But would you really want a system like that? Christianity isn’t the only religion in the US. What would happen to religious people in MA? Could your Jewish city council ban the consumption of pork or shellfish in city limits? If you want pork, give up your home and job and move. 3 towns over.
Think about how you would balk at laws written to satisfy someone else’s religion. No pork, no shellfish, no blood transfusions, not being to celebrate Christmas, or dress up your kids for Halloween, ect. That’s how the rest of us would feel about laws that you’d want passed because of your religion.Any act you do in your normal life is against someone’s religion. You are free to do it because, as a non-adherent to that religion, you aren’t bound to its laws. I prefer this system where you are free to live your life the way you want, and I am free to do the same. Nothing I do in my life hurts you or the practice of your faith. Not everyone shares your faith. We shouldn’t be made to live the way you want.
I oppose a national government making one set of religious laws for everyone.
I do not seek 50 state governments, each seeking restrictive religious laws for the people within their state.
I'm open to the idea that each state could decide to:
My point is basically, that if any state made a stupid choice and edged in that direction, residents ought to have 49 other states that they could move to and live their life as they choose.
Under our current system, the federal government makes stupid decisions about abortion or homosexual marriage, and 320 million people are stuck with it and have no recourse.
I'm arguing for a diverse system in which you get 50 chances to avoid the problem we have today. I'm arguing for what the Founding Fathers actually gave us, and which we threw away a long, long time ago.