Would it be possible for us to just decide that each individual's belief about the existence or

[Happy Hoosier]

4. I hear this argument a lot...

That somehow not accepting intolerance (or more appropriately, demanding non-interference), I am somehow being intolerant. A guy I know told that his faith requires him to impose his religious standard on the country and that if I want to forbid that, I am preventing him from practicing his religion freely.

I reminded him quite simply that his right to practice his religion beliefs ends where mine begin. I'm an atheist. I don;t belive in a supernatural being of any kind, or in spirits, or souls. I think it's non-sense. I think those beliefs can be harmful (though they don't have to be), and yet, I don't want to prevent other people from believing whatever spoopy non-sense they believe. And insofar as they do not hurt or impose upon others, or engage in cuelty towards a religious end, I don;t care much what they do.

When they tell me that their religion infomrs their morality and what kinds of laws they want passed, I tell them that's where the line is. If a religious value has a genuine non-religious purpose, it can perhaps be justified in law. But if it's merely about some kind "moral ourage" I absolutely oppose that. It's not intolerance. I "tolerate" their right to be hateful, narrow-minded bigot who believe a magical being demands that they be a hateful, narrow-minded bigot. But IMO, their right to ACT on those beliefs ends at public square. If one's wacky religious beliefs means you can't do your job on a daily basis while interacting with the public, get another job. And ESPECIALLY, if you cannot execute your duties as a public servant because you believe your religion demands it, then you have no place in public service. It's that fucking simple. One's right to act on one's seriously held religious beliefs do not extend into refusing to do your job and still getting paid for it.