Just curious. I live in the PNW so lots of freethinkers and humanists. just curious if there’s anything more tailored to dating

It's actually a pre-pre-k. He's 3.5 and it's a WONDERFUL school. That's why I sent him there even though it's in a church and whatnot.

I tried telling him "they'll be talking about God, the Bible, Jesus, Christ. That's something some people believe, and some people do not believe. I do not. But if you have questions, let me know. Its up to you."

Well he came home last friday and said "God made THE WHOLE WORLD! And he is nice!" ...I just said, "really?! Awhhh"

What should I do/tell him? How should I strategize this?

I don't want to force him to believe one way or the other but also dont want to confuse him. Idk what to do... I knew this would become a thing but it's the only part time school anywhere near me and it's a really, really good one

I remembered reading an article a long time ago, that brilliantly outlined the Jesus character's position on slavery.

It was originally posted on thepathofthebeagle which is now a dead site.

Thanks to waybackwhen archives I managed to fish the article out.

It would be a shame to see it die, so I'll post here and hopefully it can regain recognition.

http://pathofthebeagle.com/2011/10/20/what-did-jesus-say-about-slavery/?replytocom=2006 2 captures 2 Aug 2016 - 28 Feb 2021 AUG FEB MAR Previous capture 28 Next capture 2016 2021 2022

About this capture Path of the Beagle With a hat-tip to the HMS Beagle and truth-hunting dogs everywhere.

← Unaware of BeautyBiblical Slavery: Are God’s Ways Higher than Our Ways? → What did Jesus Say About Slavery? Posted on October 20, 2011 | 142 Comments [This post is a Beagle’s Bark. It is part of a series on biblical slavery.]

Jesus was a great reformer. In an age of extreme class division and status-consciousness, he identified with the poor and urged us to do the same. During a time when the Holy Land was occupied by a foreign power, he taught his countrymen how to maintain their dignity. When the religious leaders were corrupt, he called them to account.

So I find it puzzling that he never spoke a word against slavery, as far as we know.

If he was divine, he knew it would be nearly 2,000 years until most of the world would realize how immoral slavery is. He also knew that slave-owners would use the Old Testament to justify the practice. One clear word from him could have prevented the misery of millions. Why did he not speak it? (And it’s hard to believe that if the Bible is inspired, God would not have inspired at least one of the four gospel-writers to record Jesus’ words on so important a topic.)

It’s not as if there was no slavery around to speak against. Jesus often illustrated his points with stories about slaves and masters. Everybody was all too familiar with the concept, and it was as brutal as ever.

Slavery Was Brutal, and Jesus Knew It

Since Jesus never condemned slavery, we might hope that he thought of slavery in the relatively benign forms that are sometimes found in the Old Testament. Not so. When he spoke about the relationship between slaves and masters, he assumed that violence and abuse were the order of the day. Typical is Luke 12:47-48, where even a servant who doesn’t know what he ought to do gets beaten.

The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.

That passage is part of a larger parable that is supposed to scare us into submission to God. Like a slave or servant, we will be physically harmed if we’re not good enough.

There are several parables like this in the gospels. Matthew 18:23-35 says we will be jailed and tortured. Matthew 25:14-30 says we will be cast into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 24:45-51 says we will be cut in pieces. All of these indicate how Jesus pictured masters treating their slaves.

Jesus held no illusions about slavery, yet did not decry the practice. In fact, in his parables, he cast God as a slave-owner!

[20-Nov-2016: Prompted by commenter Ray, I wish to add that even though Jesus did use the harsh master-slave language above, and even though the passages certainly refer to the relationship between God and humans, Jesus also described his relationship with his disciples in more tender terms. In John 15:15, he said, “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.” The friendship seems to be a complicated one, however: Jesus is still in charge and there are dire-sounding consequences for disobedience (verse 6 of the same passage). Paul said that believers are adopted children, not slaves, and do not need to live in fear (Romans 8:15). I leave it to the reader to piece all this together. In the meantime, the passages I cited in this section do tell us that Jesus’ conception of slavery was one of brutality.]

The Golden Rule Evidently Did Not Apply to Slaves

[This section was revised on 14-Nov-2015 after an exchange with commenter “anonymous”. I encourage you to read anonymous’s comments starting here and here. Although he and I disagree, he is intelligent and well-versed (excuse the pun) in the scriptures, and the seeker of truth should consider all sides.]

One might say that when Jesus gave the Golden Rule (“love your neighbor as yourself,” or “do to others what you would have them do to you“) he implied that slavery was wrong. If we should treat others as we want them to treat us, that means we shouldn’t enslave them, right?

