The only objection I would have is a practical one rather than one against the principle of the thing, and that is that there is kind of a blurry line between encouraging members of one's religion to vote because you think they will mostly vote "one's way,"and pressuring members of one's religion to believe that the religion requires they vote "one's way".
Supposing for a moment that "one's way" meant, for instance, removing the right of gays to marry, the first looks unfortunate, but within the spirit of such separation, the second looks (to me) to be against the spirit of such separation, and I'm not sure how to equip the law to distinguish between them.
That said, I admire the principle.
Also this sounds like it may be referring to an earlier post I haven't seen yet, so I may be responding in haste without a full understanding of what you have in mind. I will keep reading down the friends page.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-02-20 11:54 pm (UTC)The only objection I would have is a practical one rather than one against the principle of the thing, and that is that there is kind of a blurry line between encouraging members of one's religion to vote because you think they will mostly vote "one's way,"and pressuring members of one's religion to believe that the religion requires they vote "one's way".
Supposing for a moment that "one's way" meant, for instance, removing the right of gays to marry, the first looks unfortunate, but within the spirit of such separation, the second looks (to me) to be against the spirit of such separation, and I'm not sure how to equip the law to distinguish between them.
That said, I admire the principle.
Also this sounds like it may be referring to an earlier post I haven't seen yet, so I may be responding in haste without a full understanding of what you have in mind. I will keep reading down the friends page.