See, this is why orthodox Christians have always been warier of governments in general and the promises of the United States government in particular than populist, civil religion types have…

Our Constitution protects the right for you to freely exercise your religion. Now, if you think that government has failed in that promise, you need to explain why.

Wait, I thought we were throwing reason out and only dealing on your particular religious understanding. And yeah, since I don’t share your personal religion I guess I should ignore your perspective.

I’m not saying that *YOU* have to change. Don’t change! You be you!

I’m saying that your religious argument that stands up to scrutiny under its own terms does not stand up to scrutiny under my terms and, you know what, I don’t have to change.

Console yourself with the thought of denying me even a sip of water as I burn eternally crying for mercy.

See, this is why orthodox Christians have always been warier of governments in general and the promises of the United States government in particular than populist, civil religion types have…

You’re saying that arguments must stand up to scrutiny. But you’re unwilling to contemplate that it’s possible for religious arguments to do so on their own terms. They have to be scrutinized under your terms, which disqualify religious arguments as legitimate. So yeah, I can say whatever I want, but if I expect to be heard, I have to toe the non-religious party line.

Sorry. Not interested. If I’m gonna lose on the issue anyways, I’d much rather do so while maintaining the integrity of my faith than while betraying it.

Religious motivation is not inherently illegitimate. Religious motivation to pass a law that seeks to discriminate against a class of individuals based on the identity of that group violates the Constitution and is illegitimate. However, I’ll let you in on a little secret, non-religious motivation to pass a law that seeks to discriminate against a class of individuals based on the identity of that group violates the Constitution as well and is also illegitimate.

In other words, I do not care what your motivations are. Laws that fail to serve a valid public purpose tend to fall outside the police power of the states and violate the 14th Amendment. One did not have to justify the Texas anti-sodomy law struck down in Lawrence v Texas on religious motivation. Class animus more than did the trick.

Of course, the loophole that men of religion often rely on is “empirical” justification – that following the Bible has inherently worked well for many societies and generations and so we too should follow it. In fact, returning to the original argument, I’m quite certain that this is essentially the point Carter is making: that, just like the bible says, homosexuals have been shown to be completely different beings in terms of marriage and so should be treated as such in the eyes of the law.

I agree with your analysis with where this is heading. The Muslims will try and out breed the Christians and thereby allow them to impose their religion on you. The atheists will continue to corrupt as many of both of your young with sex, drugs and rock and roll so that we can free ourselves from both your foolishness. The only way to finish this off is the Hitch route. Place a social stigma on both your houses, moderate and extreme alike. Besides, Christianity was more compelling when it was illegal. Here’s to the good old days.

I believe that *ALL* of them may be expressed in the public square.

If you think that all atheists are going to go to hell? More power to you!
If you think that all Evangelicals are misled fools who should have followed Joseph Smith? Grab a soapbox!
If you think that gay guys can get married? Why the hell not?
If you think that they can’t? Get in line!

Everybody is allowed to think whatever they want.

“So you can’t say that we should take care of the poor because God says to either.”

I would be allowed, under my hypothetical situation, to be a libertarian who says that Welfare as practiced by The State creates a culture of dependency and we should end it forthwith. I’d also, under my hypothetical situation, be allowed to call the libertarians “racists” and point out that they are the types of people who want children to die in the street like dogs.

It’s win-win for everybody involved!

The only thing that you’re not allowed to do is prevent speech, pamphleting, religious practice, etc.

If your arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny, one hopes that your throat will eventually grow hoarse.