I am not arguing for an imposition or an elimination of another's religious practices upon another group. This has cause countless deaths. Stalin enforced secularism caused the deaths of millions of his own people. Stalin's enforced secular society was more violent and not less than many religious societies.
I am not arguing that religious beliefs due to historical tradition or the perceived beliefs of the founding fathers should be given special treatment. What I am arguing is equal opportunity under the law. That all beliefs regardless of source should have the right to petition the government.
In the past communists in the US argued that blacks should have civil rights but they generally dismissed that blacks should have civil rights. Civil rights is a noble idea but because the source of the ideology (communism) anyone working for civil rights was considered a communist. All people have a right to petition the government according to the dictates of their own conscience and not be censured due to the source of their beliefs.
Its like I said not a elimination of ideas or one source of ideas but a plurality of ideas. And let the Darwinian conflict of ideas take its course.
If you are arguing that a person religious beliefs (as opposed to a persons religious practices) do not belong in politics you are essentially arguing for censorship.
A person has no right to impose religious practices upon another. But all laws impose ideas upon another. If the source of our laws comes from Marx so be it from Socrates so be it from Jesus Mohamed or Buddha so be it. It the best ideas that should win not just the best secular ideas that should win.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment