So not to be misunderstood this is the context of the statement that ruffled some feathers:
"Transition to a society envisioned in the philosophy of classical liberalism needs our attention. Atheism and interventionism are the two major distortions."
Who can seriously say that the society envisioned in the philosophy of classical liberalism can either have interventionism or atheism? To say that or to think that is a distortion of that 'ideal' society.
An atheist can adopt classical liberalism as a meritorious philosophy and then choose to personalize it. However the roots of classical liberalism do not change simply because an individual has selectively deleted those things that are considered abrasive.
Again the easy way out is to pretend that science is flawless and that religion is flawed.
In truth, science can be flawed and religion can be flawed. In truth, both science and religion are valuable tools for the discovery of that which you are seeking. Some use only one tool while others choose to use both.
It is because interventionism and atheism are major distortions of classical liberalism that they undermine classical liberalism.
Follow me on Twitter @DivineEconomy
For more information go to my newly renovated website.
If you know of anyone interested in ethics and
or liberty and justice, please send them this