# Freedoms Based on Religion Should Not Exist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 17, 2015, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899 "2015-04-17T10:27:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/121 "2015-04-18T20:38:20Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s not a good analogy at all. The vast majority of Americans are religious. The vast majority of Americans are not _Star Trek_ fans. If they were, we might be debating if we should eliminate laws requiring people to remove their Spock ears when getting their DMV photos taken. I’m not asking why such laws exist - that is obvious. I’m asking for justification. And it being important to a segment of the population is justification enough to let them live their own life their own way, but not justification to impinge on the lives of others. If you think it is, then the number of people in the population is unimportant in justification for it, just in how likely they are to get it implemented. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/122 "2015-04-18T21:10:08Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > If my argument negates the free-exercise clause, it means I haven’t thought it through very well. People should be free to exercise their religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs do not conflict with any legal doctrine. Similarly, legal doctrine should be based on _rationality_ - to take an example I read elsewhere in the thread, if a religion wants to wear black armbands, banning black armbands “just for the hell of it” is not okay. But if a religion wants to take a substance which is banned on rational grounds, such as heroin (whether or not the prohibition of the substance is _actually_ rational is another story), then they’re just shit out of luck. With the black arm band example you start to veer back to something closer to providing religious freedoms. There’s plenty of irrationality that can invade law (especially when the majority in a country share a common religious background and can support legislation based on that common morality.) Your case against religious freedom in fact demonstrates an example - the Federal RFRA. The black arm bands fails the first test provided under religious freedom legislation - a compelling government interest to restrict the practice. A great example I brought up in a different RFRA, long since scrolled off the radar, of the second test under RFRA type legislation in application > [@](#): > > For example, in Minnesota, a state law would have required Amish buggies to use bright fluorescent signs to be seen on the roads. Applying the concepts of RFRA, a court decided public safety represented a compelling interest, but that could be accomplished with a less restrictive means of burdening the Amish faith of a simple lifestyle. The compromise: silver reflective tape and kerosene lanterns. The original law was rational but not the only rational way to meet the public safety on teh roads goal.That goal could be met in a way that was less burdensome on religious believers while still being entirely rational. It’s not hard to imagine that the legislators didn’t consider minimizing the burden on Amish when they wrote/passed the law. Without some method of redress we create a system where the majority religious tradition in the US, Christianity, can impose undue burdens on others either through ignorance or active disrespect of other traditions. I see your original argument being largely along the lines of rational laws by default meeting the compelling government interest case. Sometimes the law isn’t rational though. Sometimes it’s rational but not the only rational way. I think it’s good to have some legal framework to address irrational laws and laws that are unnecessarily burdensome. How to do it is different than arguing that any given way of providing that framework is optimal. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/123 "2015-04-18T21:42:12Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’m not asking why such laws exist - that is obvious. I’m asking for justification. Well, those of us not straight, white men from Christian backgrounds generally don’t like discrimination against minorities and find more reason to object to a company refusing to hire Jews than refusing to hire say fans of the Boston Celtics and would start laughing when we hear people complain about why Jews, Muslims, or Catholics be given special privileges. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/124 "2015-04-18T22:45:29Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > It’s not quite that simple in your example, because Bob’s “right” requires an affirmative contribution on Al’s part. It’s not a simple non-interference with Al. > > A more apt example would be my right to have guests at my home and play loud music versus your right to go to sleep without being disrupted. I think the overall point remains true - there will unavoidably be situations where the rights of two individuals are incompatible. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/125 "2015-04-18T23:18:12Z")
[Quote=Budget Player Cadet] I think the vast majority of the tax code can be rationally justified. So can Obamacare. [/QUOTE] You think. The tax code is four million words long. That’s equal to about twenty George R.R. Martin novels. Have you ever seen a rational justification for those words, or do you just have blind faith that they could be justified? And of course your constant use of the words"rational" and “rationally” begs the question of who gets to decide what’s rational and what isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/126 "2015-04-18T23:28:47Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > That’s an absurdly narrow view of what “rational” means. It means a lot more in this context than simply some crackpot having an alleged “reason” for his actions. A motorist might shoot a fellow driver “because he cut me off”, or kill his neighbor’s kids “because they were noisy”, but that doesn’t make those things rational. Rationality in this context has to be consistent with morality, and morality can be defined not just in secular terms, but in philosophically objective terms, as in Kantian ethics. It makes far more sense to base laws on such rational grounding than, for instance, to ban the meat of animals with cloven hooves, or ban mowing the lawn on Sunday because that’s working on the Sabbath, or to fly jet airliners into buildings because the residents are infidels. Rationality is not only a sound basis for law, it’s the _ **only** _ basis for law. Kant assumes things he doesn’t prove. Everyone does. And Kantian ethics permits retroactive abortion up to age 13. