[extropy-chat] GWOT: Out of focus

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Russell Evermore <nanowave at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Ok, let's say I agree with you on this. So I grant
> Wahhabism (a
> terrorist cult which fosters virulent
> anti-Americanism and luddism)
> the "lofty" status of religion. In embattled
> America, The Bill of
> Rights guarantees "freedom of religion"

For certain meanings of the phrase.  But not the one
you mean.  (Legal documents are notorious for
specifying *exactly* what they mean - to the point of
confusing those who just skim them instead of reading
more thoroughly than most people care to - for a
reason.  And the Bill of Rights is a legal document.)

> ergo in
> order to fight violent
> anti-Americanism and luddism I must first fight The
> Bill of Rights!

Not necessary.  One can define anti-social actions
and, to a limited extent, attitudes and outlaw them.
For example, while Congress can not pass a law against
religion itself, it is allowed to outlaw murder - even
if certain religions preach and condone murder.  The
test seems to be whether it's targeted at religion.

For instance, one can not ban crosses or crescent
moons per se, because one can not come up with reasons
that most people will believe for banning them other
than their religious affiliation.  However, a building
review committee could certainly refuse to approve a
building that had all load-bearing crosses replaced
with crescent moons, on the grounds that the latter
design would be structurally unsound and thus present
a safety hazard (regardless of the religion of the
people who happened to be in the building when it
crumbled, even if the building would be off-limits to
all but members of a certain faith).

Likewise, one could pass laws to prevent teaching, at
least in public schools, of "scientific" theories that
have long since been proven false such as creationism,
or at least to prevent their being presented as
equally likely as evolution given the evidence.