I agree with your impatience with an excessive
liberal secularism which wants to banish faith entirely.
But only to some extent: religious majorities can shape the state within the constraints of what I have called minimal
liberal secularism.
The liberal secularism (freedom of religion) and the Marxist secularism (freedom from religion) are techniques which overlooked the need for a dialectics which would uncover the concrete forms of domination distorting both sacralism and secularism.
... In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the European Westernization of Egypt produced intellectual titans of
liberal secularism: Taha Hussein, Muhammad Hussein Haykal, Abbas Mahmud al - Aqqad, and more....
Not exact matches
Yes,
liberal Christianity is a mix of Christianity and human
secularism, which is not compatible.
This is a sort of religiosity that it is difficult for modern, secular people to understand and appreciate; she goes against the grain not only of the more obvious kind of rationalistic
secularism embodied in Rayber but against all of the best in
liberal Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant.
The idea of Secular Nationalism and Secular State were the creation of cooperation between Gandhi's reformed religion and Nehru's
liberal humanist
secularism and they succeeded to establish itself in India against the idea of Hindu and Muslim communalism.
On a different note, Carson Holloway says the HHS mandate reveals the logic of liberalism as a creeping and creepy
secularism: ``... for an older generation of
liberals religion had to be kept private in the sense that it could not try to control the government for its own distinctively religious purposes.
That is to say, perhaps the
liberal Catholic of the future is not an escaping Evangelical but a service - oriented, spiritually open secularist (
liberal Catholicism parasitic upon
secularism).
The dead - ends of both Medieval sacralism and Modern
secularism indicate, I believe, the radical contradiction which liberation theologies pose to both conservative and
liberal theologies (and their many «neo» varieties).
And in almost exactly the same way, when the Pope condemned both materialism in thepolitical culture of the West and
secularism within the Catholic Church in Western Europe and North America, he was condemned by
liberals within the Church as someone who lacked the sophistication to understand the complexities of life in the West.
At the same time, attempting to fill the ideological vacuum left by the decline of the old
liberal - Protestant consensus is aggressive pluralistic
secularism, growing out of the 1960s and flourishing as students of the 1960s become the tenured scholars of the 1980s and 1990s.
I've sounded crazy to you
liberals time to time but I threw ideas so people will know how the absolutely - worshipped
secularism in the West looks like to some Christians now.
Roman Catholicism did manage to maintain a distinctive identity during the period of
liberal Protestant capitulation to
secularism, but according to Marsden it did so «at the price of accepting Roman authoritarianism and severe restraints on its intellectual life.»
But they could not scare one of Europe's great
liberal countries from giving up on
secularism and laughter.
Anti-abortionists see pro-choice advocates as highly dangerous; extreme religious practitioners regard
secularism as highly dangerous;
liberals see corruption and nepotism as socially dangerous.
-- which invites answers measuring how well non-western countries fare in relation to a presumed model of western
secularism — I start from
liberal democratic ideals and assume that they are not ethnocentric: human rights, freedom, equality and democracy are universal aspirations.
As a
liberal, what I care about (and its a subject that I take great interest in as you can probably tell) is navigating the murky waters around between freedom of religion, freedom from religion (i.e. the rights of people not to be governed by others» religions), free expression,
secularism, etc..