Also, I'm prepared to defend the position that abandoning religion for secularism is a mark of progress. Is this problematic now? Tough.https://twitter.com/IonaItalia/status/922850126032396289 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Ok, defend it. (Seriously - intrigued to hear it)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AkivaMCohen
Really? You've not heard arguments that religions are not true and that societies which separate church & state are better for human rights?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Sure I have. But 1) "separation of church & state" /= "abandoning religion for secularism"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AkivaMCohen
The person I am quoting falsely made those antonyms, yes. You can be a secularist and still have a religion.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @AkivaMCohen
I assume she meant making religion the guiding force of a society/person vs centring the non-religious aspects.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
seemed to me to be more person than society, but that's a fair reading
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
'Secularism' really is societal rather than personal but I suspect she meant 'prioritising things that don't adhere to religious teachings'
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.