It’s not favoring a particular religion, and even non religious people (including for ex some radical feminists you may find) can unite against pornography propagation. It’s also not just about think of the children, but any society that cares for people will want to limit negative influences on the most vulnerable and those growing up who will become the future adults.
> It’s also not just about think of the children, but any society that cares for people will want to limit negative influences on the most vulnerable and those growing up who will become the future adults.
And yet that same society will do nothing to stop the number one cause of death in children: gun violence. One has to ask why?
Judeo-Christian doctrine also has prohibitions against theft and murder. Should we throw those out?
There's an overlap between secular and religious prohibitions, and there's no easy answer as to which rules are "religious" — you're just reflecting what's in your head as "obviously secular" and "obviously religious", and that's not how all other (secular) people view the world.
Revealing someone's secrets, is illegal in religion, yet legal in law.
While secularism have rationalized certain religious rules in their own interests like "your right to throw your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begin", they definitely did not originate with them. And though they have not rationalized everything, individuals sourcing laws from religion does not violate freedom of religion principles.
OK and what about welfare, or medicaid? Clearly a reframed version of tithing for the poor from a lot of religious traditions. Do you think we should drop those because they (a) overlap with religious teachings and (b) aren't libertarian?
Charity and taking care of the poor didn’t start with religion. Archeologists have found evidence that cultures took care of people with broken legs until they heeled thousands of years before modern religions were invented.
It's religion as law disguised as "But think of the children!" as usual.