Quote:

---

One law establishes a state religion, requires adherence to that faith, and punishes those that do not follow the faith. Another law establishes that the state cannot mandate a religion, people can worship as they see fit, and people cannot be punished for their religion. As far as I can tell - The Christians on this board see both laws as being equally oppressive and tyrannical.

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

One law establishes a state religion, requires adherence to that faith, and punishes those that do not follow the faith. Another law establishes that the state cannot mandate a religion, people can worship as they see fit, and people cannot be punished for their religion. As far as I can tell - The Christians on this board see both laws as being equally oppressive and tyrannical.

---

that's not the argument.

the argument is that one law affirms one religious system over another, while the other says "ALL OF THESE ARE THE SAME" while simultaneously pretending to be making no judgment whatever.

---

AGC said:

---

So do you agree that secularism isn't a 'neutral' thing that maximizes everyone's freedoms? Since it reshapes values through law? It centers secular humanism and catechizes the masses.

Do we agree that 'worship' isn't a thing done Sunday morning, but at all times in all places by devout Christians? If so, yes, you oppress our practice when we enter schools, government buildings, public commerce, and most aspects of our lives, while reshaping our children's moral values through law.

---

Zobel said:

---

i said they're all the same, you're the one conditioning their sameness.

they should not have equal legal protection and status.

a cannibalistic murder cult does not deserve the same legal standing as Christianity. the problem with your framework is it has literally zero ability to coherently make this statement.

your silly analogy is built on the presumption of interchangeability, which is to say, there is no wrong answer. but there are wrong answers here.

---

Quote:

---

A cannibalistic murder cult should absolutely have the same legal standing as Christianity

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

Zobel said:

---

i said they're all the same, you're the one conditioning their sameness.

they should not have equal legal protection and status.

a cannibalistic murder cult does not deserve the same legal standing as Christianity. the problem with your framework is it has literally zero ability to coherently make this statement.

your silly analogy is built on the presumption of interchangeability, which is to say, there is no wrong answer. but there are wrong answers here.

---

The activities of such a cult certainly wouldn't have the same protections, but the ability of the government to force those beliefs on people should be exactly the same, which is none.

So many people have suddenly decided that because their preference is the one being pushed by the government, somehow it's good.

Just understand that when/if other religions gain more political power in this country, you're giving them the keys to shove it down your kids throats because some group of politicians arbitrarily decided it's "good" for society.

---

Quote:

---

The activities of such a cult certainly wouldn't have the same protections

---

Quote:

---

Just understand that when/if other religions gain more political power in this country, you're giving them the keys to shove it down your kids throats because some group of politicians arbitrarily decided it's "good" for society.

---

Rocag said:

---

No, he's right on this one. Especially because we shouldn't be using the legal system to oppress religions based off of someone's interpretation of what their beliefs are. Judging their actions? Sure, no one is going to disagree there. But judging belief alone? That's very much open to biased interpretation that could be used maliciously.

And on that note I can think of a religious group that regularly meets to practice an act of symbolic cannibalism. Surely they're a danger to society and the government should do something about it, right?

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

So do you agree that secularism isn't a 'neutral' thing that maximizes everyone's freedoms? Since it reshapes values through law? It centers secular humanism and catechizes the masses.

Do we agree that 'worship' isn't a thing done Sunday morning, but at all times in all places by devout Christians? If so, yes, you oppress our practice when we enter schools, government buildings, public commerce, and most aspects of our lives, while reshaping our children's moral values through law.

---

Any law places some restriction on freedom. I'm not sure what maximizing freedom looks like in this context - anarchy, right?

The 10 Commandments law in Texas uses the King James version of the Bible. Is this law oppressive to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox adherents that use a different version of the Bible?

You've established a scenario above whereby unless every law imposes exactly your values and beliefs, that you are being oppressed. This is an absurd and impossible standard for any society to deal with. You can argue it as a technical truth, but I don't think you mean it to serve as your position as what government 'ought' to do. Right?

