Netanyahu Gives an Option to Terrorists Still Holding Hostages in Gaza
Did You Catch Kamala's Awkward Pause When Bret Baier Asked This Question?
Look Away, Democrats. Obama Has Some Unfiltered Observations About Kamala.
The NY Times Plagiarism Expert Steals Its Thunder, and Public Trust in the...
Anti-Gunners Overstating Research on Mandatory Storage Laws
How Black Voters View Trump
Trump to Headline Catholic Dinner While Kamala Will Send In Pre-Recorded Tape
View Co-Host Accuses Fox News of 'Racism, Sexism' After Kamala Interview
This Is How Many Million Illegal Aliens Would Be Imported Into the U.S....
Here's What Cardinal Dolan Has to Say About Kamala Harris Skipping Out on...
One Country Just Made It Illegal to Seek Surrogacy Abroad
Liberal Poll Shows Republican Bernie Moreno Ahead in 'Toss-Up' Ohio Senate Race
These Media Headlines on Harris' Fox News Interview May Reveal a Larger Pattern
'There Is Something Pathological Going on Here': JD Vance Reacts to Harris' Fox...
Investigative Task Force Commissioned by Mayorkas Urges Overhaul of Secret Service Leaders...
Tipsheet

A Secularist Talks Morality

Last week, in this column, I argued that if traditionalists were going to be successful in arguing against gay marriage, they would need to develop a public argument that explains why private sexual behavior can, sometimes, be a public matter.   In other words, they needed to develop a moral and public policy case for defining marriage as an institution reserved for one man and one woman, unrelated and above a certain age.  As I pointed out, in this day and age, that's not easy. 
Advertisement


This piece about a prominent secularist's new book helps explain why.  Austin Dacey is the author of "The Secular Conscience," where he argues that secularists have sought to preclude religious and moral claims from public conversation, through the following reasoning:

[S]ecular liberalism has come to hold that because conscience is private or personal, its moral conclusions must be subjective, and because conscience should be free from coercion, its moral conclusions must also be free from public criticism.

He argues that in doing so, secularists have made a terrible mistake.  Sounds like an interesting book, and a valuable one.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement