Thinking a lot about the definition of "religion" in the first amendment. 2A antagonists spend a lot of time talking about how technological advances have made the original language ill-suited to modern contexts. I am thinking this is a more apt critique of 1A.
-
-
This is an entire separate thread, bookmarking for later. I am tired and want some dinner.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Tax breaks, non-discrimination, but also government wouldn't be allowed to use it as a basis for policy. I think on the whole, most of today's adherents wouldn't want this.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Huh, link?
End of conversation
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The only thing that matters about religion are specific acts of worship, which we don’t make much exception for. Polygamy, age of consent, ritualistic violence, etc. Religious liberty is conflated (IMO) w/ freedom of consciousness & association that should be secular.
-
I’m sure there are holes in this theory, but to close the loop, positive civil rights have encroached on freedom of association, and the religious carveouts survive on influence, network/shared interests, & broad sympathy. If true, then wokeism is there without formal status.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Would mean e.g. you could not be fired for insisting on working in a different room from someone who used "incorrect" pronouns. Seems fine, seems like a religion to me and even though I disagree with the content, having the same protections for it would not bother me.
-
Also, recognizing it as a religion would be beneficial in that disagreement would be seen as religious disagreement, rather than as moral wickedness, which is a big improvement.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.