Because we need one common set of morals to continue to function as a society.
Sometimes we must make compromises to be able to survive and prosper. I'm willing to trade unhindered religious freedom, to have some societal stability and common laws.
Otherwise we will have laws written and court decisions decided on whatever religious teachings or morality that whoever is in authority decides to apply at that time.
Religious freedom is not inconsistent with one religion receiving special privileges. There are countries with religious freedom that have a state church.
Which ones do you have in mind? I could see a state church in name only not compromising religious freedom, but I'm skeptical of implementing it in a meaningful way without compromise religious freedom.
England, Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries.
Of course, those state churches are nothing to write home about. But I do think that 'religious freedom' has been spun as granting equal status to all religions, which it traditionally has not been.
If we go back to historical times, Cromwellian England had a state church without infringing on the religious liberties of other protestants or Jews.
those state churches are nothing to write home about
That's kind of an understatement.
But I do think that 'religious freedom' has been spun as granting equal status to all religions, which it traditionally has not been.
I wouldn't say it's been spun. It just took time for the contradiction of having a state religion within a liberal society to be resolved. Liberal ideology provided the justification for attacking the idea, legally or culturally.
How do you square that with the liberal tenant of religious freedom? This is one of those ways that liberalism is at odds with preserving traditions.
Because we need one common set of morals to continue to function as a society.
Sometimes we must make compromises to be able to survive and prosper. I'm willing to trade unhindered religious freedom, to have some societal stability and common laws.
Otherwise we will have laws written and court decisions decided on whatever religious teachings or morality that whoever is in authority decides to apply at that time.
Exactly. You have to behave illiberally to preserve morals and traditions.
At times yes.
Religious freedom is not inconsistent with one religion receiving special privileges. There are countries with religious freedom that have a state church.
Which ones do you have in mind? I could see a state church in name only not compromising religious freedom, but I'm skeptical of implementing it in a meaningful way without compromise religious freedom.
England, Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries.
Of course, those state churches are nothing to write home about. But I do think that 'religious freedom' has been spun as granting equal status to all religions, which it traditionally has not been.
If we go back to historical times, Cromwellian England had a state church without infringing on the religious liberties of other protestants or Jews.
That's kind of an understatement.
I wouldn't say it's been spun. It just took time for the contradiction of having a state religion within a liberal society to be resolved. Liberal ideology provided the justification for attacking the idea, legally or culturally.