humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Agent Cooper wrote:

> On Mar 23, 1:21 am, Paul Wharton
> wrote:
>
>>I agree that individuals should be free to create whatever church or
>>monastery they want, and practice the religion or philosophy of their
>>choice. However, this *must* not be integrated with the policical
>>state.
>
> If the reason is merely an application of the larger principle that
> government should not do *anything* except defend what I call common
> law rights, that's fine. But once one accepts the principle of
> democratic governance,

Is that the principle that there should be nothing preventing the
mob...um, I mean The People, from getting whatever they want at any
given moment?

> I really don't see what's so special about
> religion that would suggest that the majority can regulate private
> conduct of other sorts, but not that one. [...]

Neither do I, particularly in light of the fact that no one -- including
the people who wrote the First Amendment -- seems to be very interested
in providing a clear definition of religion. You know, so that one might
be able to have a principled basis for deciding whether or not a
particular law (or the enforcement thereof) would constitute an
establishment of religion or a prohibition of the free exercise of religion.

Mark