3 Comments
⭠ Return to thread

One of several problems I have with this article is its misconstrual of liberalism, or I should say liberalism-capitalism, since each is an aspect of the other. Liberalism is not a synonym for 'secular modernism', whatever that may be. Liberalism, as specified by Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Mill, Rawls, Nozick, etc. etc. -- all the usual suspects -- is an attempt to find a minimal set of rules by which people of diverse interests and opinions can get along, without harming their self-possession and possession of property. With liberalism, ou can be as religious or irreligious as you like -- liberalism doesn't care as long as you follow the (minimal) rules. Selection of a religion, or meaning in life, or favorite ancient book, or sangha, or whatever along those lines floats your spiritual boat, Selection of Judaism seems as reasonable as any other set of choices. The fact that many people do not adhere to a religion may have something to do with the notion of religion itself, rather than some dubious ideological prejudice assumed about people in San Francisco. (But I don't know. I'm not what most people would call a liberal, but they taught me about it in school. Maybe some actual liberals will testify.)

Expand full comment

Yes, you're describing what's now politely called 'classical liberalism', which back in the day was just 'liberalism'. But nowadays I don't think that's what...gestures all around...this is right now. At least not anymore. Perhaps it will be again and I'm much too pessimistic. Entirely possible.

Expand full comment

Well, I suppose liberalism in any form, manifesting as capitalism, could destroy religion, not because it's against religion ideologically, but because it replaces the hope and faith in another, 'higher' world, with the satisfactions of stuff and more stuff, especially for oneself¸ _right now_. Every day becomes Black Friday. But some people find religious satisfactions in liberal polities and culture anyway.

Expand full comment
Error