[wanttocomment]

Yes, the founding fathers had in mind a plurality of European religion, not every possible belief around the world from Africa to the Amazon. The idea you could create one government that could accommodate all those is the ridiculous contradiction. They would laugh at the suggestion there should be some equality of human sacrifice and communion.

[tomrod]

It's cool. They were sloppy in their wording and their philosophy. We have almost 250 years of lived experience now, we can revisit the notion and not let it be a golden cow. It's going to be hard to wade through the myths and hagiographies, but we'll come out a better society on the other end.

[wanttocomment]

Do you think it is possible to accommodate all those religions in one government?

I agree with you that it's not a golden cow, but I typically have to question posts like this one to get that admission. Claiming authority from the constitution when you don't believe in it is a cheap rhetorical technique to appear interested in historical America when you aren't.

The main conclusion I would draw is that we have no obligation of "fairness or equality" towards every religion. Our system was built to accomodate certain kinds and those that aren't in direct conflict, it seems a pretty good compromise that's hard to work around.

[tomrod]

> Do you think it is possible to accommodate all those religions in one government?

I think it's possible to establish reasonable accommodation, not full accommodation, which I think your second bullet agrees with.

The bigger issue is the rank corruption done in the name of religion or other "freedoms" that abuse communities and society at large.

[wanttocomment]

Sounds like we are in agreement, but I would include other non profits in that same abuse.

[tomrod]

Certainly not improbable.

[hutzlibu]

Maybe (I don't know enough about your founding fathers), but humanist thinkers in europe at that time certainly had the stance of total separation from church and state. Not accommodate to any of them. Keep religion as private buisness. Not interfering with them unless total necessary.

Otherwise same rules for everyone, then you can have all the weirdest religions.

(oh and there is connection of communion and human sacrifice. In the catholic church you are eating the body of Christ. Of course metaphorical, but I think in dogma it says it actually transforms into christs body. But that's besides the point. The point is, religios freedom should not override basic laws. And if they do, but only for some religions, then they come close to being state religions)

[wanttocomment]

Those thinkers I've read (Locke, Hume, Voltaire, Descartes, Leibniz) also have nothing in mind that resembles a melting pot for the world's cultures and religions. One again the historical context is being tired of endless wars between protestants and Catholics and often being a member of a tiny minority of aetheists and deists.

The brand of humanism you are associating with is a much later development.