• linearchaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah I agree, it’s tricky though right? There’s a defined difference between religion and religious agenda. I can’t force someone to take a blood transfusion, unconstitutional, that’s fine. But when politicians use religious agenda as a campaign promise, no one can be allowed a blood transfusion. Now it’s no longer religion or separation. They’re just pandering to the wants of the religious base. Supreme Court waking up one day and going You know what screw precedent, that should have got them out right away. But our government is not designed to be protected from that kind of thing.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I suppose the way to look at it is, everyone’s allowed whatever religion they want, as long as they don’t expect everyone else to agree with it or conform to their worldview. Their right to believe, and you’re right not to believe, are equal, and you’re right not to be converted and they’re right not to be challenged are also equal.

      Basically everyone should just leave each other alone.

    • LukeMedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If they are making laws due to a religious agenda, I would argue that goes against the first amendment.