You defined "respect" earlier as "allowing an ideas to be printed". This, of course, isn't "respect". It is free speech. Allowing someone to say something doesn't mean you respect what they say. Please acknowledge that in your next post.

Now, you said that all beliefs should be respected by the government. "Respect" would mean that the ideas would be treated seriously. Okay. But now you say that when serious matters of policy are to be decided these beliefs are not to be "respected" at all, that we are to show no respect to astrology, and Scientology and Christianity etc. when matters are "serious".

This means that the state in fact does not "respect" these ideas at all, but disregards them when it matters. I get it now. You are talking about "respecting a person's right to have a belief" (up until the point that they are in government, apparently) and not "respect for the belief".

Now, if government ministers go to mass, and pray to God, and say that prayer is a good thing, and push forward the idea that prayer is good etc. bu then disregard "prayer" when matters are serious, then, of course, this is merely tokenism and not respect. If you really respected an idea you would, of course, hold that that idea is good in all situations.

It's like how evolutionists respect the idea of evolution and don't ever have to not take it seriously (because they have much reason to respect it), and how a young earth creationist will disregard their belief if, let's say, they are looking for oil, or if their personal health is threatened and they have to avail of modern medicine. Relevance of evolution: medicine

Surely if an idea has to be disregarded when matters are "serious" then the idea is not truly respected at all. Can you agree with that?