two, the idea that any one religion should have more of a say in the way laws are applied than any other belief system.
If I recall/understood correctly, the Hobby Lobby ruling was trying to say that religious belief might be used to opt out of certain situations, but it wasn't quite saying that any particular religion would "have more of a say" than others
It strikes me as a bit like the Republicans in Congress, honestly -- trying to open up roadblocks and procedural loopholes everywhere for anyone
to use, such that nothing they don't like gets done anytime soon.
Huff Post just linked to a general, rather discursive press release or memo
which in turn links back to a sort of umbrella website
. Apparently it's named The Satanic Temple
actually... Though I have a hard enough time keeping terms for buildings straight, when it's not in Asia where the word "temple" is a lot more common. I don't know that temples are so functionally different from churches for purposes of outsiders speculating about their place in society (except that it does set up a nice contrast with the relative privilege Christianity has tended to claim in US government?), I could be wrong.
Though the stigma more conventionally attached to anything labeled "Satanic," should leave us in a situation where people think a little harder about where in fact various religions have been granted more formal recognition and clout than others in the society. Or perhaps even, some religions have, not to mention competition with yet other
possible belief systems beyond religion that could be called upon.