The law should NOT incorporate religion, as shown by the Black Eyed Peas/Malaysia controversy

[alp227]

On September 2, the Malaysian government lifted a ban on its Muslim population from attending a Black Eyed Peas concert. The American hip hop group held the concert in question last night.

I'm not a big fan of the BEP, but the fact that Malaysian law has to suck up for Muslims makes me proud to live in a country whose constitution bans this sort of thing. Imagine what would happen if US laws incorporated religious doctrine into law. Like, if it banned alcohol sales to Muslims. Or prevented Christians from reading Harry Potter. Imposed kosher restrictions for Jews. Forbade sales of meat to Hindus. That would mean that our legal code would be so jammed up that it makes our federal tax code look like a Dr. Seuss book. That's why it's the PEOPLE, not government, who are responsible for being faithful.

(edit) I meant incorporate, not accomodate

[BlooInBloo]

1. Hmm. Can't make my usual 1-post determination.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. Yeah because Americans would never use religion to impose

control over their neighbors, they'd never seek to revoke or prevent equal rights for minorities based on dogmatic misunderstandings of old books beyond their comprehension.
No, the US does not make law to make the religious follow their religions, they make law to make people follow other people's religion.

[Taverner]

3. Exactly. Not all muslims are prohibited from drinking.

The majority are, but there are some who have a more modern (read: humane) understanding of Islam. But in Malaysia, they would still be forbidden by law.