CAT | Blogs
Over at one of my other weblogs I looked at university traffic. So I wanted to check Secular Right. The blog’s been around for over 2 years now, and here are the universities which sent more than 500 visitors:
I created one on Facebook. Need 20 “likes” to reserve the vanity URL.
Update: Thanks, http://www.facebook.com/SecularRight is ours!
It has come to my attention that Reddit has a channel for right-wing atheists. The description:
Atheist conservatives, right-wing Darwinists, South-Park conservatives, right-wing libertarians, anti-Sharia activists, non-conformists, controversialists and other politically incorrect freedom fighters: This is your community. Enjoy.
Seems like one person is currently contributing all the submissions.
CONSVLTVS of RESPVBLICA has created a nifty little badge for “Skeptical Conservatives”. The aim is to indicate a very small affinity group, bloggers and thinkers who are not religious, conservative, and, not necessarily libertarian in their presuppositions. The intersection of these traits is quite small indeed. At least in public. For myself it is rather obvious that direct electoral politics is not an animating passion of my life (you can see the more central passion on display at Discover Blogs). But by disposition and outlook I have a preference for what can loosely be termed the bourgeois world which arose in the West in the wake of the Enlightenment, and would prefer to conserve it, and at most evolve it from within. I have come to reject excessive axiomatic constructs in political theory and politics, and also believe from an empirical evolutionary perspective that the methodological individualism at the heart of modern liberalism may at root be a quirk of the preferences of the intellectual classes in general.
In any case, we are few. But we exist. And I like to think that what sometimes matters is not the most, but the best. Because of our peculiarities skeptical conservatives in some ways are the heretics of our age, and we take a little bit of pleasure in our role as the smasher of idols.
It is amazing that on a blog called SECULAR Right we have so many people here willing to pull the lever for someone about as far from “secular” as one can imagine. Have you all devolved to the point that selecting the “R” is all that matters? JFC, there other options–third parties, write-ins or just abstaining altogether (Ms.O’Donnell would at least like the sound of that). I don’t see how anyone who even just pretends to be s secularist can vote for this extremely silly person.
Well, the site is still “Secular.” Not sure about the “Right” bit anymore.
I detest people trying to tie religion into the resurgent conservative movement. It is a mistake, however, to try to paint people like D’Souza as representative of the Right in majority. That’s simply not even close to being true.
I’m reading these comments and I’m not seeing a lot of conservatism. Looks more like a typical raving moonbat thread over at DU, to me.
Here’s the explanation for the change in name. When I saw a page notifying of the change last night on NewMajority I thought someone had hacked the site and placed the note up as a joke. I guess that says it all about what I think about the new name. Let’s hope that they do a Pajama’s Media.
Clark of Mormon Metaphysics points to this screed by Peter Lawler over at Postmodern Conservative by way of praising Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies. Lawler asserts:
… It begins as a criticism of the naive stupidity of the “new atheists” such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett from the perspective of the older atheist Nietzsche. The new atheists criticize religion (or basically Christianity) from an anti-cruelty, pro-dignity, pro-rights, pro-enlightenment perspective. They don’t realize that their humane values are, in fact, parasitic on Christianity and make no sense outside the Christian insight–completely unsupported by modern or Darwinian science–concerning the uniqueness and irreplacability of every human person. Nietzsche was right that secular Christianity or Christianity without Christ is unsustainable, and that the sentimental preferences of the new atheists are no more than that.
I have been blogging for 7 years now, and the whole time I have made it clear that I am an atheist. My readers who are orthodox Christians have often asserted that Nietzsche is the only true consistent and honest atheist, that only his atheism faces the plain facts of existence in a world without God, and that I should man up. Though the author of Atheist Delusions is an Eastern Orthodox theologian and philosopher, Lawler reports that his criticism of the New Atheists starts from a Nietzschian perspective. All I have to say is that homey don’t play that game. Friedrich Nietzsche was the product of a line of Lutherans pastors, so it should not surprise that his atheism engages so directly, and inverts so forcefully, the thrust of Christianity. As philosophy goes much of what Nietzsche had to say was captivating, but then I also find science fiction captivating, as well as some portions of the Bible.
The atheism of Nietzsche plays on the terms of Christianity, and that is why Christians often admire his work. It is entirely intelligible to them insofar as it operates in the same universe of morals, albeit characterized by inversions. So naturally Christians castigate atheists who are not Nietzschians, such a stance creates much greater difficulty in fashioning rhetorical thrusts. Too many presuppositions simply are not aligned. Where Lawler and many others declare that Christianity is a necessary precondition of humane values, I simply assert that humane values, or more accurately the values we hold today, used Christianity, as well as other religions and philosophies, as cultural vessels. Morality and ethics existed prior to religion, and the emergence of “Higher Religions” which fused a moral sense with supernatural intuitions was a process which occurred in the light of history. It was no miracle, and may even have been inevitable once humans reached a particular level of organization.
Of course this sort of argument leaves many loose ends hanging. So be it. Those who believe that they have the Ultimate answer do not, and yet we continue to muddle on.