This is obvious to us in the 21st century, and had even become obvious to abolitionists by the 19th century, but let us remember that it wasn’t obvious to large swaths of “Founded as a Christian Nation” America for over 200 years. And it certainly wasn’t obvious in Bible times — the context of Jesus’ address.

To see why, remember that Jesus did not invent the Golden Rule. He was quoting it from verse 18 of the passage Leviticus 19:11-18, where the same principle, “love your neighbor as yourself” sums up the other commands in the passage, just as Jesus said that the Golden Rule sums up the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:36-40).

Jesus’ audience, well-versed in their scriptures, would have known that he was quoting from Leviticus, one of the “Five Books of Moses.” They would also have known that these books include Deuteronomy, which commands Israel to invade and enslave distant cities, and Exodus, which says that slaves are just “property” and may be beaten so severely that they can’t even get up for just shy of two days. Unless we are prepared to say that one book of the Pentateuch contradicts another, it’s hard to see how the Golden Rule in Leviticus overrides the slavery passages Deuteronomy and Exodus — at least not for Jesus’ audience.

For that matter, Leviticus itself grants Israel permission to buy foreign slaves. Would Jesus’ audience have thought Leviticus could contradict itself? Would Jesus? Would today’s Bible-believing Christians? I think not.

So, in the minds of Jesus’ audience, and possibly for Jesus himself, it would have been far from obvious that the Golden Rule outlawed slavery. In their minds, the two concepts had coexisted in the scriptures, presumably without contradiction, for centuries.

If Jesus had intended his statement of Leviticus 19:18 to override the slavery commands and regulations also found in the Five Books of Moses, surely he would have made that more obvious to an audience for whom those books were a central feature of spiritual life.

But in fact, Jesus’ explicit statements about the Hebrew scriptures were overwhelmingly supportive, as when he said, “…anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands [of the Law] and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19).

At a minimum, we can say that if Jesus meant the Golden Rule as a command to abolish slavery, then millions of slaves in the next 1800 years would wish he had made his intent far more obvious.

Jesus Was a Reformer, But Not with Slavery

Might Jesus have thought it was not yet the time to speak against slavery? Was he afraid of upsetting the social order and bringing persecution on his followers?

On the contrary, Jesus did not hesitate to turn society upside-down. Sometimes he did so literally, as when he upset the tables of the money-changers in the temple (John 2:13-17). At other times, he made radical demands such as giving away all one’s money (Matthew 19:16-24). He did not hesitate to speak boldly to those in power (Matthew 23:13-36). Nor was he afraid of persecution, calling it a blessing (Matthew 5:10-12).

Jesus did not hesitate to speak his mind, yet he never condemned slavery. Clearly he either thought it was just fine or he didn’t care much about it one way or the other. Maybe he just took it for granted.

I am tempted to leave it at that. Even Jesus might have been a man of his times to a certain extent. He was a moral revolutionary, but abolishing slavery didn’t quite make it into his manifesto. If you are a Bible-believing Christian, however, I think you are forced into a much darker position.

An Even Darker Take

According to John 10:30, Jesus and God the Father are one. John 1:1-3, with verse 14 says that Jesus was with God from the beginning. In John 5:19, Jesus says that he does whatever God the Father does. Someone who takes these verses as Gospel Truth must believe some disturbing things:

Jesus was present and nodding in approval when God gave the command to take 32,000 virgins as plunder in Numbers 31 (discussed in the last part of this post). Jesus was present and gave a hearty “Amen” when God commanded Moses to enslave distant cities. Jesus was present and gave his blessing for Moses’ soldiers to force their most beautiful captives into rape-marriages (discussed here). No wonder he never spoke against slavery or its brutality in the New Testament. He had already encouraged it in the Old!

Eternally present and of one mind with his Father, he approved every genocide; every stoning of man, woman, child and animal; every burning-alive; every death sentence for a trivial offense; and, yes, every enslavement that God himself commanded. That may seem far-fetched. I don’t believe it myself. But I don’t see how a Bible-believer can deny it.

Next in this series: Are God’s ways higher than our ways?

[Postscript on December 9, 2012] In the year+ since I published this post, it has proven to be one of the most-read on my blog. I suspect many readers are interested in the topic of slavery and the Bible generally, and land here through a search engine because what’s uppermost in their minds is what Jesus said about it. Although he didn’t say much, the Bible says quite a lot — most of it disturbing. Evangelical apologists, in turn, offer many rationales. To get the lay of the land, I invite you to begin with the Introduction to this series. There, I summarize all the arguments I’ve heard and provide links to my responses.

