to reason with you about the spiritual side behind things. It won me over….. eventually. I can be a very stubborn woman (smile)
Eleanor says
Make that 28. 😉
Elizabeth says
I am one of the 27 – or number 29?
Brigitte, I commented a few weeks ago about how I thought the prolife cause needs a scientific, humanist defense, rather than only religious defenders. What do you think? Presently, a lot of pro-choicers lump anti-abortionism in with being anti-evolution, anti-science and basically anti-women’s rights. I would love to see some type of ad campaign showing Nat. Geographic “In the Womb” footage, etc, etc and defending pro-life values on a solely secular basis. I have nothing against religious folks (who aren’t extremists or too pushy), but one does not need religious teaching to oppose abortion. Just as one does not need religious teaching to support any other human rights. It is a scientific, biological fact that a male and female human have the ability to make another life. Should they also have the right to take this life away after they have created it?
Anyways, love your always-thoughtful posts!