If we are to adjust our laws such that schools and government buildings, public commerce, and all other aspects of our lives confirm to your specific needs to practice your faith, then we are then oppressing everyone else. I'm not interested in the technicality of whether this is right or not. I'm interested in whether or not this is your goal. Is it your goal and your intention to maximize everyone else's oppression in order to minimize your own?

I apologize if I missed this in an earlier post. But, until I understand what you are advocating for, I don't know how to argue my position to you. What role do you want for the government? What power do you want for politicians and bureaucrats and government employees in shaping your children's moral values? You don't want government mandating our moral values. And a government that says you can decide for yourself is somehow worse. What do you want?

---

Rocag said:

---

And who gets to decide if something is a pedophile cult or a cannibal cult? Again, you're wanting to grant the government power which could very easily be turned against your own religion. And then mocking everyone who says maybe that's a bad idea. If the government decided to label Christianity as a pedophile cult would you support its suppression?

To answer the by what standard question, the assumption was that it was from a secularist point of view since the purpose was to provide an answer to a question of what secularism's response to something would be.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

A cannibalistic murder cult should absolutely have the same legal standing as Christianity

---

you don't believe this. or if you do, this conversation is a waste of time because absurd.

---

I do believe it.

I assume we agree that a person that is part of a cannibalistic murder cult who murders and eats people should be subject to legal consequences - which is true of a person of any value system. But, lets say that I want to worship the god of cannibalism and build a shrine in my basement and attend murder worshipping cult services. What should be my punishment? Or what difference of legal standing would you impose on me?

And what is the formal argument / formal justification for why a cannibalistic murder cult should not have the same legal standing? I ask this question with full intention of applying your justification to any other religion or non-Christian value system to question whether their legal standing should be reduced as well. I think you've been clear that you are not advocating for Christian theocracy, I'm just having trouble reconciling that with other posts and I'm trying not to misrepresent your position.

---

Rocag said:

---

Religions adapt, history has shown that clearly. The Jews were able to get past the destruction of their temple and traditional sacrificial practices and survive as a religion just fine. Mormons preached the necessity of polygamy until it became politically inconvenient to do so. Perhaps they'll just declare those previous instructions were not meant to be taken literally but were instead metaphors for something else. Does it really matter how members of a theoretical cannibalistic murder cult shifts their religious beliefs to fit in to a society in which neither cannibalism or murder are acceptable?

The alternative is not changing and having their following constantly being arrested and imprisoned for cannibalism and murder, which I'd imagine wouldn't be good for their attempts to win converts.

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

NONE of these are a given in a prechristian morality. If you're going to pretend to neutrality you don't get to assume any of these things are inherently true

---

You have zero proof any of these things are true. You assert them and then claim to hold to a true moral standard because an unproven entity you choose to worship told you they are true. That's not an objective morality. That's an assumption.

---

Quote:

---

You've missed most of the thread. The Christian point is that the secular state already does this. Kurt's big paragraphs state it clearly: to allow Christians to fully practice their faith is, in that view, to oppress others. Therefore, oppression is a societal good, but in deference to some idea of 'fairness', only secular humanism is allowed and we pretend that genital mutilation is the same as starting food kitchens, just so long as what everyone learns is a muddled morass of morality derived from current law.

---

Quote:

---

Kurt tell me how this isn't a coexist bumper sticker? You've created an arbitrary category, 'religion', you've put everything you think is one in there, and you've made a value judgment about them (all equal, things of simply the mind and not pertaining to matter, and inherently substitute goods). If this is not accurate, please explain why.

---

Quote:

---

I say this, because like the follow up poster, you think someone can be religious without practicing their religion. How else does one interpret that a cannibal death cult should be able to believe something but not do it? That's not religion, that's delusion. It's the same reason we don't treat severe dementia patients as healthy adults and hand them the keys to drive home now that Hitler has finally been defeated.

