<p>LakeWashington: Of course there were! And many religious people opposed it. That’s because there are different interpretations of the same religious books and principles. MLK and the KKK didn’t interpret the bible the same way.</p>
<p>But making something into a public policy because of religious principles is problematic because not everyone interprets those in the same way, or takes all of them as literally. </p>
<p>For example: Leviticus 18:22 talks about homosexuality as an abomination, but Leviticus 11:10 talks about eating seafood as an abomination as well, and Leviticus 19:28 can be interpreted as forbidding tatoos and piercings. And I could go on and on.</p>
<p>Why should Leviticus 18:22 be a religious principle in which we base public policies, but not other principles mentioned in the same book in the bible? Why do we interpret one literally, but not the others? Should we forbid seafood in the country?</p>
<p>Because there is freedom of and from religion in the Constitution (and no national religion), not everyone has the same religious principles or even interprets the same religious text in the same way (as I said before the KKK and MLK both used the bible as a justification for their actions) we do not use religious principles as the basis of public policies and laws.</p>