> I think wishing to impose your personal religious beliefs on your constituents should disqualify you from holding public office. Should officials be cajoling

> I think wishing to impose your personal religious beliefs on your constituents should disqualify you from holding public office. Should officials be cajoling or forcing people to "convert" (not every religion has conversion as such)? Nope. Can we divorce all laws from any metaphysical worldview? No. That's not possible. We presume certain things matter, like human lives, freedom of conscience, truth, the health of the planet, etc. Banning murder assumes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist and/or does not require human sacrifice to get into heaven. I can't come up with the right adjective, but that's imposing an (a)theological position on constituents. It's obviously the right position, too. Point being, even the idea of "inalienable rights" is an (a)theological position. Some people think rights are given by God or the nature of humanity. Others think laws are given by the people and groups that can enforce them. The goal isn't to have agnostic laws. That's literally impossible. The goal is to find a just baseline worldview we can all compromise on and have tolerant laws that follow from that.