---

Quote:

---

When you oppress practice you oppress religion. It exposes the farce of freedom of religion that the secular / 'neutral' state promotes. That's the point of my argumentation: the state is not neutral, it's oppressive. You can justify that oppression however you like, but we need to stop calling it 'neutral'.

---

Quote:

---

So if the state is oppressive and not neutral, why should I or others go along to get along? Why should I let your belief system drive the car? Why should I watch it catechize my children? Public education has been intentionally sanitized since Dewey to be secular and teach your values. Why shouldn't I reject this?

---

Quote:

---

You have zero proof any of these things are true. You assert them and then claim to hold to a true moral standard because an unproven entity you choose to worship told you they are true. That's not an objective morality. That's an assumption.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Quote:

---

You've missed most of the thread. The Christian point is that the secular state already does this. Kurt's big paragraphs state it clearly: to allow Christians to fully practice their faith is, in that view, to oppress others. Therefore, oppression is a societal good, but in deference to some idea of 'fairness', only secular humanism is allowed and we pretend that genital mutilation is the same as starting food kitchens, just so long as what everyone learns is a muddled morass of morality derived from current law.

---

Strawman. . . .

Quote:

---

Kurt tell me how this isn't a coexist bumper sticker? You've created an arbitrary category, 'religion', you've put everything you think is one in there, and you've made a value judgment about them (all equal, things of simply the mind and not pertaining to matter, and inherently substitute goods). If this is not accurate, please explain why.

---

I am taking the position that all religions should have equal legal standing. At 9:41am, I very clearly stated that this does not mean that all value systems have equal value or truth. This is why your statements about my position are not correct and why I am accusing you of strawman-ing my positions.

Quote:

---

I say this, because like the follow up poster, you think someone can be religious without practicing their religion. How else does one interpret that a cannibal death cult should be able to believe something but not do it? That's not religion, that's delusion. It's the same reason we don't treat severe dementia patients as healthy adults and hand them the keys to drive home now that Hitler has finally been defeated.

---

What someone believes is not my concern. What someone does, sometimes is. You may not differentiate the two. But, as someone who does not support legal action for thought crimes, I do.

Quote:

---

When you oppress practice you oppress religion. It exposes the farce of freedom of religion that the secular / 'neutral' state promotes. That's the point of my argumentation: the state is not neutral, it's oppressive. You can justify that oppression however you like, but we need to stop calling it 'neutral'.

---

I conceded the term 'neutrality' almost immediately and on page #2 . . . and many times since then. Right?

And again, you continue to reinforce this relationship between government, religion, and oppression whereby any legal position or action that is not exactly and precisely in accordance with your, AGC's, beliefs means you are being oppressed. And while you may be technically correct about that, it ignores the consequence of this position. Which is that oppression is inevitable in any society with rules or laws. It is simply unavoidable. So, to me, the next question is - "Is it better to have as much oppression as possible? Or as little oppression as possible?" Hot take - I think less oppression is better. How about you? I feel like we should get on the same page about this before moving on.

Quote:

---

So if the state is oppressive and not neutral, why should I or others go along to get along? Why should I let your belief system drive the car? Why should I watch it catechize my children? Public education has been intentionally sanitized since Dewey to be secular and teach your values. Why shouldn't I reject this?

---

Maybe you feel the speed limit on the street by your house should be 35 instead of 40. Why should you have to be subject to that oppression!!? Maybe you feel our tax rate should be lower. Or that public funds are being spent in the wrong areas. Or that certain regulations should be implemented or removed. Why should you go along to get along? Because every society in which you are not the absolute monarch requires you to compromise in order to live in that society. No society is a perfect monolith of beliefs and every one of us compromises constantly on the laws and rules.

