People can choose to disobey a law, always, but they have to accept the consequences of that. And they can work to change a law that is unjust or stupid. I would agree that no level of government in this country can pass laws trying to outlaw specific religious actions, but e.g. a law against murder would apply to worshipers of Moloch who wanted to kill children, and that would NOT violate religious liberty as it would be applicable to all citizens. (I would then expect Moloch-worshipers to come up with a workaround such as using effigies in lieu.)
Freedom of religion to me means that you can *believe* anything you want, however nutty anyone else might think it. You can, further, *practice* what you believe, BUT only up to the point where it interferes with someone else's equivalent freedom.
So promoting laws that restrict others' rights based on your religious beliefs that others should not have those rights is NOT acceptable. Refusing to exercise your own rights because of your beliefs is perfectly okay. Examples: if you believe abortion is wrong, and refuse to have one even if it means you're risking your own life, that's fine. But trying to prevent anyone else from having an abortion is not okay. If you think gay people are doomed to hell and should not have the same rights to marry as straight people, you can think that, but it's not okay to try to prevent them from getting married because their marriage rights do NOT impact your own freedom to marry.
My attitude is that I want maximum freedom for EVERYONE, and that means freedom so long as it does not negatively affect others in tangible ways. (Well, of course, I would really hope that people would shed their superstitions, but I'm not deluded enough to think that will happen.) There's a church, for instance, that has an enormous (like, I'm guessing 100-150 feet) cross, visible from the highway; I think it is ugly and kind of offensive, but it doesn't actually harm me so I have no right to sue to get them to take it down. I loathe proselytizing, but I only have the right to tell those people that I do not want to hear them and to leave my own property, not to prevent them from speaking in public spaces, and certainly not in someone else's private space who is willing to listen.
no subject
Freedom of religion to me means that you can *believe* anything you want, however nutty anyone else might think it. You can, further, *practice* what you believe, BUT only up to the point where it interferes with someone else's equivalent freedom.
So promoting laws that restrict others' rights based on your religious beliefs that others should not have those rights is NOT acceptable. Refusing to exercise your own rights because of your beliefs is perfectly okay. Examples: if you believe abortion is wrong, and refuse to have one even if it means you're risking your own life, that's fine. But trying to prevent anyone else from having an abortion is not okay. If you think gay people are doomed to hell and should not have the same rights to marry as straight people, you can think that, but it's not okay to try to prevent them from getting married because their marriage rights do NOT impact your own freedom to marry.
My attitude is that I want maximum freedom for EVERYONE, and that means freedom so long as it does not negatively affect others in tangible ways. (Well, of course, I would really hope that people would shed their superstitions, but I'm not deluded enough to think that will happen.) There's a church, for instance, that has an enormous (like, I'm guessing 100-150 feet) cross, visible from the highway; I think it is ugly and kind of offensive, but it doesn't actually harm me so I have no right to sue to get them to take it down. I loathe proselytizing, but I only have the right to tell those people that I do not want to hear them and to leave my own property, not to prevent them from speaking in public spaces, and certainly not in someone else's private space who is willing to listen.
Does that make sense?