Now been told that if the US constitution privileges religious freedom over non-religious freedom, this isn't a privilege but a right.
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 -
-
-
It doesn't sound to me as though that would need to be argued. Or it shouldn't be.
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.