Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor
I’ve been thinking that secularism is a form of libertarianism. Libertarians are seculars but not the other way around.
Secularism without libertarianism is inconsistent. It doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a bad thing, it’s just inconsistent.
Imagine if some guy smoke weed. Under influence of weed he hijacked a few airplanes and drive them to some sky scrapper.
Then the government says, no more weed. The truth, most people think it’s okay for the government to prohibit weed.
That’s despite the fact that most weed users do not slam planes to sky scrappers. In fact, none are. In fact, there isn’t even any data that say that weed or drug users are significantly parasitic for society.
However, when people under influence of religion slam planes to buildings, somehow it’s “wrong” for the government to prohibit such religions.
What’s the difference between drugs and religions then? Why it’s okay for the government to prohibit drugs but not religions?
Why not consistently give the government power to do both or none? None means libertarianism. Both means statism. Should we even be consistent?