这是一个需要翻译的问题，我的任务只是把它译成简体中文： 自由主义思想的核心难道不是最大化个人的选择权和权利吗？个人选择与自由至高无上，而且总体来说，并不存在判断这一点的绝对标准。因此，我们作为西方的少数群体，不应该支持这种范式吗？

Question: Isn’t the main concept of liberal thought to maximize individual choice and rights? Individual choice and freedom is paramount, and by and large, there is no absolute standard to judge that. So shouldn’t we as minorities in the West support that paradigm?

答案：问题在于，法律的存在使得任何社会中的个人选择都受到限制。所有人都受法律约束，每个人的意志和选择自由都受到法律的制约。但自由主义世俗主义所主张的是：只有当法律用来防止人们伤害他人时，法律才是正当的。这正是为什么世俗法律在限制人们不受约束的选择自由上被认为是可以接受的，而宗教法律则不被接受。前者仅仅防止伤害，而伤害是所有人共同的普遍利益；后者则旨在宗教虔诚，这只与属于该宗教的部分人有关，与其他人无关。 这一所谓世俗法律与宗教法律之间区分存在许多概念上的问题。其中最主要的是，什么算是或不算是“伤害”，本身就极具争议。为什么世俗对伤害的理解是唯一有效的理解？

Answer: The problem is that the existence of law precludes individual choice in any and every society. All people are constrained by laws. Everyone’s will and freedom of choice is constricted by the law. But what liberal secularism claims is that laws are only justified when they prevent people from harming others. That’s why secular law is acceptable in its restricting of people’s unfettered freedom of choice whereas religious law is unacceptable. The former merely prevents harm, which is a universal interest of all human beings, while the latter is aimed at religious devotion, which only some people who belong to that religion care about and nobody else. There are many conceptual problems with this purported distinction between secular law and religious law. Chief among them the fact that what is or is not considered “harm” is highly debatable. Why is the secular conception of harm the only valid conception?