This article testifies to the fact that Christianity in the US South is not to blame for the general reactionary tendencies of the people who live there. What makes the culture of the US South what it is is something deeper, the religion only being a decorative ornament. An atheist from New York City will tend to have much more in common with an Episcopalian in the same city than an non-church attender in Biloxi, Mississippi. It is no secret that atheists in the United States are majority white and male, with the attending indifference to racism and social justice following. Bernie Sanders was very popular in 2016 and 2020 but his base was majority white and he failed in the US South's Democratic Primaries, where African Americans have an outsized influence. Those white progressives called the blacks for Biden unenlightened. I am concerned that secular humanism focuses too much on the secular, and not enough on the humanism. Humans are very diverse in thought and culture, and there does not need to be coercion to conform to Eurocentric secular values in all aspects of life. Instead there ought to be a soft invitation for cultures to merely slowly evolve enough to peacefully coexist. In Amsterdam they are building a multistory brothel, and that will be visible in a city with Churches, Mosques, Synagogues, and Hindu temples. A skyline that has all of them together is beautiful, and one of the greatest cultural achievements of western civilization and is worth preserving.

"Secular humanism is the philosophy that provides a firewall for human rights from the horrors done in the name of religion and the sociopathy of Nietzsche."

In Fundamentalist forms of Christianity and Islam a burning hot hell awaits for anyone who did not mentally and behaviorally conform to a particular religious culture and its doctrine. I have heard from a Jewish Rabbi that such doctrine is incoherent with the concept of monotheism, and ultimately such beliefs make a person dangerous, because they think the afterlife is better than Earthly life, and it transparently just a vague threat to conform. In defense of this doctrine fundamentalists will retort that it is not an action of God, damnation is self-exile because you were told the truth and still did not believe. This is what we would call today “gaslighting” but this is all beside the point. It’s all still a threat to conform to a belief system.

 My central idea with this post is that we in the secular-humanist paradigm, also have our own concept of hell, and it is also a doctrine of self-exile. Let me explain. I would define secular hell as three things: 1. Poverty 2. Isolation (this isn’t necessarily one person, it could be a family for example) 3. No political power.  Take for example the stereotype liberals usually have of Trump supporters: The Angry White Man. The name itself is an accusation. The Angry White Man (AWM) is characterized as a non-college educated rural-dwelling low-income person who is bitter about a factory moving overseas or to Mexico. Out of his lack of intelligence about the realities of capitalism he bitterly clings to religion and racism to “punch-down” as his only sense of identity. He is in Hell. He goes off to vote for Trump while the liberals clutch their pearls and shake the heads saying “He should have known.” “He’s on food stamps and wearing a MAGA hat, oh the irony.” “He’s voting against his rational economic self-interest. He did this to himself.” “Racists deserve that suffering.” We accuse him of self-imposed exile from the Great Good God, which is us and our liberal agenda. 

Journalists like Chris Hedges, and scholars such as Benjamin Studebaker have both said we should not be mad at these people, we should be mad at the system that produces them. 

There has always been small thread in Christian thought that hell is either empty or non-existent because Jesus did die for all, and since we all get only a sliver of understanding of the divine, Jesus can reveal himself to all of us clearly after death in which we can all be “saved” since being all-good, he will be all-fair, a doctrine now called universal salvation. 

I propose that secular humanism as a political and cultural force should offer secular universal salvation. That means stubbornly refusing to give up even on the most hopeless people. Many of use believe in prison reform and proper rehabilitation for incarcerated individuals. Look at the prisons in Norway for a good example. I think that should apply even to people that never went to prison. What about the woman who is near retirement who was a stay at home Mom for 30 years and has nothing saved after her husband passes? So what is she believes the Earth is 6000 years old? She still deserves a decent senior section-8 apartment and a living subsidy. What about the non-college educated man who lost his factory job? He wants a high-paying blue collar job that doesn’t require a college degree and such things should take priority. He should be given training for new job skills and negotiated for higher pay for his general life experience. We tend to focus too much on the young and the urban when the topic of education comes up. Speaking of Urban, many people have been very shy about moving out of their small towns to bigger cities even though it is their economic best interest to do so. There should be housing projects just for poor people migrating from rural areas, and those cities should offer life coaching to those individuals and families about how to live in a large diverse city, including where to find fundamentalist religious communities if that is their identity and use public transportation. That can be bewildering to people who haven’t been raised in it.

