I’m fine with you insulting me. However I’m still interested to learn where you would draw the line between the non religious and the religious in your proposed ban of religious people in political office.
If I’m fine with having religious laymen in government and you’re also fine with having religious laymen in government then I’m not sure on what we disagree.
Just stop, no one is interested in your garbage laymen bullshit.
NO RELIGIOUS LAWS OR TEXTS IN THE LAWS, THEY NEED TO STAY SECULAR BECAUSE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE RELIGION AND WE WANT TO RESPECT THEM ALL.
If we start using christian laymen religious texts in laws then we will need all other religions texts right next to the christian ones so that it is fair to the other beliefs.
Is that what you want?
Is that how laws should be made?
How about just cutting religion out of the equation all together and making the text of law about the law and not about you?
I’m fine with you insulting me. However I’m still interested to learn where you would draw the line between the non religious and the religious in your proposed ban of religious people in political office.
Noone advocated for banning religious people. We want to prevent religious policy
If I’m fine with having religious laymen in government and you’re also fine with having religious laymen in government then I’m not sure on what we disagree.
Just stop, no one is interested in your garbage laymen bullshit.
NO RELIGIOUS LAWS OR TEXTS IN THE LAWS, THEY NEED TO STAY SECULAR BECAUSE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE RELIGION AND WE WANT TO RESPECT THEM ALL.
If we start using christian laymen religious texts in laws then we will need all other religions texts right next to the christian ones so that it is fair to the other beliefs.
Is that what you want?
Is that how laws should be made?
How about just cutting religion out of the equation all together and making the text of law about the law and not about you?