<p>Many of our laws do in fact have their origins in religious norms – thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, laws against incest – they’re just ones you probably find more normative. Laws by definition restrict people’s free will – its the trade off we made for living in society – its a question of whether you view the restriction on free will as a legitimite exercise of government – and presumably in a democratic society, the instances where is isn’t are far less than in a non-democratic one. It seems more to me that you have a problem that when the result of the religious norm is one you object to, you find the religious underpinning offensive. </p>
<p>I think many people would agree that not everything they personally believe should become law. But that doesn’t mean that they should feel that nothing they personally believe should warrant becoming law. And each individual gets to decide for themselves, where that line it – if you don’t agree, that’s fine – but don’t delegitimize their right to draw that line differently than you would.</p>
<p>In your first post you referred to taking the position that “I don’t support Israel” – sorry if that led to a broader conclusion than you meant. Your rhetoric over the course of this thread seems to have calmed a bit – and I would hope you learn from that. If you open a debate by saying “I think this avenue of argument is completely illegitimate,” you make the debate about a lack of respect for the other person’s views – they won’t hear you any more than you hear them. A debate goes a lot further on both sides, if you can respect the other parties’ right to their position and listen. And I’ll add, equating another’s position with Nazism is a sure way to cut the debate very short.</p>