Another stupid law...|
You knew I would comment on this.
As nicegeek says, this attempt is pointless and will fail, so there is little to be concerned about in that regard. It does tell us a lot about what appeals to their constituents, and that's what I tend to think about more often. The question is: Seeing that our nation is composed of so many otherwise nice people who happen to want to emulate the Taliban, is there any appropriate response? Is it best to ignore our theocratic neighbors? Or to express our views to them as often as possible? Well, at least I hear those who support both of those approaches agree that we should not explode in rage.
Religious conservatives exist in an insulated subculture. Non-theocratic views literally sound to them like mental illness or disingenouity; the common sentiment is that their opponents "can't possibly take seriously what they're saying, so they must have an ulterior motive." Even most non-theocrats on the streets speak about the separation of church and state without much thought or passion, supporting it with obvious absurdities, contradictions and double standards (such as getting toleration confused with acceptance). Born-again fundamentalists don't hear a compelling articulation of free thought coming from anyone. They hear us from far away, distorted through the reports of their pastors and radio shows. When will we care as much as the fundamentalists care, and prepare our arguments with that much organization, outreach and eloquence? When will we come out of the closet audibly and visibly in a non-theocratic identity, and make ourselves heard the way that citizens of "King Jesus" now disproportionately make themselves heard?