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/127 "2015-04-18T23:57:20Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I think you misunderstood me. > > I wasn’t saying they were “rational” though all claimed to be and all insisted they were scientifically proven. > > I was critiquing BPC’s claim that “secular reasons” were inherently rational. > > They’re not. Some are, some aren’t. Regardless, what I’m saying is that secular reason (that is, logic based on accepted social values and objective standards of morality) is the only basis for enacting laws. You would surely not argue that religious dogma is superior or equivalently valid? If so you’re arguing for theocracy and against the voice of reason. The strawman examples cited – Nazism and Marxism as implemented in the 20th century – had many laws that would not pass the test of reason and were simply the delusions of dictators and madmen, not much different than the ravings of theocrats throughout history. > [@coffeecat](#): > > And Kantian ethics permits retroactive abortion up to age 13. I want to see a credible cite for that. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/128 "2015-04-19T00:00:42Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Yeah, is that not good enough? See, if we’re not checking to see that our laws actually make any sense, then something is wrong. It’s not considered to be good enough for other, related matters, such as racial discrimination, so I dispute that it’d be good enough to stop religious discrimination. > [@Budget Player Cadet](#): > > When those claims are demanding the representation of law, then yes! You need to have a rational basis for your laws. > [@Budget Player Cadet](#): > > I’m against the draft, so this is kind of a moot point, but if pressured, I _could_ make a very strong rational case that it is morally wrong for me to kill someone else without their consent. That’s the neat thing about secular morality - it’s actually based on reason. Sorry, if you can’t prove it (your standard, not mine), then it’s off to prison for you. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And it may be based on reason, but it’s just as subjective as any religious belief. > [@Budget Player Cadet](#): > > If my argument negates the free-exercise clause, it means I haven’t thought it through very well. \*\*People should be free to exercise their religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs do not conflict with any legal doctrine. \*\* I’ve bolded the troublesome phrase. Surely you can see a problem with this - the right to exercise your religion in the absence of a law forbidding it _means that you have no right to exercise your religion_. I mean, what else would be infringing on the right, besides a law? Imagine interpreting other rights this way - you have the right to freely publish your opinions, unless the law forbids it. You have the right to a trial by jury, unless the law forbids it. You have the right to be secure from having your property confiscated without due process, unless the law forbids it. In what sense, then, do you have those rights at all? > [@Budget Player Cadet](#): > > Similarly, legal doctrine should be based on _rationality_ - to take an example I read elsewhere in the thread, if a religion wants to wear black armbands, banning black armbands “just for the hell of it” is not okay. Rational basis is a very low standard. A law banning the black armbands, in the absence of the protections you’re arguing against, would pass muster. That is why those protections exist. > [@Budget Player Cadet](#): > > But if a religion wants to take a substance which is banned on rational grounds, such as heroin (whether or not the prohibition of the substance is _actually_ rational is another story), then they’re just shit out of luck. If the law is narrowly tailored, and is rationally related to a compelling government interest, then banning sacramental heroin is just fine. The RFRA, and the free exercise clause, are not licenses to be exempt from any and all laws, and they never have been. > [@Budget Player Cadet](#): > > Yeah, my issue here is mainly the secular basis for laws, and removing religious exemptions. I’m not entirely sure how that would backfire onto secularism. Via your method. If you delete the free-exercise clause, on what basis could you oppose, say, a mandatory-evangelical-church-attendance law? If you repeal the RFRA, who you think will suffer most - mainstream Christians, or everyone else? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/129 "2015-04-19T00:07:18Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Maybe. I don’t deny that religions and their believers have frequently been persecuted, most often by other religions, sometimes by authoritarian despots. I also believe that religions can be valuable social institutions, a value that can at least in theory be separated from superstitious claptrap. But my basic thesis is that those aspects of religious practice that are worth defending can be defended on the basis of secular civil liberties. Those aspects that cannot be so defended I maintain are in the category of aforementioned superstitious claptrap. > > For instance I may dislike the idea of someone building a synagogue or a mosque down the street, but we have freedom of assembly and if the property is zoned for a public community center then they are free to do so. OTOH, if someone wants to discriminate against gays because God personally told him they are evil, via