
Originally Posted by
alan
You'll have to explain that a little further before I can comment.
I think you're confusing the concept of religion with specific religions. I would agree that no specific religion should be sanctioned by the government, although I also believe that no followers of an established religion should be forbidden from having a voice in or champions within a government.
And by the way, if you haven't heard, San Francisco would like to mandate that no boys be circumcised.
I'm not skipping over that point, you're just not recognizing it when you see it. Everyone expects their leaders to be guided by shared moral values, even the religious. You may disagree with the source of their moral viewpoints but that doesn't invalidate their right to express them or for an elected official to represent them.
As a totally secular individual, I completely agree that you don't need religion in order to have moral values, but I don't buy the argument that secular morals are superior to the religious ones. It takes a real ideologue to believe that.
I agree with everything preceding the last line and only quibble with it because you're insisting that you have representation which you would deny to others. Again, I'm not enough of an ideologue to insist upon such a thing.
I love talking ideology, but you can't mix strawman arguments with it and expect to get anywhere.