That is the essence of helping people help themselves, letting them take their time to adjust and change their thinking because the love of their neighbor that they have been seeking has actually been manifested in a secular system.

The Book of Harris-y

(Religion as it should be)

by Zachary Harris

(cc) (NC) (ND) by Zachary Harris

May be copied, distributed, or displayed, verbatim only. non-commercial, not derivative works nor remixes.

First edition May 2024

Chapter 1 - What's in a name

Chapter 2 - A bunch of rules

Chapter 3 - Secrete origins

Chapter 4 - The end

Chapter 5 - Everybody's favorite topic: SEX

Chapter 6 - The 2000 year war

Chapter 7 - Humans and gods

Chapter 8 - Parables

Chapter 9 - Feedback

Chapter

CHAPTER 1

What's in a name

Some religions are named after it's main prophet. Christianity is named after christ. Buddhism is named after Budda.

I, Zach Harris, dub this religion HARRISy.

Where is it written that a religion can't have a sense of humor?

HARRISy is not a spoof or sarcasm.

But any religion without a sense of humor, absolutely NEEDS to be ridiculed.

I was raised in christianity. So most of my criticism will be aimed at the Abrahamic religions.

I intend to build harrisy on logic and reason. Not the superstition, lies, and, threats that the Abrahamic religions are built on.

As an alternative for conscientious objectors caught in the religious wars (see chapter 6).

Deities are not really necessary for inspiration or religion. An all-powerful creator wouldn't need the help or adulation of puny mortals.

Only cults and human puppet masters need that. So we leave deities to their own devises. They ought to be up to it.

Harrisy is a religion about/for humans, as religions should be.

My leadership skills suck. So I will avoid leading, to avoid becoming a cult.

Chapter 2

A bunch of rules

Everybody hates rules. But let's establish what Harrisy stands for.

10 rules is a nice round number. But when the first four are about loyalty to the cult, You have to question who the rules are meant to benefit.

The christian 'commandments' only benefit the christian cult. The commandments don't even benefit their god.

A true all-powerful, immortal, creator god, would not need human worship or loyalty. The same as humans don't need the worship of ants.

We don't make rules for ants to follow. Just stay out of our way. The Abrahamic god treats us like ants. Either ignores or steps on us. It was his cults that made the 'commandments', not their god.

(more about that in chapter 7)

Harrisy has rules to live by, to benefit HUMANS:

A) Cause no harm.

B) Treat others the way you want to be treated.

Christianity calls this 'The Golden Rule' as if they invented it. But this was part of every culture and religion that humans ever created. (except Is-lame)

C) Do not kill. Do not kill humans.

Self preservation may override this, but killing is still a bad idea.

When killing animals for food, respect their sacrifice. Killing for sport is a bad idea.

D) People are not property.

Do not try to own others, in any sense.

You belong to yourself, do not give yourself away.

E) Do not steal.

You would not want to loose your stuff. (see B) Stealing harms others.

F) Do not lie. Avoid those who lie.

You would want to know the truth. To make better decisions. (see B)

G) Do not rape.

Do not force yourself on others. Your pleasures are not more important than other people's.

This applies to more than just sex. Do not force your religion on others. Do not force harrisy on others.

H) Do not shit wherever you please.

You don't want to slog through other people's shit.

(it's a metaphor.) Leave the world better than you found it.

I) Guard your privacy. Respect the privacy of others.

Beware of others who might use info against you. Or might unduly profit off you.

We have no rules about loyalty. We understand loyalties change. Just be honest (rule E)

We have no rule specifically about Adultery. Adultery might be considered loyalty, which changes.

Or adultery might be considered stealing, stealing affection. (rule D)

Chapter 3

Secrete origins

No one knows how/why it all began. Anyone who says they know, for certain, is lying.

The answer night as well be 42.

Most religions make it a crime to ask questions about their creation myths. This promotes ignorance. Helps the cult, not the people.

We understand the 'scientific method'. Scientists ask questions and are willing to test and adapt to new info.

So, for now, we trust scientific conclusions about the beginnings.

The current best theories from science:

The universe started from what they humorously call 'The Big Bang', about 13.8 Billion years ago.

Many are curious about what came before that. But we find that to be irrelevant to our everyday life.

Some religions say their god did it so they can claim payment/gratitude/worship for it. But we owe them nothing.

The earth was formed about 4.5 Billion years ago.

Humans evolved from other critters over many, many, many Generations (not years).