voices in his head, or thinks that a blood transfusion for their sick child would introduce the spirit of the Devil, then this is not worthy of protection. Rather than judge the merits of individual beliefs, simply apply the legal doctrine: narrowly tailored laws related to a compelling government interest are fine. Does prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations qualify? I say: sure. How about requiring lifesaving medical treatment for minors? Sure! Problem solved! > [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > To be fair, there were never that many Catholic churches in the Soviet Union, or in most of the countries that became part of the Soviet Union. That was never really Catholic territory. Eastern Orthodoxy, in various forms, was the dominant form of Christianity. > > The Soviet Union did tolerate the Orthodox Church, to a point. I’m hardly claiming, however, that that Soviet Union didn’t take a dim view of religion in general, or that it didn’t suppress the church (to varying degrees in different periods). That cite says there were 1,200 Catholic churches, circa 1917. I’m sure there were a lot more Orthodox one, but closing 1198 of 1200 Catholic churches illustrates my point well enough. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/130 "2015-04-19T00:21:22Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > The simple solution would have been to simply legalize peyote use for everyone, and not make it a religious issue. Agreed. In Canada some provinces allow Sikhs to wear their turban instead of a motorcycle helmet. Some provinces don’t. If you can make the case that your god will protect your head when you fall off the motorcycle, then by all means do so. I’m sure everyone would appreciate him testifying in court on how he will do so. Otherwise, you have to wear a helmet. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I was critiquing BPC’s claim that “secular reasons” were inherently rational. > > They’re not. Some are, some aren’t. Well, no religious belief is rational. At least there is a better chance of making a rational decision if the starting point isn’t always based upon fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/131 "2015-04-19T01:09:21Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Originally Posted by coffeecat > \>And Kantian ethics permits retroactive abortion up to age 13. > > I want to see a credible cite for that. No cites, just an argument. Kant said that people have moral dignity because people create morality; we’re legislators in the realm of ends. But pre-teens (per me and Piaget) aren’t capable of that kind of abstract philosophical thought; hence, retroactive abortion up to age 13. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/132 "2015-04-19T01:54:38Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > No cites, just an argument. Kant said that people have moral dignity because people create morality; we’re legislators in the realm of ends. But pre-teens (per me and Piaget) aren’t capable of that kind of abstract philosophical thought; hence, retroactive abortion up to age 13. So, as I suspected, you just made it up. Everything Immanuel Kant ever wrote or believed is diametrically opposed to that preposterous nonsense. The humanity argument, or “formula”, from the Categorical Imperative, for one. Which posits that as humans we have “the capacities to engage in self-directed rational behavior and to adopt and pursue our own ends”, or the “autonomy formula” which introduces the concept of free will. Or any of several other corollaries of the Categorical Imperative. **All of which require your preposterous conclusion to presume that children are not human beings, and are not sentient.** And further, it requires one to presume that society – regarded under Kantian philosophy as a “kingdom of ends” – a systematic union of different rational beings under common laws – would be best served by such barbaric means. Your abhorrent strawman perversion of what Kant actually advocated is about as far from the moral grounding of his Categorical Imperative as it’s possible to get. ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/133 "2015-04-19T02:41:15Z")
I made it up but I think it follows from what Kant said. My conclusion only requires that children aren’t capable of abstract philosophical thought. If you don’t like that, though, how about his assertion that lying is always wrong, without exception. The classic counterexample is when a murderer asks you where his intended victim is, and you know he’s hiding in your house. I don’t deny Kant was a great philosopher. I’m just saying he didn’t make ethics a science. No one has. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/134 "2015-04-19T04:08:00Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > I made it up but I think it follows from what Kant said. My conclusion only requires that children aren’t capable of abstract philosophical thought. If you don’t like that, though, how about his assertion that lying is always wrong, without exception. The classic counterexample is when a murderer asks you where his intended victim is, and you know he’s hiding in your house. That’s not true either, and it sounds like another misinterpretation of Kant. Kant distinguishes between “perfect” and “imperfect” duties that are subject to different tests. A “perfect duty” allows no exceptions and results from failing the test of whether the universality of some principle (as a “universal law of nature”) would result in a world in which such principle was inherently meaningless (the “contradiction of conception” test). For instance if everyone always lied and always broke promises then the very concepts of “honesty” and “keeping your word” would be meaningless. An “imperfect duty” results from passing this test and moving forward to the test of whether one might rationally will that such an action be universal in a particular set of circumstances – the imperfect duty is conditional and is justified by its moral objective. