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.

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.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    2·
    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.

    If by “they” you’re referring to the folks who wrote the Constitution (many of whom were Deists, not Christians), that’s very much historical revisionism. The religious right certainly thinks that’s what they thought, but it isn’t true.

    • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
      3·
      1 year ago

      i did think that but i stand corrected by @[email protected]. seems like the founding fathers were actually based (at least on this topic) and it’s just the people who like to speak for them who are corrupting this message.

      that said though, there are a lot of calls for religious freedom nowadays that shape up like this: basically, “i should be able to practice my religion and i guess i’ll endure yours because you’re in power, but we’re gonna do something about those unbelievers, right? …right?”