You're reading what you want to read. "same protections" is not equal to "immune to criticism" except in the self-pitying paranoid persecution complex of the right winger.
(Seriously, if you apply parse your position all the way to the convoluted end, you're arguing that your political beliefs should be "immune to criticism". Uh, no.)
"not entitled to the same protections" is simply pointing out that a political ideology and a religion are not the same thing (except to fanatics), both in common understanding and in law....
...like, to come round full circle, those noxious "Religious Freedom Restoration Acts" that try to put religion--but only Christian religion--in a protected category under the law. Excuse me, not "under", on a pedestal over secular law.
You can't have it both ways. You'd be right only if religion didn't already have special protection, and if only social conservatives weren't on a Crusade to turn those inroads into outright Christian sharia. If conservatives were willing to put Christianity on the same footing as their other quasi-religious beliefs (see "voodoo economics"), and on the same footing as other religions, then you might have some credibility. But you have a long way to go, and I don't expect you to ever get there.
Flame » in reply to Danergous false equivalence
There seems to be a correlation between conservatism and lack of reading comprehension
The whole thread (30 posts)
- Yup, that's us.
- One word for you: RFRA
- Trying to defeat a stereotype by using a stereotype
- Next your're going to tell me it's a logical fallacy. n/t
- The Right seems to have just discovered the concept of "stereotype".
- Sadly, so true...