Replies

By that logic, you can also argue the guaranteeing the free exercise of religion is irrational because it guarantees a right to practice a religion that demands pursuit of the imposition of that religion on others and denial of right of others to practice any other religion. As far as a having a secular government amounting to an imposition of religion in and of itself, that runs into an explicit contradiction in terms that finds that anything not explicitly religous to be explicitly religious. I don't see any potential for having a rational discussion on those terms, or any particular point in having an irrational discussion.

A quick response to this as I cruise by -will read the rest later...

What I was suggesting was not an imposition of a religion as that would entail a state religion. What I was getting at was that religion (any religion) is just as valid a premise for inclusion in public discourse as any rationally deduced 'fact'. Further that from the outset, to declare religiously premised ideas as irrelevant due to no rational basis goes against the whole concept of a free market of ideas that the founders deemed important and established with the freedom of religion guarantee... We saw an example of this "trampling" on the free market ideas recently in California with Proposition 8 being set aside based upon an irrational premise underlying it (religion)...

Consider what I am stating here. IF religion gets sent to the back of the bus then how far are we from having voters justify their votes in any election with some judge deciding whether or not the people are rational...

---I will get to the rest and continue later...

What I was getting at was that religion (any religion) is just as valid a premise for inclusion in public discourse as any rationally deduced 'fact'.

How much consideration would such arguments warrant from people who do not subscribe to the particular religion the argument is based in? Freedom of religion means that you should be free to disregard an argument that something should or should not be done based on whether or not it is consistent with someone else's relgious beiefs. You are under no particular civic duty to subscribe to or assume those beliefs. Rejecting a rational argument because you choose to be irrational seems a different matter.