It's so easy to forget that the founders of liberalism and humanism were Christian, as if the line moderns try to draw between reason and faith was anything but arbitrary. Yes, you can be both religious and humanist. Not only is that possible, it's more common than not.
Prominent Enlightenment liberals werenʼt Bible-abiding, Church-following Christians in any conventional sense of the term that had been relevant prior to the 16th-18th centuries. They were proto-secular deviants who believed in a capital G God of Nature while rejecting much of the theological mysteries and taboos of traditional Christianity (including the inerrancy of the Bible) and what they called priestcraft, rationalists ranging from unitarians to deists. And they retained illiberal and conservative ideas about the government and property and slavery and womenʼs suffrage to the extent that they leaned towards Theism rather than free thinking. J. Locke wasnʼt fundamentally against the monarchy or a monarch-like powerful executive organ or clear enough about the right to popular rebellion against rogue governments, for example. The backlash Tom Paine received for publishing The Age of Reason from the American revolutionaries-even self-acclaimed free thinking and enlightened republicans like Ben Franklin-is also worth a thought. Uncompromising Christianism/Conservatism and political liberalism never went hand in hand. It was only convenient and consistent that legit and pious Christians of the southern American states appealed to the Scripture for the justification of slavery: they were on the Christianity-correct end of the ethical controversy. Which doesnʼt necessarily mean what the historical(?) character Jesus would have endorsed.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
It's so easy to forget that the founders of liberalism and humanism were Christian, as if the line moderns try to draw between reason and faith was anything but arbitrary. Yes, you can be both religious and humanist. Not only is that possible, it's more common than not.
Prominent Enlightenment liberals werenʼt Bible-abiding, Church-following Christians in any conventional sense of the term that had been relevant prior to the 16th-18th centuries. They were proto-secular deviants who believed in a capital G God of Nature while rejecting much of the theological mysteries and taboos of traditional Christianity (including the inerrancy of the Bible) and what they called priestcraft, rationalists ranging from unitarians to deists. And they retained illiberal and conservative ideas about the government and property and slavery and womenʼs suffrage to the extent that they leaned towards Theism rather than free thinking. J. Locke wasnʼt fundamentally against the monarchy or a monarch-like powerful executive organ or clear enough about the right to popular rebellion against rogue governments, for example. The backlash Tom Paine received for publishing The Age of Reason from the American revolutionaries-even self-acclaimed free thinking and enlightened republicans like Ben Franklin-is also worth a thought. Uncompromising Christianism/Conservatism and political liberalism never went hand in hand. It was only convenient and consistent that legit and pious Christians of the southern American states appealed to the Scripture for the justification of slavery: they were on the Christianity-correct end of the ethical controversy. Which doesnʼt necessarily mean what the historical(?) character Jesus would have endorsed.