All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

[Alan H]

All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

The Kim Davis story raises a basic question: To what extent should we allow people to break the law if their religious views are in conflict with it? It’s possible to take that question to an extreme that even Senator Paul might find absurd: imagine, for example, a jihadist whose interpretation of the Koran suggested that he should be allowed to behead infidels and apostates. Should he be allowed to break the law? Or—to consider a less extreme case—imagine an Islamic-fundamentalist county clerk who would not let unmarried men and women enter the courthouse together, or grant marriage licenses to unveiled women. For Rand Paul, what separates these cases from Kim Davis’s? The biggest difference, I suspect, is that Senator Paul agrees with Kim Davis’s religious views but disagrees with those of the hypothetical Islamic fundamentalist.

[Altfish]

I have a lot of time for Lawrence Krauss, he speaks sense and again in this case he is spot on.

I have a friend who contends that we started on this slippery slope when Sikhs were allowed to wear turbans instead of crash helmets on motorcycles.

[Dave B]

Kraus has raised a very important point here - but I am guessing that the religionistas are incapable of contemplating the idea that, "What is a right for one is a right for all."

I would vote the religionistas, of any type, no more rights in law than vegitarians or Free Masons or Joe Bloggs down the road.

Hope they have changed the employment contract to ensure staff cannot make such prejudiced decisions again. Same for all registry offices in this country.