I don't want to drive the car. I don't want you to drive the car. I want a society where 300 million people each get 1/300 millionth of a hand on the wheel. And I may disagree with where we are headed and want us to take a right when others want to go left, but this is a basic necessary social contract required to live in a society of mutual respect. From my perspective, the problem isn't that there are lots of hands on the wheel. The problem to me is that some people think that no one else deserves to have a hand on the wheel because they only value themselves and not others.

You ask why you shouldn't reject a sanitized and secular education system as though its obvious that I ought to simply accept Christian religious indoctrination for my kids. Since you refuse to compromise and any law that isn't exactly as you, AGC, wants is tyranny. . . . wtf do you want from me? What would make you happy? Do you wish for me to simply abandon what I believe and just submit to King AGC because God forbid I advocate for myself.

You are asking for a society that exerts zero oppression to you or your beliefs and ignoring the fact that in doing so, you are asking for the rest of society to simply endure massive oppression from you. You are either willing to find common ground where everyone accepts the same level and type of oppression or you are advocating for not just a Christian theocracy, but an AGC theocracy.

Again, this isn't rhetorical. What do you want from non-Christians? Do you want us to simply roll over and say 'yes AGC, as you wish'? You want to advocate for your own values and beliefs and condemn anyone else doing the same as oppressive. Explain to me how this isn't massively hypocritical? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you somewhere - point me in the right direction.

---

kurt said:

---

If we are to adjust our laws such that schools and government buildings, public commerce, and all other aspects of our lives confirm to your specific needs to practice your faith, then we are then oppressing everyone else. I'm not interested in the technicality of whether this is right or not. I'm interested in whether or not this is your goal. Is it your goal and your intention to maximize everyone else's oppression in order to minimize your own?

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Quote:

---

You've missed most of the thread. The Christian point is that the secular state already does this. Kurt's big paragraphs state it clearly: to allow Christians to fully practice their faith is, in that view, to oppress others. Therefore, oppression is a societal good, but in deference to some idea of 'fairness', only secular humanism is allowed and we pretend that genital mutilation is the same as starting food kitchens, just so long as what everyone learns is a muddled morass of morality derived from current law.

---

Strawman. . . .

Quote:

---

Kurt tell me how this isn't a coexist bumper sticker? You've created an arbitrary category, 'religion', you've put everything you think is one in there, and you've made a value judgment about them (all equal, things of simply the mind and not pertaining to matter, and inherently substitute goods). If this is not accurate, please explain why.

---

I am taking the position that all religions should have equal legal standing. At 9:41am, I very clearly stated that this does not mean that all value systems have equal value or truth. This is why your statements about my position are not correct and why I am accusing you of strawman-ing my positions.

Quote:

---

I say this, because like the follow up poster, you think someone can be religious without practicing their religion. How else does one interpret that a cannibal death cult should be able to believe something but not do it? That's not religion, that's delusion. It's the same reason we don't treat severe dementia patients as healthy adults and hand them the keys to drive home now that Hitler has finally been defeated.

---

What someone believes is not my concern. What someone does, sometimes is. You may not differentiate the two. But, as someone who does not support legal action for thought crimes, I do.

Quote:

---

When you oppress practice you oppress religion. It exposes the farce of freedom of religion that the secular / 'neutral' state promotes. That's the point of my argumentation: the state is not neutral, it's oppressive. You can justify that oppression however you like, but we need to stop calling it 'neutral'.

---

I conceded the term 'neutrality' almost immediately and on page #2 . . . and many times since then. Right?

And again, you continue to reinforce this relationship between government, religion, and oppression whereby any legal position or action that is not exactly and precisely in accordance with your, AGC's, beliefs means you are being oppressed. And while you may be technically correct about that, it ignores the consequence of this position. Which is that oppression is inevitable in any society with rules or laws. It is simply unavoidable. So, to me, the next question is - "Is it better to have as much oppression as possible? Or as little oppression as possible?" Hot take - I think less oppression is better. How about you? I feel like we should get on the same page about this before moving on.

