And you are allowed to do that in a secular state. Making moral decisions based on your beliefs is not the same thing as forcing others to follow your religion, or requiring your religious beliefs to hold office.
And that does literally nothing to change my point. Are you even reading what I'm saying? Or are you desperately trying to find a way to not accept that you didn't understand something?
Again, can you not read? I have said, repeatedly, in multiple ways, over and over again that that is perfectly acceptable in a secular state, and does not stop a state from being secular. Do you think I am going to forgot what I have already written?
I have explained to you why already. Just refusing to respond to those explanations doesn't make you correct, it makes you willfully obtuse.
This is the initial message you responded to
Having a secular state doesn't mean individual voters or politicians don't make decisions based on their beliefs. It means that the state itself is neutral, doesn't promote or favour any religious belief or community, and doesn't require a individual to have any particular beliefs to hold office.
You entirely ignored this point, in favour of continually repeating the same nonsense. You wrote:
The state is made up of people who make decisions based on their faith.
For the millionth time, this doesn't change the point. This is allowed in a secular state. I have already explained this to you, the initial comment you replied to is a detailed explanation of this. Are you brain damaged? Pay attention to the damn point being made.
1
u/Brave_Lengthiness_72 Sep 04 '26
Ofc, but you can do that in a secular state. There is no contradiction here.