The only time religion was downright outlawed was in Enver Hoxha’s Albania. So the answer might be Hoxhaism, which was a thing for a while.
That’s a slightly different definition of secularist from what I was using, but yours makes sense also, and I agree with your point.
You must admit that they had good role models. Catholics massacring the Huguenots. English Protestants hanging priests coming to evangelize from spikes and Catholics doing likewise. Burning anyone who might be following one of the old religions as witches. And everyone oppressing Jews unless they needed a loan.
The reason it is a strawman is that Communism is very much like a religion, and oppresses any other sources of power, be they churches or democracy movements.
Christianity is the religion which harps on five minutes of persecution under Nero and neglects the Spanish Inquisition. And cries oppression when forced to let two guys get married.
Not to mention the Orthodox religion, where they were killing each other over making the sign of the cross with three fingers or two.
(If you used your toes, would that make you an Orthopedic?)
My right to swing around my elbows ends where the tip of your nose begins.
This should be the basis where liberty/authority//independence/control are bounded.
Whatever floats your boat.
I WILL NOT dictate unto YOU what MUST float YOUR boat.
I’m curious what your definition is. I think my misunderstanding of that is why I couldn’t understand your response to @Slithy_Tove.
That is a lot of words for “Yes, but…”
I was using secularist as someone with a secular world view. Could be an atheist, could be an apathist. The other definition seemed to be someone who thinks that society should be run using secular, not religious principles. I can see that as a definition also. My version of secularist can’t be religious by definition, hers can be.
Thanks. Your definition is new ot me.
Actually that is a nonsense very bully-friendly way to run a world.
The better answer is “Your right to swing your elbows ends when it causes alarm in reasonable people who think their nose might be hit due to your careless selfish behavior.”
When we live in large groups, selfish disregard for others around you is not the highest human ideal.
If you are not my parent,
If you are not my employer,
If you are not my government,
If you are not my “god”,
Then by what authority did you acquire the juice to curtail what you say is careless, selfish behavior?
I could have legitimate elbow-swinging-around work to do, and, although you…may…have legitimate reason to stick your nose in my designated elbow swinging room, I’d think some pre-existing
“Enter at your own risk” rule is in operation…put in place by the legislative branch of governmental authority.
I am your neighbor. Your interests matter to me … some. You are my neighbor. My interests matter to you … some.
Otherwise civilization simply turns into a contest to see who can be the biggest asshole. Hint: it won’t be you. Or me. You will spend most of your day ducking other swinging elbows and wonder how the hell that happened.
Hey man, if we let things devolve into a free-for-all, I’d like to think I have at least a one in eight billion chance of ending up as top, top dog. And can you imagine how great being king of the world would be? Even a one in eight billion chance is worth any risk!
Spoken like a true big-L Libertarian. And I say that with the utmost respect contempt.
IMO the thread has long since departed the FQ ranch. It’s also long-since been factually answered as best it could be.
Agreed.
Mods, please transfer this thread to Great Debates.
As OP, I am happy with the move to Great Debates, but I will not participate there.
Moved from FQ to GD.
Oh, I agree. I’ve talked before about the Veil of Ignorance thought experiment, and how a rational actor beyond the Veil should be risk averse. Embracing risk to the level a Big L Libertarian does is clearly irrational from putside the Veil, which means that Libertarians don’t support the system because they truly believe it will bring about the best outcomes overall, but because they believe that they will end up on top [or at least, higher than under a society].
The deep irony is that almost all of them are wrong about this, and that if their ideal society came about they’d all be fucked.
This is what I find amazing about two of my brothers. They’d lose control of their bowels if you handed them a loaded weapon, but they are all in in support of the idiot prepper anarcho-libertarian folks.
That’s only because so-called “society” is stuffing wokeness down their throat and ruining their manliness, maaan. Without the effeminate trappings of civilized society weighing them down, they’d find their balls and become badass killers, just like the heroes of their favorite novels or movies. [/s, obviously]