Some religions claim their god did it so they can claim payment/gratitude/worship for it.

We do not owe Harrisy or any religion for our existence.

Chapter 4

The end

How does it all end?

No one knows. Anyone who says they know, for certain, is lying.

Christinity predicts a bad acid trip. (See Revaluations) Any day now. So buy your ticket to heaven early.

It's an obvious con, You sacrifice this life you already have, for the promise of another life they can't prove.

Science predicts 'Entropy'. Every atom in the universe will drift away from every other till they can't react any more.

But humans will be dead or evolved into something we can't recognize, by then. Too distant, time-wise, to worry about.

Your personal end? What happens when you die?

Most probably nothing.

Seems like every religion has a different 'afterlife'. They can't all be right. (but they can all be wrong)

You can't pick the one you want. If an 'afterlife' exists it is what it is. WE can't control it. No cult can control it.

The cults are telling you what you want to hear. So you give your CURRENT LIFE to their cult. The life that is certain, in exchange for an empty promise.

No guarantees, No refunds, You won't get your old life back if they are wrong (or lying).

Pascal's gamble is a sucker bet. It never pays out.

Harrisy aims to make This Current Life better, worth living for it's own sake. We give priority to This Current Life over any theoretical 'afterlife'.

Chapter 5

Everybody's favorite topic: SEX

What's the point of Sexual Taboos?

Why would an IMORTAL (non-sexual, non-reproducing) being give a damn?

For example in the christian cult:

*Masturbation is sin,

*Spilling your seed outside the womb is sin,

*Marrying outside the church is sin,

*Divorce is sin,

*Birth Control is sin,

*Abortion is sin,

*Marriages without offspring are invalid.

*Brand (circumcise) your males, so your females know who they are allowed to mate with,

And in Is-lame, Women are just sexual slaves.

Taken as a whole,

The only purpose served by sexual taboos, is to help the CULT out-populate rival cults.

A REAL "creator god" wouldn't give a damn. Or Wouldn't need our cooperation. it would just create more of us, as needed.

A REAL creator wouldn't threaten us, it would just change us.

Sexual Taboos are serving a cult, not a god.

Harrisy has only one sexual taboo:

Rule G) Do not rape.

Do not force yourself on others. Your pleasures are not more important than other people's.

Chapter 6

The 2000 year war

The Abrahamic religions have been at war with each other for about 2000 years. Sometimes hot, sometimes cold.

But like some other religions, at all times attempting to be 'the one true religion'. And by their competition, doing more harm than good.

And the Abrahamic religions haven't even shown that the 'good' stuff needs their religion to get done.

They preach that it is somehow noble or their duty to spread their faith. ("Onward Christian Soldiers")

There are dangers associated with proselytism and/or evangelicalism:

(Please note - I had help with the following)

Focus on Conversion over Service:

Proselytism/evangelicalism prioritizes conversion goals over humanitarian or service-oriented activities.

This undermines the credibility and effectiveness of religious organizations engaged in charitable work,

as it is perceived as conditional or insincere.

Dogmatism and Exclusivity:

Evangelicalism/proselytism promotes a rigid, dogmatic interpretation of religious beliefs that excludes other perspectives.

This exclusivity leads to intolerance of differing viewpoints and hinders constructive dialogue and cooperation with people of other faiths or worldviews.

Coercion and Manipulation:

Proselytism/evangelicalism involves coercion, manipulation, or exploitation of vulnerable individuals,

such as offering material incentives or exploiting power differentials to induce conversion.

This raises ethical concerns about respect for autonomy and informed consent.

Political Activism:

Evangelicalism/proselytism has been associated with political movements that prioritize specific social or moral issues, leading to controversy and polarization.

this politicization blurs the lines between religion and politics, compromising the integrity of both.

Interfaith Tensions:

Proselytism/evangelicalism contributes to interfaith tensions and conflicts, especially when it is aggressive or disrespectful to members of other religious communities.

It will undermine efforts to foster mutual respect, understanding, and cooperation among different faith traditions.

Fragmentation of Communities:

Proselytism/evangelicalism leads to the fragmentation or division of communities, particularly in contexts where multiple religious groups coexist.

This creates social tensions and weaken social cohesion, especially when proselytism is conducted in a confrontational or divisive manner.

Proselytization and Missionary Work:

We are concerned about aggressive or coercive methods used in proselytization/evangelicalism efforts,

especially when targeting vulnerable populations or in multicultural contexts.

This leads to cultural imperialism or disrespect for the autonomy of individuals and communities.