Quote:

---

So if the state is oppressive and not neutral, why should I or others go along to get along? Why should I let your belief system drive the car? Why should I watch it catechize my children? Public education has been intentionally sanitized since Dewey to be secular and teach your values. Why shouldn't I reject this?

---

Maybe you feel the speed limit on the street by your house should be 35 instead of 40. Why should you have to be subject to that oppression!!? Maybe you feel our tax rate should be lower. Or that public funds are being spent in the wrong areas. Or that certain regulations should be implemented or removed. Why should you go along to get along? Because every society in which you are not the absolute monarch requires you to compromise in order to live in that society. No society is a perfect monolith of beliefs and every one of us compromises constantly on the laws and rules.

I don't want to drive the car. I don't want you to drive the car. I want a society where 300 million people each get 1/300 millionth of a hand on the wheel. And I may disagree with where we are headed and want us to take a right when others want to go left, but this is a basic necessary social contract required to live in a society of mutual respect. From my perspective, the problem isn't that there are lots of hands on the wheel. The problem to me is that some people think that no one else deserves to have a hand on the wheel because they only value themselves and not others.

You ask why you shouldn't reject a sanitized and secular education system as though its obvious that I ought to simply accept Christian religious indoctrination for my kids. Since you refuse to compromise and any law that isn't exactly as you, AGC, wants is tyranny. . . . wtf do you want from me? What would make you happy? Do you wish for me to simply abandon what I believe and just submit to King AGC because God forbid I advocate for myself.

You are asking for a society that exerts zero oppression to you or your beliefs and ignoring the fact that in doing so, you are asking for the rest of society to simply endure massive oppression from you. You are either willing to find common ground where everyone accepts the same level and type of oppression or you are advocating for not just a Christian theocracy, but an AGC theocracy.

Again, this isn't rhetorical. What do you want from non-Christians? Do you want us to simply roll over and say 'yes AGC, as you wish'? You want to advocate for your own values and beliefs and condemn anyone else doing the same as oppressive. Explain to me how this isn't massively hypocritical? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you somewhere - point me in the right direction.

---

Where's the strawman?

kurt said:

---

If we are to adjust our laws such that schools and government buildings, public commerce, and all other aspects of our lives confirm to your specific needs to practice your faith, then we are then oppressing everyone else. I'm not interested in the technicality of whether this is right or not. I'm interested in whether or not this is your goal. Is it your goal and your intention to maximize everyone else's oppression in order to minimize your own?

---

You yourself have no desire to suppress cannibal worship, so long as they can't practice it. You can claim equality before the law isn't equivalence, but that's a bit nonsensical because it frames the debate for everyone in that society when engaging with the concept of 'religion'. I'm pulling these things together from your posts, not strawmanning.

But there's another legitimate question now: why does the state have a vested interest in the legal standing of something that's not true, or valuable? What societal purpose does it serve? Why should it entertain delusion, especially with the risk of a cannibal cult actually trying to act out their beliefs?

People who don't do what they believe don't actually believe it. I mean as a regular ongoing thing, as a way of life. The state's denial of the ability to exercise religion is oppressive.

I believe in absolutes, objective right and wrong. My state has no interest in allowing child brides, rape, cannibal sacrifice, and so on and so forth. All these things you argue as positives (state regulation to protect all views) I see as negatives. Why wouldn't I want murderers to conform to Christianity? Or thieves? Or liars and those that bear false witness? This is the nation of Israel as it takes people in. You come and you conform.

---

Quote:

---

Where is the strawman?

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Quote:

---

You've missed most of the thread. The Christian point is that the secular state already does this. Kurt's big paragraphs state it clearly: to allow Christians to fully practice their faith is, in that view, to oppress others. Therefore, oppression is a societal good, but in deference to some idea of 'fairness', only secular humanism is allowed and we pretend that genital mutilation is the same as starting food kitchens, just so long as what everyone learns is a muddled morass of morality derived from current law.

