3 ms·

Keeping religions in check as such is incompatible with liberalism. Secular societies need to be maintained, but antagonizing religious people with phrases like

Keeping religions in check as such is incompatible with liberalism. Secular societies need to be maintained, but antagonizing religious people with phrases like that is not how.

stef25 2y ago
Make sure to use right words so they don't have a meltdown, like toddlers.
- mkoubaa 2y ago
  It is important for government actions to be communicated clearly
surfingdino 2y ago
On the flip side, religions are incompatible with liberalism so there's constant tension.
- mkoubaa 2y ago
  The bedrock of liberalism is religious freedom
  - surfingdino 2y ago
    When a religion/ideology wants to limit personal freedom, it's a hard stop. Otherwise it's the end of liberalism.
    - mkoubaa 2y ago
      Liberalism will end when we choose to end it, in bits in pieces, each brick ironically removed in it's own name.
  - quickthrowman 2y ago
    Religious freedom is fine. What bothers me is religious groups or people attempting to legislate their morality onto the whole of society by restricting personal freedoms. If they would just follow their own morals and ethics and leave the rest of society alone, I’m perfectly fine with that. For example, if you don’t believe in abortion, then don’t get an abortion. Leave people who want to get abortions alone, it’s their choice.
    - mkoubaa 2y ago
      I couldn't agree more
  - feoren 2y ago
    And the bedrock of religion is forcing your beliefs upon others. Hence the tension. It's like the paradox of tolerance.
    - mkoubaa 2y ago
      And yet religious freedom begat liberalism, not the other way around
      - surfingdino 2y ago
        This doesn't mean religion ought to receive any special treatment going forward. It is a way of looking at the world, but requires belief which is in opposition to other beliefs and they all are in opposition to scientific approach to understanding ourselves and the world we live in. It is also a way of imposing and enforcing morals that cannot be questioned unless one is prepared to face grave consequences. The "priest" of are predominantly men, who are under no obligation to follow the morals they preach and indulge in the "sins" they condemn without fear of prosecution. In the end, when the veil comes off it's about power, money, and sex. So no, no special treatment of religion ought to be allowed in a secular society. And secular societies ought to have laws and mechanisms preventing them from takeover by religious groups.
  - lmm 2y ago
    Which organised Islam is inimical to. E.g. the penalty for apostasy is death.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > the bedrock of liberalism is religious freedom Individualism, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, private property and equality before the law are the bedrocks of liberalism [1]. Religious freedom is closer to a corollary, though hard secular liberal republics (e.g. much of recent French history) have also existed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Keeping religions in check as such is incompatible with liberalism. Secular societies need to be maintained, but antagonizing religious people with phrases like that is not how.

stef25 2y ago

Make sure to use right words so they don't have a meltdown, like toddlers.

mkoubaa 2y ago
It is important for government actions to be communicated clearly

surfingdino 2y ago

On the flip side, religions are incompatible with liberalism so there's constant tension.

mkoubaa 2y ago
The bedrock of liberalism is religious freedom
- surfingdino 2y ago
  When a religion/ideology wants to limit personal freedom, it's a hard stop. Otherwise it's the end of liberalism.
  - mkoubaa 2y ago
    Liberalism will end when we choose to end it, in bits in pieces, each brick ironically removed in it's own name.
- quickthrowman 2y ago
  Religious freedom is fine. What bothers me is religious groups or people attempting to legislate their morality onto the whole of society by restricting personal freedoms. If they would just follow their own morals and ethics and leave the rest of society alone, I’m perfectly fine with that. For example, if you don’t believe in abortion, then don’t get an abortion. Leave people who want to get abortions alone, it’s their choice.
  - mkoubaa 2y ago
    I couldn't agree more
- feoren 2y ago
  And the bedrock of religion is forcing your beliefs upon others. Hence the tension. It's like the paradox of tolerance.
  - mkoubaa 2y ago
    And yet religious freedom begat liberalism, not the other way around
    - surfingdino 2y ago
      This doesn't mean religion ought to receive any special treatment going forward. It is a way of looking at the world, but requires belief which is in opposition to other beliefs and they all are in opposition to scientific approach to understanding ourselves and the world we live in. It is also a way of imposing and enforcing morals that cannot be questioned unless one is prepared to face grave consequences. The "priest" of are predominantly men, who are under no obligation to follow the morals they preach and indulge in the "sins" they condemn without fear of prosecution. In the end, when the veil comes off it's about power, money, and sex. So no, no special treatment of religion ought to be allowed in a secular society. And secular societies ought to have laws and mechanisms preventing them from takeover by religious groups.
- lmm 2y ago
  Which organised Islam is inimical to. E.g. the penalty for apostasy is death.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the bedrock of liberalism is religious freedom Individualism, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, private property and equality before the law are the bedrocks of liberalism [1]. Religious freedom is closer to a corollary, though hard secular liberal republics (e.g. much of recent French history) have also existed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism