As tho giving rights to one kind of belief/tradition/custom and not to others is not privileging the former. 'It has been written.'
-
-
-
I have seen secularists argue that giving non-religious views the same freedoms as religious ones is in keeping with ethos of constitution.
-
I think they're right. But if they weren't, can still argue for something to be morally right even if not included in an old revered text.
-
I don't think it's essential to think that any constitution of any country necessarily gets everything right coz it's a constitution.
-
Seems odd to me that ppl who are otherwise against patriotism coz white supremacy, patriarchy, colonialism wld suddenly be confused abt this
-
It is essentially an argument from authority & tradition much more associated with conservatism ( if you listen to Jonathan Haidt.)
-
You could argue this is why our constitution works. It's very malliable, and no one really understands it
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There are clearly religionists who'd like that to be so, but precious little legal backing for the position
-
I think it's clear that US laws do privilege religion. Lots of exemptions on religious grounds only citing the constitution.
-
Sure, but the constitutional justification for that relies on a extremely optimistic reading.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
this is one of those conversations that need coffee and more than 140 characters.



Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.