3 ms·

> blatantly implies that secularl and liberal ideas are incompatible with valuing tradition, morality and spirituality Yes, that is what I was implying. Now I

> blatantly implies that secularl and liberal ideas are incompatible with valuing tradition, morality and spirituality Yes, that is what I was implying. Now I will state it more explicitly: those values are each at odds with either secularism or liberalism. > unquantified assumptions about how the person was raised I'm not entirely sure what an unquantified assumption is, but I clearly qualified that I was making a guess about the person. Making and confirming guesses about others based on what you know about them so far is normal behavior. I am by no means certain about the accuracy of my guess, but presented it as a starting point for further discussion.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
xpe 4y ago
> Now I will state it more explicitly: those values are each at odds with either secularism or liberalism. If philosophies claiming absolute truth are imposed on a pluralist society there will be conflict. In this sense, I agree they are incompatible in some cases. However, they are not necessarily incompatible. There are religious leaders who recommend that followers live by a religious philosophy without imposing it via strict laws. A philosopher named Robert Kane describes his views which distinguish between public morality and private morality. Pluralism as a public morality is compatible to a very large extent with most private moralities. You only get incompatibilities when the private morality tramples on the rights of other private moralities. This is a useful distinction.