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/135 "2015-04-19T06:41:14Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > yes, but if you can’t find a secular/logical justification for what you value, it has no place being part of public policy This should be viewed in exactly the same light as a claim by a religious person “…yes, but if you cant find a religious/moral justification for what you value, it has no place being part of public policy.” You see, public policy should reflect the views of the public. Many are religious. You, apparantly, would disenfranchise them. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/136 "2015-04-19T07:47:09Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > True, Nazism, Eugenics and Marxist-Leninism were all completely rational. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Complain to Budget. > > He’s the one who claimed secular morality was “rational”. > > I would say that such a belief would suggest having a rather sheltered life. Congratulations, you’ve completely bastardized the concept of “secular morality” (and by the way, you ought to go read some NSDAP literature, there are some _distinctly_ non-secular views espoused therein) to mean “anything anyone can justify to themselves without the help of religion”. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Ok, since you feel that businesses should be free to refuse to hire people with religions they don’t like, how about serving them. > > Since you feel people should be allowed to have as part of job applications “No Jews need apply” how about signs saying “No Jews or dogs served here”? Serving is different. They don’t represent my business. Also, I love the insinuations here. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Sorry, if you can’t prove it (your standard, not mine), then it’s off to prison for you. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And I already agreed with this. > [@](#): > > I’ve bolded the troublesome phrase. Surely you can see a problem with this - the right to exercise your religion in the absence of a law forbidding it _means that you have no right to exercise your religion_. I mean, what else would be infringing on the right, besides a law? …Makes sense. Okay, so there are some problems with my ideas. > [@](#): > > Via your method. If you delete the free-exercise clause, on what basis could you oppose, say, a mandatory-evangelical-church-attendance law? If you repeal the RFRA, who you think will suffer most - mainstream Christians, or everyone else? Because such a law would not even begin to have a rational basis. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/137 "2015-04-19T08:38:51Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > You, apparantly, would disenfranchise them. Their nonsense, yes. Or would you suggest that an avowed Christian Scientist should be making public health policy? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/138 "2015-04-19T09:12:34Z")
Who should, then? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/139 "2015-04-19T10:50:08Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Rather than judge the merits of individual beliefs, simply apply the legal doctrine: narrowly tailored laws related to a compelling government interest are fine. Does prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations qualify? I say: sure. How about requiring lifesaving medical treatment for minors? Sure! Problem solved! Yes. I don’t know if you’re being serious. but although this approach isn’t without its problems, it at least limits the government rather than expanding its powers. The chief problems with it, IMO:[ul][li]Every @#$%ing law on the books would get challenged at some point. :)[\*]I still think some rights do require greater scrutiny and protection, when rights conflict (e.g., the right to religious freedom, free expression of political views, the right to assemble, etc.)[/ul]I think where some of the secular guys’ arguments jump the rails is their (to them) self-evident belief that there is some purely logical approach that exists out there in all its objective splendor. All belief systems are ultimately based on axioms (let’s leave math and the like out of this, though it’s true even for that). You may believe that “the greatest good for the greatest number” is axiomatic. I may believe that “personal liberties trump all else; let each free man make his own way.” Both have problems in their execution, but even leaving that aside, we could both proceed from our axioms logically and come up with drastically different results. Who is right? The majority? Isn’t that basically what we have now?[/li] I would agree with a system that says the government should mind its own business unless it is exercising an enumerated power in an arena where the government has a compelling interest, if it does so in a way that respects individual rights by tailoring laws to impact such liberties in the least intrusive way. The legislature thinks all people everywhere should have “free” contraception? Okay, I suppose that’s a possible outcome in a democratic society (ignoring for the moment whether our government has that enumerated power). Do they get to force individual people or firms to foot the bill? I say no, not if that compromises those peoples’ religious beliefs. Why? Because there are other more narrowly tailored ways to accomplish the same thing, so the government should have to respect the most fundamental of all right: my right to be left alone. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899/140 "2015-04-19T12:22:35Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > So, as I suspected, you just made it up. So I find myself in an interesting spot. Wolfpup, it is entirely against the rules to accuse another poster of lying. This includes telling someone ‘you made that up’. On the other hand, the poster you accuse says he did make that up. Oy. No warnings, just a note for all that such accusations are really not allowed in Great Debates and can earn warnings in the future. Let’s all be civil, here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/freedoms-based-on-religion-should-not-exist/717899.md?page=8)