Cultural Insensitivity:

Proselytism/evangelicalism disregards or disrespects the cultural and religious traditions of the target community.

This leads to cultural imperialism or colonialism, especially when proselytism/evangelicalism is conducted in contexts where there is a history of exploitation or marginalization.

Misrepresentation or Simplification of Beliefs:

Proselytism/evangelicalism involves oversimplification or misrepresentation of religious beliefs and practices in order to make them more appealing to potential converts.

This leads to misunderstandings or misconceptions about the beliefs and traditions of the proselytizing religion.

For these reasons we conscientious objectors to the religious war, need an uncompetitive religion like Harris-y.

But don't push it.

Chapter 7

Humans and gods

Why do human religions have gods that are all too human?

A creator of everything that needs humans to wright/publish a holy book?

An all powerful god who needs humans to promote him?

An all powerful god with a vindictive human sized ego?

An immortal who is obsessed with human reproduction?

An all powerful god who needs humans more than we need him?

Any actual god wouldn't need human religion.

Harrisy serves humans, not gods.

Chapter 8

Parables

Corn In A Cow Patty.

Finding truth in the Abrahamic holy books,

is like finding corn in a cow patty.

Sure there are some good kernels in there,

but is it really worth digging through the shit to find them?

You can find uncontaminated kernels of truth anywhere.

Chapter 9

Feedback

Feedback should be sent to: zachharris@mail2hell.com

Don't expect a timely reply.

Does secular humanism encourage people to cast off their religious or ethnic identity in any way? Best example I can think of would be if a Jewish person related more to secular humanism would that person stop identifying as a Jew? I’m trying to square up celebrating cultural differences with skepticism of dogmatic practices.

This may seem like a really stupid question, but can you be Agnostic and a Secular Humanist? I've been doing research on Secular Humanism and I definitely agree with the ideals. However, Secular Humanism is obviously Secular, and I'm not sure I have complete disbelief in God. I don't believe in or worship one per say, but I also don't think we can confirm or deny if one exists. I think I can still be a Secular Humanist because I don't believe in God, but I also don't NOT believe in God either. Am I a Secular Humanist or is there a different name for my predicament?

Daniel Dennett passed away a few days ago. He was a philosopher, author and a great champion of secular humanism. He supported the Bright movement some time back, which tried to get secular people to identify in positive ways rather than using terms like atheist, ex-Christian, nonbeliever or other negative labels.

I always felt like Dennett was the odd man out in the Four Horsemen bunch, because his work was very thoughtful and nuanced while the rest wrote crude polemics. In my time writing for and running sites in the atheist blogosphere, I noticed that atheists tend to denigrate and dismiss philosophy a lot more often than I think is reasonable coming from people who claim to be proud of their commitment to logic and reason. So I was glad that Dennett was always around to remind people that all of our ideas about existence, knowledge and morality are laden with philosophical baggage.

There is no such thing as philosophy-free science, just science that has been conducted without any consideration of its underlying philosophical assumptions.

Has anyone else here read Dennett's work?

I've been downvote bombed in other subreddits when I point out that atheism is not synonymous with scientism, nihilism, or even liberalism. I also get downvote bombed on progressive or left-leaning subreddits if I dare to suggest that not everyone is a utilitarian or secular humanist, and coexistence with incompatible views (liberalism) is necessary.

The philosopher Karl Popper recognized this in the paradox of tolerance problem. Liberal societies value freedom of speech and association, even for reactionary or hateful groups that desire to dislodge this value system.

How do you approach the paradox of tolerance problem? I take tolerance of hate and bigotry and false belief systems pretty far and have found some legal precedent like suing conspiracy theorists a step too far in correction.

Take for example your garden variety covid-mask-hating antivax qanon transphobic schoolboard shouter. This person is a victim, not a perpetrator. I believe liberal society should provide an avenue for his family members and minor age children to leave him, and then give him more economic opportunity so that he can pursue self actualization in a more healthy way, including various forms of religion.

Progressive candidates in elections have a hard time selling to voting blocs of missionary religions because they reduce their religions to just wisdom teachings rather than about evangelizing. To sell a progressive candidates to a voting bloc of missionary religionists you should emphasize that more missionary work can take place because of your policies. For example "this railway system allows commuters to save money and then donate to more worthy causes, like airplane tickets for their Church's missions to expand in rural China". There is no need to by shy about using this leverage. If the future is going to be more secular, it should be noncoercive. Often people drop out of religions because they got really religious and then sort of overdosed on it.