biden's line about opposing abortion personally but allowing it legally in the name of "religious freedom" demonstrates just how incoherent the whole concept of religious freedom really is. government necessarily imposes any number of absolute moral and epistemological values https://twitter.com/cnalive/status/1353758286294573056

banning or limiting abortion is a religious imposition in precisely the same sense as any other law. prohibitions on murdering a fully grown adult rely on some absolute sense of morality as well. the relevant question is not "whether" a value hierarchy exists, but whose it is

to say that moral decisions belong to "the people" and their ability to enact them as laws through a democratic system is simply to privilege one source of moral knowledge (a liberal democratic one) over others. there's nothing wrong with that necessarily, but even it has limits

courts put a greater burden on laws that apply to "suspect classifications" such as race. that is not in the constitution; it is the absolutizing of a moral principle by judges themselves. this is no less "religious" than scrutinizing laws that violate catholic teaching would be

once again, the question is not whether certain moral principles will be foundational. some always are. they are necessary features of human existence at scale. rather, it is whose moral principles and what they say. "religious freedom" only exists where base morality is silent

religions cannot coexist in a single society in some fundamental sense. at least not if any of their moral principles are in conflict. tolerance is achieved only when these principles are subordinated to a higher moral law, either that of the state or of some other religion.

western religious freedom is true only in the most superficial way. you can eat different foods, give each other gifts on different days, dress differently (maybe - you'll have to wear a mask). but you cannot act (and increasingly even think) according to non-progressive morality

the religious framing here is not forced - quite the contrary. the dominant religion never sees itself as just one among equals. it is never a matter of "that's just your opinion" and "let's agree to disagree." rather, it is the moral water in which we swim. it is "who we are"

to say that something is a "religious freedom" issue is to denigrate it. it is to say that it is a sphere in which the dominant morality has a monopoly. one in which philosophical differences must be kept private, if they are allowed to be held at all.

an exercise for readers seeking to understand the true nature of western religion in the year 2021 (common era): what topics are matters of opinion, and which of "truth"? what can you disagree on without being a "shitty person"? what words get you banned from having a "platform"?