You can come up with a secular pretext for any bid to impose sectarian religious doctrine. But so what? As a matter of fact, these draconian laws are transparently grounded in a minority religious conviction and injure the liberty, dignity, and welfare of citizens who reject it.
-
-
Replying to @willwilkinson @DamonLinker
It's interesting to reread the First Amendment as a special disability to be imposed on religious people. Whereas, you can impose your metaphysical beliefs trading under any other brand.
3 replies 8 retweets 151 likes -
Replying to @michaelbd @DamonLinker
It's not a special disability imposed on religious people. The whole point is that people don't agree about religion, so religious people in particular will be harmed if some religious views are allowed to trump the freedom live according to other views.
7 replies 2 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @willwilkinson @DamonLinker
This is just reheated Liberal League propaganda, where Mainstream Protestantism gets legal sanction and statue support, but any thought of sharing citizenship with Catholics in a meaningful way is described as a concession to sectarianism.
2 replies 3 retweets 53 likes -
"Sharing citizenship" meaning "pass laws that conform to our religious beliefs?" Because as neither a Catholic nor a Protestant, that's what that sure sounded like.
3 replies 4 retweets 18 likes -
It means we get to vote and make our arguments too, just as other people trading under the name “secularists” “liberals” “feminists’ and “egalitarians” do. All of them have metaphysical commitments. Why should theirs be privileged?
5 replies 9 retweets 112 likes -
Replying to @michaelbd @RadioFreeTom and
Exactly. A normative proposition like "don't kill" doesn't become invalid just because it is supported by religious traditions. Greenhouse's view of the Establishment Clause doesn't get more respect in legal scholarship because it has no basis in the Establishment Clause.
4 replies 9 retweets 97 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @michaelbd and
Beginning from "don't kill" is already prejudicing the answer in the direction you want. Your opponents don't see it as killing, and saying it in this way just ensures that you look like you're trying to bring your religious belief that it *is* killing through the side door.
12 replies 2 retweets 27 likes -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
It's fundamental. If you can have a law against killing, that law needs to define *whom* you can't kill. So the question of who is a person is embedded in any legitimate law. Everyone agrees on the law; the only question is who is allowed to decide what the law should be.
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.