Walter Okshevsky wrote: "Xians don't view adherents to other "religions" as engaged in authentic devotion to the one true God; they are as such irreligious or anti-religious. Xians hence view non-believers as a threat to their one true religion. Both of these Xian views comprise religious truths which Xians claim a neutral democratic pluralist state has an obligation to respect and not violate. That is what a right to freedom of religion entails." Fortunately, this is not the case. The right to freedom of religion does not entail any positive obligations, so I do not have to respect any religious belief or activity. What the right to freedom of religion does entail is the ability to make choices regarding religious beliefs (i.e. if I have to hold a particular religious belief or cannot hold such a belief, then there is a restriction on the right to freedom of religion) and the duty to give reasons when those beliefs enter the public sphere. Individuals can hold all sorts of religious beliefs, but the mere act of holding such a belief says nothing about the role such a belief plays within a liberal democracy. As I said elsewhere, the right to freedom of religion is not about religion but about peaceful social order. Walter continues: "The claim that the right to life can be trumped by a particular set of beliefs is viewed by a liberal state as eminently rational and obligatory. If you behave in certain ways, I have a right to take all means within my powers to prevent you from so acting. Xians partially ground their claims on this recognized conditional character of rights and freedoms." There is no rational defence for trumping the right to life, but that is another matter. What the state has the right to do is constrain the freedoms of individuals who reject the mutual rights and obligations operative within a society. The state cannot take natural rights, such as the right to life, away from anyone. They are inalienable. The state can constrain freedoms, as when people are incarcerated, and can revoke rights that are given by legislation. Since individuals cannot legislate rights, they cannot revoke them. And individuals certainly cannot trump natural rights. If any individual, or group of individuals, were to make such a claim, they would be acting against the good of the state, and the liberal democracy that constitutes it. In short, for any group within a society to claim the right to trump others' right to life is to necessarily reject their own place within that society. Sincerely, Phil Enns Glen Haven, NS ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html