Can liberal secularism and religious liberty co-exist?

[prisonchaplain]

One legal scholar from Princeton says no.  http://www.christianpost.com/news/robert-p-george-gay-marriage-and-religious-freedom-cannot-coexist-128610/#!

 

He expresses my most pessimistic thoughts.  However, I so want to be wrong.  My sense is that those of us in faith communities will eventually learn how to live out our love of God in a society that is increasingly uninterested in our God or our morality.  In many ways, we will return to the situation of the New Testament believers.  What I wonder is whether we will be perceived as an odd, overly strict minority group--or a dangerous, hateful group that society needs to corral.

[paulsifer42]

The way this could be fixed (in America at least) is for our country to go back to following The Constitution:  Much more corralled Federal Government and States with the power to run things how they want to which are small enough for individuals to have an actual affect on how things are ran.  I am pessimistic about the federal government relinquishing that power though.

[Guest MormonGator]

I'm not optimistic. The people who claim to be "tolerant" are usually only tolerant if you agree with them. 

[prisonchaplain]

Perhaps our best hope is for a revival of Barry Goldwater-type conservatism.  The kind that says the government that governs least governs best.  Somehow I feel sad though.  We have lost our Judeo-Christian social consensus in favor of the "leave me alone" one.  If so, the best we can hope for is a country where there is much sin--especially in the "high places."  We're not Israel, but it seems that if I reject the idea of social consensus, then the most Christians can hope to bring is "light salt."

[PolarVortex]

Some would argue that liberal secularism itself is a religion.    

[Traveler]

One legal scholar from Princeton says no.  http://www.christianpost.com/news/robert-p-george-gay-marriage-and-religious-freedom-cannot-coexist-128610/#!

 

He expresses my most pessimistic thoughts.  However, I so want to be wrong.  My sense is that those of us in faith communities will eventually learn how to live out our love of God in a society that is increasingly uninterested in our God or our morality.  In many ways, we will return to the situation of the New Testament believers.  What I wonder is whether we will be perceived as an odd, overly strict minority group--or a dangerous, hateful group that society needs to corral.

 

They could but from the view of a scientist - the probability is very unlikely.

[Guest]

I didn't read the article...

 

But, in today's America, the answer is No.  And that is only because, the government is not a true republic anymore but rather an oligarchy.

[paulsifer42]

Perhaps our best hope is for a revival of Barry Goldwater-type conservatism.  The kind that says the government that governs least governs best.  Somehow I feel sad though.  We have lost our Judeo-Christian social consensus in favor of the "leave me alone" one.  If so, the best we can hope for is a country where there is much sin--especially in the "high places."  We're not Israel, but it seems that if I reject the idea of social consensus, then the most Christians can hope to bring is "light salt."

 

The issue, as I see it, is that the government itself as set itself as the moral compass for the nation.  I know it looks like "leave me alone" right now, but I honestly believe people would eventually start making their own moral choices, and we'd see a lot of the morality that seems lost return.

[prisonchaplain]

I used to believe that freedom of speech, tolerance, and "not legislating morality" were liberal positions.  It's not true.  These are the causes of minorities.

 

Bottom line:  Lord Acton was right.  Power corrupts.

[paulsifer42]

I used to believe that freedom of speech, tolerance, and "not legislating morality" were liberal positions.  It's not true.  These are the causes of minorities.

 

Bottom line:  Lord Acton was right.  Power corrupts.

 

They once were, then Liberals learned how to use the system like Conservatives did.  So... both sides are using the same ugly tactics now and we're watching the power struggle.  Which corruption will win out?  The one that most aligns with us or the other?  In the end, we've all lost freedom.

 

And, yes, Lord Acton was/is right (in most instances).

[yjacket]

The biggest issue I see is the lack of understanding about rights.  The current liberal secularism is all about positive rights, (i.e. someone must do something for me), rather than negative rights (someone cannot do x for me).  The mixup and confusion between them leads to our current predicament.  Whenever positive rights are enforced someone has a right taken away, whenever negative rights are enforced no one has a right taken away.

 

The whole issue of homosexuals, adoptions, etc. can be summed in those two areas.  They want positive rights, i.e. a business owner must provide them service, someone must provide this bit of health care, etc.

