The latest Jesus and Mo strip, called “freedom,” is appropriate to the Supreme Court’s odious new ruling that we taxpayers have to foot the bill for vouchers sending students to religious schools. As he so often does, Mo twists things around so that “freedom of religion” becomes an Islamophibic mantra, for that freedom allows you to practice religions other than Mo’s.
The author being British, I’m wondering if the term ‘Freedom of Religion’ has a sufficiently different context in the UK than it does in the US. ‘Freedom of Religion’ could conceivably – and should – include the freedom not to follow the family’s religion, whereas in the US, the phrase is viewed within the scope of the US Constitution and interpreted to mean that neither the federal government nor any state governments or lower-order governments have the ability to compel someone to follow a given religion. The freedom to ignore one’s family religion is fundamental, but not within the scope of the Constitution, which only grants specific powers to the US federal government, or prohibits the feds and states from acquiring certain powers.
> we taxpayers have to foot the bill for vouchers sending students to religious schools
More accurately, it should be: we taxpayers have to foot the bill for vouchers sending students to (religious or non-religious) private schools.
That does not sound good to an outsider like me. However, I think Mr Blair did the same, or possibly worse. I’m sure some UK posters can expand on that
I kind of like “Islamophibic”. The text in the strip makes it clear that it is a typo but I was hoping that it was a real word.