Now been told that if the US constitution privileges religious freedom over non-religious freedom, this isn't a privilege but a right.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
As tho giving rights to one kind of belief/tradition/custom and not to others is not privileging the former. 'It has been written.'
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I have seen secularists argue that giving non-religious views the same freedoms as religious ones is in keeping with ethos of constitution.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I don't think it's essential to think that any constitution of any country necessarily gets everything right coz it's a constitution.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Seems odd to me that ppl who are otherwise against patriotism coz white supremacy, patriarchy, colonialism wld suddenly be confused abt this
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Partly this isn't specifically about the contitution, it's just generic US attitude to everything: WORLD = US + everything else
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But even if US was the world, wouldn't mean one text written centuries ago gets everything right & needs no expansion/adaptation.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Indeed. As I said before, the Constitution framers USED the concept of free speech: they didn't INVENT or DEFINE it.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.