7 ms·

"A secular state need not suppress Islam" What about a secular state that doesn't want to become an Islamic state, but has a significant minority that has the

"A secular state need not suppress Islam" What about a secular state that doesn't want to become an Islamic state, but has a significant minority that has the opposite wish? AFAIK this is the most important common political problem across the Islamic world. Many organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood want to Islamize their respective secular countries, some by peaceful means, others by violence. There has already been at least a dozen civil wars around that issue.

mkoubaa 2y ago
A liberal secular state must respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is. It must also suppress violent sedition with violence. Expressing that responsibility as suppressing religion per se is counterproductive
- feoren 2y ago
  > A liberal secular state must respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is No. A tolerant, secular, liberal state should not respect the will of its people if the will of (the majority of) its people is to become an intolerant, religious, oppressive state. It is OK -- possibly even necessary -- to have a set of core founding principals which must never be abandoned.
  - mkoubaa 2y ago
    If you're saying that core founding principles were so important then you must feel that slavery shouldn't have been abolished, no?
    - ffgjgf1 2y ago
      Slavery was a “state rights” issue from the beginning. In what way was it part of the core founding principles of the US? Also having “core founding principles” doesn’t mean that they are valid or that you got them right from the beginning.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > liberal secular state must respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is This is majoritarianism. Not liberalism, and certainly not democracy.
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  So democratically abolishing democracy? > respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is How do you define that? Is it always what the majority decides? What if the liberal secular government knows that going along with the will of the people will result in a minority of the population losing most of their rights and potentially suffering extreme oppression? One could could assume that after learning what happened in Germany in the 30s (and some other comparable situations) most people would agree that even liberal states need to draw a line at some point.

mkoubaa 2y ago

A liberal secular state must respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is. It must also suppress violent sedition with violence. Expressing that responsibility as suppressing religion per se is counterproductive

feoren 2y ago
> A liberal secular state must respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is No. A tolerant, secular, liberal state should not respect the will of its people if the will of (the majority of) its people is to become an intolerant, religious, oppressive state. It is OK -- possibly even necessary -- to have a set of core founding principals which must never be abandoned.
- mkoubaa 2y ago
  If you're saying that core founding principles were so important then you must feel that slavery shouldn't have been abolished, no?
  - ffgjgf1 2y ago
    Slavery was a “state rights” issue from the beginning. In what way was it part of the core founding principles of the US? Also having “core founding principles” doesn’t mean that they are valid or that you got them right from the beginning.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> liberal secular state must respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is This is majoritarianism. Not liberalism, and certainly not democracy.
ffgjgf1 2y ago
So democratically abolishing democracy? > respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is How do you define that? Is it always what the majority decides? What if the liberal secular government knows that going along with the will of the people will result in a minority of the population losing most of their rights and potentially suffering extreme oppression? One could could assume that after learning what happened in Germany in the 30s (and some other comparable situations) most people would agree that even liberal states need to draw a line at some point.