I have to admit to being rather a bit disturbed about the recent religionist demonstrations against the Yankee republic. That that I object to the right of the people to conduct peaceful demonstration. The problem however, is that the demonstrations are not peaceful and they are violating civil rights, especially of those killed, injured, or discommoded.
This brings to the question of religionist expression versus civil rights. Which takes precedent? Obviously the superstitious will argue that their religionist exhibitions must take precedence over civil rights because they are superstition, after all. And the advocates of civil rights will argue that civil rights must take precedence because they are not religionist.
I have considered previously that superstition is coded into humans, a part of their nature and genetic code. Independence and individual existence are similar components. As a result, both religionist expression and civil rights may be considered fundamental to humans.
The religionists will argue that their beliefs derive from deity, which is an untestable, unverifiable claim and hence void of mass. Even if there is some accuracy to their claim, the interpretation of such revelation is as mundane as are the civil rights and hence the two are indistinguishable on the basis of origin.
This leaves us with a situation where one of two situations, neither likely stable or stationary, offer. That one or the other of these two, the superstition of religion or the superstition of civil rights, must be implicitly be ascendant, or that some tolerance will exist that permits the two to be selectively observed.
The latter is apparently unacceptable to the religionists involved. This is hardly surprising. Perversion tends to be absent of limit. Especially when it is rationalized as an absolute good, itself a perversion. So it is unclear what can be done about the nonsense and perversion other than we need be careful not to degrade ourselves to similar depths.