---

Strawman. . . .

Quote:

---

Kurt tell me how this isn't a coexist bumper sticker? You've created an arbitrary category, 'religion', you've put everything you think is one in there, and you've made a value judgment about them (all equal, things of simply the mind and not pertaining to matter, and inherently substitute goods). If this is not accurate, please explain why.

---

I am taking the position that all religions should have equal legal standing. At 9:41am, I very clearly stated that this does not mean that all value systems have equal value or truth. This is why your statements about my position are not correct and why I am accusing you of strawman-ing my positions.

Quote:

---

I say this, because like the follow up poster, you think someone can be religious without practicing their religion. How else does one interpret that a cannibal death cult should be able to believe something but not do it? That's not religion, that's delusion. It's the same reason we don't treat severe dementia patients as healthy adults and hand them the keys to drive home now that Hitler has finally been defeated.

---

What someone believes is not my concern. What someone does, sometimes is. You may not differentiate the two. But, as someone who does not support legal action for thought crimes, I do.

Quote:

---

When you oppress practice you oppress religion. It exposes the farce of freedom of religion that the secular / 'neutral' state promotes. That's the point of my argumentation: the state is not neutral, it's oppressive. You can justify that oppression however you like, but we need to stop calling it 'neutral'.

---

I conceded the term 'neutrality' almost immediately and on page #2 . . . and many times since then. Right?

And again, you continue to reinforce this relationship between government, religion, and oppression whereby any legal position or action that is not exactly and precisely in accordance with your, AGC's, beliefs means you are being oppressed. And while you may be technically correct about that, it ignores the consequence of this position. Which is that oppression is inevitable in any society with rules or laws. It is simply unavoidable. So, to me, the next question is - "Is it better to have as much oppression as possible? Or as little oppression as possible?" Hot take - I think less oppression is better. How about you? I feel like we should get on the same page about this before moving on.

Quote:

---

So if the state is oppressive and not neutral, why should I or others go along to get along? Why should I let your belief system drive the car? Why should I watch it catechize my children? Public education has been intentionally sanitized since Dewey to be secular and teach your values. Why shouldn't I reject this?

---

Maybe you feel the speed limit on the street by your house should be 35 instead of 40. Why should you have to be subject to that oppression!!? Maybe you feel our tax rate should be lower. Or that public funds are being spent in the wrong areas. Or that certain regulations should be implemented or removed. Why should you go along to get along? Because every society in which you are not the absolute monarch requires you to compromise in order to live in that society. No society is a perfect monolith of beliefs and every one of us compromises constantly on the laws and rules.

I don't want to drive the car. I don't want you to drive the car. I want a society where 300 million people each get 1/300 millionth of a hand on the wheel. And I may disagree with where we are headed and want us to take a right when others want to go left, but this is a basic necessary social contract required to live in a society of mutual respect. From my perspective, the problem isn't that there are lots of hands on the wheel. The problem to me is that some people think that no one else deserves to have a hand on the wheel because they only value themselves and not others.

You ask why you shouldn't reject a sanitized and secular education system as though its obvious that I ought to simply accept Christian religious indoctrination for my kids. Since you refuse to compromise and any law that isn't exactly as you, AGC, wants is tyranny. . . . wtf do you want from me? What would make you happy? Do you wish for me to simply abandon what I believe and just submit to King AGC because God forbid I advocate for myself.

You are asking for a society that exerts zero oppression to you or your beliefs and ignoring the fact that in doing so, you are asking for the rest of society to simply endure massive oppression from you. You are either willing to find common ground where everyone accepts the same level and type of oppression or you are advocating for not just a Christian theocracy, but an AGC theocracy.

Again, this isn't rhetorical. What do you want from non-Christians? Do you want us to simply roll over and say 'yes AGC, as you wish'? You want to advocate for your own values and beliefs and condemn anyone else doing the same as oppressive. Explain to me how this isn't massively hypocritical? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you somewhere - point me in the right direction.

