Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz
** Equal treatment under the law, equal access to all facets of democracy, etc. must be the same for all members of a group. This is where the second-class citizen part comes in. Somebody's beliefs get imposed no matter what, as noted. When it's claimed, as overtly stated by PilotMan, that "Secularism is the proper way to good public policy. It ferrets out concepts that are flawed from the start." you are explicitly saying that the securalist person's opinions are to take priority over the religious person's. That a religious person cannot have their most cherised and deeply held beliefs represented in government, but a non-religious person can. That's simply definitionally anti-democratic, and creates a classification of acceptable and unacceptable participation in the public square.
|
Your argument makes a supposition on position that I clearly stipulated. Your argument is simply wrong. Religion is not a basis for a classification of citizenry
unless that religion is inherently a part of the governing process, meaning that any other religion becomes a secondary class within that government. We have separation of church and state for a reason. You want freedom of religion but the current arguments are for that there should only be freedom for Christianity, and that Christians are the ones calling for that. That is the imposition of prohibiting Muslim laws or keeping Mosques from being near ground zero, not a secular definition. Put the argument for your case where it belongs. The religious right is essentially calling for a "Christian Nation" they would gladly take a set up like Iran here in Christian format. As for my statement, it takes no rights, beliefs or representation away from any individual based on their individual beliefs. They are free to practice the religion they choose, however they are not allowed to define policy based on religious theology. For example, I want to get rid of expensive doctors and promote healing crystals as the new framework of public health. Your argument states that unless that can be acceptable and worked into the system, or at the very least, heard, and that anything short of that is anti-democratic and suppressing a voice is honestly bullshit. The repression of the crystal healing group of people creates unequal treatment. Bullshit. About 20 years ago Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis started refusing to pick up passengers at the airport and bars because alcohol was involved and they were breaking the laws of their religion if they carried them. It's a bullshit argument because religion has no place in public policy. The ability to work was defined by the job description, if you cannot do the job because of your beliefs, that is not the problem of your employer, the same as it is not the problem of your government. You should probably find a new line of work. But the city caved and carved out an agreement. I don't remember what it was exactly, but that sort of push from religion into policy is untenable. If someone wants to have their position on crystals as part of public policy, and perhaps at this moment in scientific history, we don't know enough about it, maybe we don't, maybe it should be studied more, maybe it's bullshit, but we have science and data for a reason. We don't need to go around trying not to hurt people's feelings and telling them they are a part of a repressed 2nd class of citizenry because their beliefs are simple bullshit. As is your argument. People who support a secular point of view honestly don't give a shit what you believe as far as religion goes. If you want to pray in public, go for it. If you want to build temples, go for it. Stay in your lane. Do your thing, live your life. If you want to put the beliefs of your religion into public practice and now state that some portion of it must now be part of public policy, like bowing to the east 5 times a day, you don't get to do that.