Liberalism, Fundamentalism and secular society

[danieldemol]

I think that a liberal approach to religion/s is more compatible with secular society than any fundamentalist religion is.

I think that because in a liberal approach, room can be made to change laws as new evidence and better more modern ethics come to light.

Whereas in a fundamentalist approach a certain law is considered mandated by the divine at a specific point in time, and if that law becomes outdated the community becomes stuck with an outdated law which it has to cling to by virtue of it’s so called divine mandate even though such a law may in whole or in part no longer be compatible with the more modern, more sensible, more evolved secular values.

So what do you think?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Absolutely.

 

[Samana Johann]

So what do you think

As possible not addressed, householder Daniel Demol: what does one, or many, expect to cut things down to the lowest common denominator? That one might get the belly(ies) filled and behind the deluge? What can be expected to build on mudd and not on fundaments? Generation or just degeneration? More firm bound slaves of desire or possibilities for those ready to take on the task of selfliberation, liberation from demant and desire?

 

[Lyndon]

The idea that people in 500BC know better than people today does seem a little ludicrous.

 

[Samana Johann]

The idea that people in 500BC know better than people today does seem a little ludicrous.

Given that one is 2600 years after here again and less different, individual wandering on does not seem to be of any advantages. Didn't the speed of birth, sickness and death, unsatisfactory increase, householder Lyndon? Doesn't pseudoliberalism gives householder Lyndon actually more space to follow his defilements, lazyness... what ever addition increasing habits?

Householder may wonder with how less "freedom" of eating used to, people can be really very liberal and free to move.

Degeneration means orphan and not really guided, loss.

 

[David T]

I think that a liberal approach to religion/s is more compatible with secular society than any fundamentalist religion is.

I think that because in a liberal approach, room can be made to change laws as new evidence and better more modern ethics come to light.

Whereas in a fundamentalist approach a certain law is considered mandated by the divine at a specific point in time, and if that law becomes outdated the community becomes stuck with an outdated law which it has to cling to by virtue of it’s so called divine mandate even though such a law may in whole or in part no longer be compatible with the more modern, more sensible, more evolved secular values.

So what do you think?

Opposites held in tension regardless. A purely liberal take will trend towards what ever is shiny at the moment like a squirrel, and more conservative will be like an ocd maniac fearful of walking out of the house. Its very bi polar.

 

[PureX]

I think the people who are drawn to fundamentalism are drawn to it because they are generally frightened and confused, and so need the rigid, undoubtable ideological paradigm that fundamentalism offers.

Unfortunately, it's a false paradigm in that reality is not the binary, static, ideological phenomena that fundamentalism presumes it to be. And so if such a minimal and antagonistic paradigm is engaged in for too long, it tends to cause the participant to become 'willfully insane'. And that gets dangerous for everyone.

 

[leov]

I think that a liberal approach to religion/s is more compatible with secular society than any fundamentalist religion is.

I think that because in a liberal approach, room can be made to change laws as new evidence and better more modern ethics come to light.

Whereas in a fundamentalist approach a certain law is considered mandated by the divine at a specific point in time, and if that law becomes outdated the community becomes stuck with an outdated law which it has to cling to by virtue of it’s so called divine mandate even though such a law may in whole or in part no longer be compatible with the more modern, more sensible, more evolved secular values.

So what do you think?

I learned that True God is liberal . Definition of LIBERAL

 

[sun rise]

Opposites held in tension regardless. A purely liberal take will trend towards what ever is shiny at the moment like a squirrel, and more conservative will be like an ocd maniac fearful of walking out of the house. Its very bi polar.

What is considered good and bad can be a very tricky subject. To some degree it's cultural - human sacrifice was considered good at one point, for example. Wearing clothes made of two different fabrics was considered forbidden: You shall not sow your field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come on you.

 

[David T]

What is considered good and bad can be a very tricky subject. To some degree it's cultural - human sacrifice was considered good at one point, for example. Wearing clothes made of two different fabrics was considered forbidden: You shall not sow your field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come on you.

It really is situational ethics. That can be extremely difficult.

 

[sun rise]

It really is situational ethics. That can be extremely difficult.

True.

My attitude toward such "thou shalt/shall not" is to apply a test. For a Christian it would be to ask if it violates the two "greatest" commandment. There would be similar questions for other religions and secular folk.

So, to take a simple example, if I'm driving somewhere with my wife and she's suddenly very ill, I would not hesitate for a second before speeding, running stop signs etc to get her to the nearest ER. I would not feel the least guilty in doing so.

More complex situations might not be as totally clear, but my decision making would follow that line.

 

[pearl]

I think that a liberal approach to religion/s is more compatible with secular society than any fundamentalist religion is.

Doesn't secular society have its own liberal/fundamental divide, most evident in interpreting the Constitution?

 

[danieldemol]

Doesn't secular society have its own liberal/fundamental divide, most evident in interpreting the Constitution?

The constitution is an US political thing, it really has nothing to do with how we interpret religion, unless you’re trying to claim that for some people the constitution is their religion ?

 

[pearl]

thing

political thing, it really has nothing to do with how we interpret religion, unless you’re trying to claim that for some people the constitution is their religion ?

Liberalism and Fundamentalism exist apart from religion in a secular society.

 

[Samana Johann]

Liberalism and Fundamentalism exist apart from religion in a secular society.

Sounds like a fundamentalist seeking to appear liberal, yet on which foundation behind guessing? Isn't not a firm fundamental required, firm ground, to step toward liberty? Is there liberty if not having reached firm ground, Brahman Carl?

 

[pearl]

Isn't not a firm fundamental required

The difference is whether this 'firm ground', either Scripture or the Constitution, is considered dead or open to interpretation as to how it serves 'liberty' in today's society.