---

Where's the strawman?

kurt said:

---

If we are to adjust our laws such that schools and government buildings, public commerce, and all other aspects of our lives confirm to your specific needs to practice your faith, then we are then oppressing everyone else. I'm not interested in the technicality of whether this is right or not. I'm interested in whether or not this is your goal. Is it your goal and your intention to maximize everyone else's oppression in order to minimize your own?

---

You yourself have no desire to suppress cannibal worship, so long as they can't practice it. You can claim equality before the law isn't equivalence, but that's a bit nonsensical because it frames the debate for everyone in that society when engaging with the concept of 'religion'. I'm pulling these things together from your posts, not strawmanning.

But there's another legitimate question now: why does the state have a vested interest in the legal standing of something that's not true, or valuable? What societal purpose does it serve? Why should it entertain delusion, especially with the risk of a cannibal cult actually trying to act out their beliefs?

People who don't do what they believe don't actually believe it. I mean as a regular ongoing thing, as a way of life. The state's denial of the ability to exercise religion is oppressive.

I believe in absolutes, objective right and wrong. My state has no interest in allowing child brides, rape, cannibal sacrifice, and so on and so forth. All these things you argue as positives (state regulation to protect all views) I see as negatives. Why wouldn't I want murderers to conform to Christianity? Or thieves? Or liars and those that bear false witness? This is the nation of Israel as it takes people in. You come and you conform.

---

You continue to misconstrue being against policing thoughts/beliefs as being endorsements of the actual exercise of those thoughts/beliefs.

I also can't agree with the idea that not compelling teachers to post your religious documents in their classroom is somehow oppression.

I've been a Christian my entire life. My girls are also Christians in school right now. The notion that their, or my, faith has ever, in the state of Texas, been oppressed is laughable.

What's really ironic, is all of these things you're pushing on people are the EXACT things that will make oppression in the future possible. The whole point of the separation was so that the state couldn't force or prevent an individual's right to exercise their faith. What you're trying to do is give the state the explicit power to do this.

---

AGC said:

---

You yourself have no desire to suppress cannibal worship, so long as they can't practice it. You can claim equality before the law isn't equivalence, but that's a bit nonsensical because it frames the debate for everyone in that society when engaging with the concept of 'religion'. I'm pulling these things together from your posts, not strawmanning.

But there's another legitimate question now: why does the state have a vested interest in the legal standing of something that's not true, or valuable? What societal purpose does it serve? Why should it entertain delusion, especially with the risk of a cannibal cult actually trying to act out their beliefs?

People who don't do what they believe don't actually believe it. I mean as a regular ongoing thing, as a way of life. The state's denial of the ability to exercise religion is oppressive.

I believe in absolutes, objective right and wrong. My state has no interest in allowing child brides, rape, cannibal sacrifice, and so on and so forth. All these things you argue as positives (state regulation to protect all views) I see as negatives. Why wouldn't I want murderers to conform to Christianity? Or thieves? Or liars and those that bear false witness? This is the nation of Israel as it takes people in. You come and you conform.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Quote:

---

Where is the strawman?

---

I did not say oppression is a societal good. I have said its inevitable.

I never said only secular humanism is allowed. Secular humanism can refer to a specific set of values and I'm not stating that the government ought to promote those values as correct or better than Christian values.

I'm not pretending that genital mutilation is the same as starting a good kitchen. This is a wild accusation against someone who is being outspoken about limiting individual freedoms at the point where an action would harm someone else or inhibit their freedoms.

And I have not said that the masses should derive the morality from law. I have said that I think law should protect those that derive their morality from religion. Again, up to the point where freedom of religion infringes on your neighbor.

I appreciate the steelman argument approach. And, if that is your intention, I'm telling you that you aren't getting my positions correct.

---