 

Live and let live is not the watch-word of the liberal secularism.  As for a revival, we got it in the resurgence of the "Old Right" in the form of Ron Paul; unfortunately that will end up dying.

 

To be honest, IMO this country is done, when is the only question and how it looks.  The modern culture is too overpowering, just look at TV. 50-60 years ago most shows families could watch together.  I wouldn't want to watch any shows today with my kids (except maybe some cartoons).  Society craves the decadent.  It is a very simple process to stop, it's called just not watching it and excising more self-control.

 

From a morality standpoint, the US is in the toilet and getting worse all the time. From a political standpoint, there have been worse times for liberty, but it is pretty bleak right now. From a financial standpoint, it has been worse but again it's pretty bleak.

 

The whole system is corrupt, filled with corrupt politicians, corrupt society, corrupt financial world.  It is all about the instant gratification.  The only thing that can help it survive is religion.  So I simply try to raise my family the best I know how and pray that one day the corruption will be rooted out.

[2ndRateMind]

Well, as a non-Mormon, I have deliberately stayed out of your debates concerning sexual moralities like gay marriage, and gay adoption, or abortion, or, indeed, child pornography, bestiality, and necrophilia. In debate, I am quite happy that you decide, as individuals and as a church, what your individual and collective positions should be.

 

Provided you don't harm anyone.

 

And, this seems to me to be the very essence of secular liberalism, as well as religious tolerance.

 

Best wishes, 2RM. 

Edited October 29, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

Well, as a non-Mormon, I have deliberately stayed out of your debates concerning sexual moralities like gay marriage, and gay adoption, or abortion, or, indeed, child pornography, bestiality, and necrophilia. As a church, I am quite happy that you decide, as individuals and as a church, what your individual and collective positions should be.

 

Provided you don't harm anyone.

 

And, this seems to me to be the very essence of secular liberalism, as well as religious tolerance.

 

Best wishes, 2RM. 

 

The bolded above is the crux of the matter.  Your idea of not harming anyone is not the same as the next guy's.

[RMGuy]

I like OWH on this one, "your right to swing your fists ends where the other mans nose begins."

[Blackmarch]

One legal scholar from Princeton says no.  http://www.christianpost.com/news/robert-p-george-gay-marriage-and-religious-freedom-cannot-coexist-128610/#!

 

He expresses my most pessimistic thoughts.  However, I so want to be wrong.  My sense is that those of us in faith communities will eventually learn how to live out our love of God in a society that is increasingly uninterested in our God or our morality.  In many ways, we will return to the situation of the New Testament believers.  What I wonder is whether we will be perceived as an odd, overly strict minority group--or a dangerous, hateful group that society needs to corral.

well if we haven't gone to war to exterminate each other, i suppose there is some hope.

[srmaher]

One legal scholar from Princeton says no.  http://www.christianpost.com/news/robert-p-george-gay-marriage-and-religious-freedom-cannot-coexist-128610/#!

 

He expresses my most pessimistic thoughts.  However, I so want to be wrong.  My sense is that those of us in faith communities will eventually learn how to live out our love of God in a society that is increasingly uninterested in our God or our morality.  In many ways, we will return to the situation of the New Testament believers.  What I wonder is whether we will be perceived as an odd, overly strict minority group--or a dangerous, hateful group that society needs to corral.

 

 

It comes down to values. Consider the conflicts in our own country between those fighting for Religious Liberty and those on the left. A perfect example is the owners of the cake stores who refused to bake a cake for a gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. They were found guilty in a court of law for discrimination, and was required to pay a fine. Keep in mind, we have a constitutional right protecting our religious liberty. In places like the U.K., where they do not, individuals who are practicing Christians are no longer allowed to adopt, or foster kids in the foster care system. if you want to learn more about this issue, just perform a simple google search and you will find all you need. Anyway, It will never happen because the two sides are completely at odds in terms of values, and outcomes. The more secular one becomes, the more controlling one is, in extreme cases like communist China/Russian/North Korea, you are not even allowed to have "the freedom silence" in your own mind.

Edited November 11, 2014 by srmaher