A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that the state corrections agency can’t force an incarcerated atheist and secular humanist to participate in religiously-affiliated programming to be eligible for parole.

    • TheGreenGolem@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The fact it’s had to go that far is psychotic.

      This reminds me of one of my favorites quotes, which is about the 2020 US presidential election, and I’m not even from the USA, but it’s suitable in so much scenarios in life: “It shouldn’t be this close.”

    • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      yeah, it seems what they meant is freedom to be a christian without the pope and absolutely nothing else. no nonbelievers, no non-abrahamics, hell, not even any abrahamic believers who believe in other religions. protestant, mormon, or cringe catholic, take your pick or go to literal hell.

      and the best part is when they use the excuse of religious freedom as a shield for their bigotry. like i’m sorry, if your holy book literally calls for gays to be stoned to death that’s a call to violence, it doesn’t deserve to be protected or tolerated.

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I feel like this is inaccurate. What other religions were on hand in the late 1700s? The native religions, of course, but the white guys did not care about that.

          Of course there was an emphasis on avoiding dependence on any one organized religion. That was one way of keeping power in the right hands.

          And in the 1970s and 1980s, it depends where in the US, but in many places or was and is very common to be Christian. If there is an strong majority, there’s no need to explicitly weaponize because society itself is already pushing your agenda. But that doesn’t mean harm wasn’t caused.