Hi Sam, thanks for the comment, and sorry you had to go through that.

I suppose I didn't spell it out that clearly in the article, but ultimately what I'm proposing is the "freedom to think and act in whatever ways make sense to us and make us happy, as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's right to do the same".

Does that seem reasonable?

But there are two reasons why I don't like the freedom of religion as it's been established in the U.S. Constitution.

The first reason is that it doesn't supply any stipulations or boundaries on the right to religious freedom, which leaves room for manipulation and abuse.

And the second reason is that the Constitution never actually defines what a "religion" actually is. And this is a problem because it ends up favoring traditional notions of religion, like those involving a belief in a "god" or "spirits".

But why should people who believe in "gods" and "spirits" have more freedom to practice those beliefs than people who don't believe in those things, but still have equally valid opinions about the world?

That's why I prefer my verbiage, that we should have the freedom to "think and act in whatever ways make sense to us and make us happy", rather than having an ill-defined "freedom of religion" that may exclude some people's practices from being protected on the grounds that they aren't "religious" enough.

The freedom to "think and act in whatever ways make sense to us and make us happy" offers all of the benefits of a freedom of "religion" without its ambiguities and potential for exclusion on what counts as "religious".

Does that make sense?