So
let's clarify
I'm talking about imaginary friends, for whom no proof exists, and basing governmental regulation on said "friends".
You would now like to say that regulation of food, speech and "thought", is worse than the intermingling of religion and that state- which basically can intrude on all those things as well (hello- "blue laws" anyone?)
So, please give me your examples of "liberal" regulation of thought, for example. As far as I know, we aren't in to that yet, but you might be reading something I'm not so please, explain the "thought" police to me.
As for regulating speech- what are you talking about? Are you talking about hate speech- which is usually actually hate conduct (when prosecuted)? Many people buy in to that. It's not just liberals.
law.umkc.edu
Supreme court- buys the distinction of conduct versus speech. If you have some special types of speech "regulation", by the government, driven exclusively by liberals, please let me know. Otherwise this one is as much your imagination as the thought police one.
Now, on to what you eat. How, exactly, have liberals limited your food supply for religious reasons? And if you are against regulation on the basis of scientific reasons (rather than religious, imaginary friend type reasons), are you also against regulating the general safety of the food supply? Are you against testing food for harmful substances? Are you against the government assuring fair labeling? If the government finds a substance promotes cancer, are you against labeling that it does this? Are you against the government trying to get it out of the food supply?
If you have some examples of food regulation that has actually intruded on your personal food freedom, I must say I am curious what those instances might be. |
