Our content, and its omissions

One of the disappointments that commenters often voice, in the current open thread and elsewhere, is: why do we have so many posts that discuss the role of religion in American public life, and so few that simply argue for one or another right-of-center position based on 100% guaranteed-secular premises? Why don’t we spend more time exploring the considerable differences between the various contributors on such topics as immigration or gay marriage or Middle East policy, in hopes of hammering out the “right” position for secular conservatives to take on that issue?

My own answer would run as follows: this site does not represent an effort to develop some sort of Secular Right platform. It’s a bunch of writers. Writers in groups often get compared to cats in groups, with one easily distracted by any passing flash of color or light, a couple of others enjoying a brief swatting match before resuming friendly interaction, and yet a fourth waiting impassively at a certain mousehole. By design the site includes right-of-center writers with a very wide range of views, what DH called a “broad church“, reducing yet further the chance of our reaching any sort of consensus beyond the most elemental premises (claims that sound governance and morality can rest only on a religious basis are erroneous; and the relationship between American conservatism and religion has gone wrong in certain respects and needs to be rethought).

At any rate, here’s my suggestion for those who would like to see our writers displaying their talents on issues unrelated to religion and its role in public life: just use Google to search a combination of their individual names and the issue (+ “economy”, “multiculturalism”, “Iraq” or whatever). To find various brilliant and provocative things about universities, abortion, and polygamy guaranteed to be based on secular premises, for example, follow this link or this one or this one.

About Walter Olson

Fellow at a think tank in the Northeast specializing in law. Websites include overlawyered.com. Former columnist for Reason and Times Online (U.K.), contributor to National Review, etc.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Our content, and its omissions

  1. back40 says:

    “the relationship between American conservatism and religion has gone wrong in certain respects and needs to be rethought”

    To make that point it is necessary to deal with both “American conservatism” and “religion”. Those who complain that there is too much religion and not enough conservatism seem spot on.

    This post and the article it references were interesting. It alluded to a conversation about hostility toward the state and preferences for personal liberty – core values of conservatives – and how this may well conflict with religion writ large or too much involved with governance.

    The peculiar (in world terms) nature of American conservatism seems relevant. Exploring that peculiarity as it relates to secularism would be interesting.

    I think that there is an opportunity at this time for conservatives to contribute ideas to society, ones that help Americans understand themselves better and so be able to make better decisions. I suspect that at some basic level Americans are in broad agreement with that peculiarly American sort of conservatism but mistakenly align themselves with leftists due to confusion with the older sort of Euro conservatism, which they do not support. Arguments that illuminate American conservatism and its essentially secular nature might help them.

    This may not be what this blog wants to do, but I hope that it is being done somewhere and would welcome pointers to such.

  2. Polichinello says:

    …just use Google to search a combination of their individual names and the issue…

    With respect, Walter, I don’t think this is very helpful. The reason a lot of us would like to see non-religious issues staked out here is so we can discuss them in a secular environment in the comments section. Admittedly, the conversation on Prop 8 got hot (I plead guilty to adding fuel to that fire), but I still did find it an interesting debate, and it didn’t feature references to the Bible or theologians.

  3. Blode0322 says:

    This is a fine site, WO, and I have no problem with its purpose. The reason I am disappointed is that I think a group of thinkers of the caliber of Derb and Heather Mac could be much more than the some of their parts if they were to make pot roast out of a couple of sacred cows. Put another way, you all could highlight how you are different / opposed to the crypto-religion of the left, rather than concentrating on the formal religions that are usually associated with the right.

  4. Walter Olson says:

    …The reason a lot of us would like to see non-religious issues staked out here is so we can discuss them in a secular environment in the comments section….

    Maybe the answer is for us to launch more topical open threads. I’m not sure any secular environment is guaranteed, of course.

  5. Polichinello says:

    Maybe the answer is for us to launch more topical open threads. I’m not sure any secular environment is guaranteed, of course…

    You could quote a short intro paragraph and post link to pieces online, like you piece on Reparation at the City Journal website, for example.

  6. gs says:

    Walter Olson: …this site does not represent an effort to develop some sort of Secular Right platform.

    My first reaction applies to the site but not to the individual writers and commenters here: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.”

  7. mikespeir says:

    It’s been protested that there are already many sites that push a secular viewpoint. But it should also be mentioned that there are already many, many that push a conservative viewpoint. As I take it, Secular Right isn’t only “right,” it’s “secular.” And “secular” is how it’s distinguished from other conservative sites. Thus, it would fundamentally necessary to discuss why it should be “secular” and not just “right.”

  8. Susan says:

    Given that fundamentalists are increasingly insistent not only that morality and good government are a function of being a Christian as they define Christian, but that one can’t be a conservative without being a fundamentalist, it’s impossible to avoid the discussion of religion in public life, nor do I think we should. I came to this site because I was getting deeply sick of being preached at elsewhere, or reading a verse from Revelations quoted in response to a sensible comment about foreign policy. This is reasoned debate? But beyond that…we probably SHOULD talk about the fact that conservatism seems to be splitting into two groups: those who are not religious, or who are religious, but don’t see religiosity as the litmus test of conservatism, and those who do. The latter appear to be an increasingly large group, and their threat to refuse to vote for any candidates who don’t embody 100 per cent of their values, if carried out, means that no conservative will ever will win office.

  9. Stopped Clock says:

    I would like to see more about the interaction between science/politics religions other than Christianity, if anyone here knows enough about this subject to contribute. There are so many doctors and scientists who have intellects far above what I’m able to comprehend but embrace a childishly simplistic and dualistic interpretation of the Quran which really makes me think that they rarely if ever question the beliefs they’re brought up with.

  10. Stopped Clock says:

    Also, a preview and/or edit function for comments would be nice, for people like me who seem to always make at least one typo or grammar error per post, despite repeated attempts at self-proofreading.

  11. ◄Dave► says:

    Stopped Clock :

    Stopped Clock

    Also, a preview and/or edit function for comments would be nice, for people like me who seem to always make at least one typo or grammar error per post, despite repeated attempts at self-proofreading.

    If you use Firefox, get the add-on ScribeFire. It is awesome for posting to one’s own blog; but I also use it to compose and review comments to others. Once happy with how it looks, I can drag and drop the html text into the comment box and hit “submit.” Try it, you’ll love it. ◄Dave►

  12. Dave M says:

    we probably SHOULD talk about the fact that conservatism seems to be splitting into two groups: those who are not religious, or who are religious, but don’t see religiosity as the litmus test of conservatism, and those who do.

    Alas, I think that is an increasingly accurate description of humanity in general.

Comments are closed.