It’s Unconstitutional for Laws to be Based on Religiously Moral Reasons?

[Michie]

Is it unconstitutional for laws to be based on their supporters’ religiously founded moral beliefs? While most of us—at least most readers of this blog—would consider such a question to be absurd, some people apparently think it should be answered in the affirmative.

Fortunately, legal scholar Eugene Volokh has provided a brilliant rebuttal which explains why “it would be an outrageous discrimination against religious believers to have such a constitutional rule”:

My most recent brush with the argument happened with regard to rules against recognizing same-sex marriage, but others have raised the same argument as to cloning bans, abortion bans, and the like: Isn’t it illegitimate for the government to ban cloning, or fail to recognize same-sex marriages, when most of the arguments for that position are essentially religious? Isn’t that an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state, or at least a violation of some democratic norm that people ought not force their religious views on others?
​

Continued- http://blog.acton.org/archives/30480-it-is-unconstitutional-for-laws-to-be-based-on-religiously-influenced-moral-reasons.html

 

[WarriorAngel]

I think we are being forced a religion on us, it is not Christian, but it is a secular nature.
Molech, the god of killing children and sexual worship.

 

[BabyChristian22]

I think we are being forced a religion on us, it is not Christian, but it is a secular nature.
Molech, the god of killing children and sexual worship.

Yep.

 

[AMDG]

I think we are being forced a religion on us, it is not Christian, but it is a secular nature.

Secular Humanism is considered to be a religion.

http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm

 

[WarriorAngel]