Don’t forget the anti-Muslim laws, like Switzerland’s minaret ban, or France’s ban on “conspicuous” non-Christian, non-Jewish religious symbols.
I can imagine. But does the supreme court support them?
Absolutely not. Jews would be perfectlly free to be circumcised.
They just wouldn’t be allowed to impose circumcision on helpless people under their care, like babies.
I never heard an argument against GMO based on religious grounds. The opposition to them comes mostly from environementalists/Greens, who are amongst the less likely to be religious. 
Which in turn would not allow those babies to grow up as part of their community - at least not according to their beliefs. It would be a strong interference with Judaism to outlaw circumcision - so you need an equally strong reason to do it. It comes down to how much harm the circumcision really does to the baby.
Agreed. If anything, I’d think that Genesis’ assertion that Gawd conveniently gave man unilateral dominion over everything under the Sun (save for their private parts) would be a pretty iron cast religious argument against any and all green policy.
Then again, Louis CK’s argument of Gawd going “what the fuck did you DO ?!” could be framed in a more Jesuit way and, in turn, be a legitimate religious argument for any and all green policies.
That’s the beauty of religion and statistics. They can say whatever is convenient for them to say :).
And what side is it, pray tell, that is rewriting the the definition of the word “marriage”?
Do you realize that these people do not need your respect? That their beliefs and exercise of them are protected but the U.S. Constitution?
I would not bother to interpret it. It was a metaphor expressing (vaguely) an idea. It is not an actual legal term or standard. It does nothing to actually define what actions are prescribed and proscribed. If it had serious meaning in legal terms, then it would not find people on both sides of legal questions invoking it to support their interpretations.
I think that you are simply projecting, here.
I have posed no argument or promoted any idea to “protect” religion and I have certainly never posted in a way to “protect” the bible. I would guess that since your agenda is to attack those things, you see any correction to your errors as defenses of the things you are attacking. The reality is that I am only providing facts and logic to permit you to correct your errors of understanding if you are so inclined. You have been the one to continue to post wildly off-topic remarks (as well as haring off on anti-religious tirades that I have ignored).
I have merely maintained the position that i outlined in the first response to the OP.
Green-style environmentalism is religious to its core. This is exactly what I’m talking about – you can have the outward allegiance to secularism but still have your thought very much shaped by religious ideas.
That’s another good example. Though, not being religiously motivated, no one will give you a pass to disobey orders.
I agree about the irrelevance of the Bible - but in the case we’re discussing, it is not about whether homosexuality is wrong for oneself, but whether it is so wrong for everyone that you can try to prevent legal actions - as an agent of the government.
People can screw themselves up all they want, but I object to them trying to screw other people up - at least unless they bring God or Jesus physically into the discussion.
I cannot speak for environmentalist around the world, but at least here in Germany that is not accurate. Germans have a habit of being frequently worried (and very vocally so) about new technologies, be that nuclear power, bio technology, fracking or whatever. The focus of such discussions is invariably on whether these technologies pose an uncontrollable hazard to our health or the environment. It’s not “Thou shalt not tamper with creation”. It’s the much simpler “We’re all gonna die!”.
yeah, well, you proved it to your satisfaction, that doesn’t mean you actually proved anything. and the difference between discrimination and withholding service is entirely semantical.
Wall: a continuous vertical brick or stone structure that encloses or divides an area of land.
Separation: the action or state of moving or being moved apart.
doesn’t matter. since the people who want to “interpret” it differently are doing so because they don’t like the results. there is no actual ambiguity to either the term wall or separation.
yeah, sure, i have an agenda and a bias. that does not automatically make my position wrong. i am the one who is using clear and precise language, you are the one declaring that clear and precise language is “vague”.
easiest example is SSM:
you are free to dislike SSM but you are not free to discriminate against SSM
yeah, but we admit it, we are not dishonestly trying to pretend we are not doing it
Well, it is the exact wording used by the Supreme Court. That would make it a legal term with a legal standard.
Just as you want to interpret it differently than they because you don’t like the results.
meh
That is simply you placing your biases ahead of theirs. No big deal, but there it is.
Dance away! First you attempt to discredit my arguments by falsely accusing me of holding an agenda and a bias. Then, when your bias is exposed, you want to declare that bias does not affect the outcome of the argument. So which way are you dancing next?
= = =
Your inability to see anything outside your own beliefs is amusing, but only in short doses.
If the phrase is utterly clear, what does it mean in regard to
providing special education classes to children at religious schools?
bus rides for students to religious schools, (when other private schools are already served by the school system)?
And what is your “logic” for each decision?
No. It was used by both sides in a decision, making it less than clear what it means. In addition, it was still used as a metaphor, not an actual legal term. It is a vaguely worded goal with multiple applications based on differing interpretations. The phrase was included in the judicial remarks, but it still has no force of law.
you do know, your claim that “wall of separation” is vague and that term actually - being - vague are not the same thing, right?
A supreme court decision has no force of law?