Evolution Critics Are Under Fire For Flaws in 'Intelligent Design'

Even before Darwin, critics attacked the idea of biological evolution with one or another version of, "Evolve this!"

Whether they invoked a human, an eye, or the whip-like flagella that propel bacteria and sperm, the contention that natural processes of mutation and natural selection cannot explain the complexity of living things has been alive and well for 200 years.

That is an deceitful analogy.

It's not even an analogy - it's a restatement of your position. You refused the constitutional argument on the basis that judges are evil. An analogy would be that if Hitlery Clinton voted to support the war in Iraq, and Hitlery is evil, then the war in Iraq must be opposed even if it is the right thing to do.

In fact, most of your statements have been supportive of the doctrine of a "living constitution", the doctrine big-government leftists. Are you a leftist?

See- that is deceitful - a mis-characterization twisted into an ad hominem attack. I have been arguing from the constructionist view including the use of Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas for case sources, all constructionists. A constructionist view is also that of keeping government out of situations it doesn't belong. A constructionist includes respecting the Constitution at a state level even if actions at the federal have been have been otherwise. A position in direct opposition to that you have stated.

Instead, you have taken a position of convenience. The Constitution and precedence are fine (to justify some anti-big government) should they agree with your views but wrong if they hinder them (Article VI, Amend 1 & 14). You have stated views to the far right socially, but have advocated intrusive government as long as it is the right kind of intrusive government.

That's craziness. That's something a leftist does when on the other foot. You are confusing your beliefs with mine.

I have been arguing from the constructionist view including the use of Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas for case sources, all constructionists. A constructionist view is also that of keeping government out of situations it doesn't belong. A constructionist includes respecting the Constitution at a state level even if actions at the federal have been have been otherwise. A position in direct opposition to that you have stated.

You have NOT been arguing from a constructionist view, nor have you arguing for respecting states rights. You stated, "If a legislature passes a law banning the teaching of evolution OR requiring the teaching of a religious precept like creation of ID, it is violating the First Amendment by both requiring the teaching of one sect's religious views and by favoring one Christian sect over others". That is totally contrary to a strict constructionist's view. A strict constuctionist would know that it is the right of any state legislature to pass any law it pleases respecting the establishment of religion, and to allow any subject it pleases to be taught in public schools.

You also wrote, "If a legislature passes a law banning the teaching of evolution OR requiring the teaching of a religious precept like creation of ID, it is violating the First Amendment by both requiring the teaching of one sect's religious views and by favoring one Christian sect over others. The First Amendment says no such thing. It only restricts the Congress (e.g., the Federal Government). States were not restricted until federal judges usurped power from the states (note the Congress has never voted to restrict states rights on religion, to my knowledge. All usurpations have come from unelected federal judges).

The Constitution and precedence are fine (to justify some anti-big government) should they agree with your views but wrong if they hinder them (Article VI, Amend 1 & 14). You have stated views to the far right socially, but have advocated intrusive government as long as it is the right kind of intrusive government.

That is total, 100% nonsense. Regarding the former, big, instrusive government comes from precedent, not from the Constitution (the Constitution includes the Amendments, BTW). Regarding the latter; instrusive government comes from usurpation of power, beginning at the federal level. I do not advocate usurpation of power. You do.

I think I see the problem. You have been so magnificently brainwashed with the "separation of church and state" myth that you do not realize you do not understand strict constructionism. The following was included in an 1808 letter of Thomas Jefferson, 6 years after the infamous "separation of Church and State" letter"

"I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1808.

Did you know that two days after Jefferson sent that letter to Danbury he attended public worship services in the U. S. Capital building? That he authorized the use of the War Office and Treasury building for church services? That he provided, at the government's expense, Christian missionaries to the Indians? That he put chaplains on the government payroll? That he provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. That he sent Congress an Indian treaty that provided funding for a priest's salary and for the construction of a church?

In 1822, four years before his death, Jefferson wrote, "In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good degree of religion, with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have four sects, but without either church or meeting-house. The court-house is the common temple, one Sunday in the month to each. Here, Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join in hymning their Maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others' preachers, and all mix in society with perfect harmony."

Also in 1822, he wrote, "In our annual report to the legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use of our library, and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other."

That's craziness. That's something a leftist does when on the other foot. You are confusing your beliefs with mine.

No - I was correcting you as to an analogy. It's back to your stand that all judges are evil and can't be trusted, so if a Justice takes a position - it must be wrong even if it is right.

You have NOT been arguing from a constructionist view, nor have you arguing for respecting states rights.

State rights are limited in the framework of the federal system - the core of my argument and the core of our federal constitutional system, thus constructionist.

A strict constuctionist would know that it is the right of any state legislature to pass any law it pleases respecting the establishment of religion, and to allow any subject it pleases to be taught in public schools.

Incorrect. No state may violate the Constitution - it's written that way as I quoted earlier.

The First Amendment says no such thing. It only restricts the Congress (e.g., the Federal Government).

Again, no state may invalidate part of the Constitution. Your argument was used, badly, by states defending poll taxes, literacy voting tests, and other measures in the reconstruction era. Or, Wyoming could not pass laws making the owning and reading of newspapers illegal.

I do not advocate usurpation of power. You do.

The position of a state government requiring creationism in school is an usurpation. You have since backed off of that position but allowing the states to regulate or establish a state religion is also a violation.

You have been so magnificently brainwashed with the "separation of church and state" myth that you do not realize you do not understand strict constructionism. The following was included in an 1808 letter of Thomas Jefferson, 6 years after the infamous "separation of Church and State" letter"

[snip - Danbury letter]

Did you know that two days after Jefferson sent that letter to Danbury he attended public worship services in the U. S. Capital building?

Not even close - there is no problem with an official making a declarative statement, such as invocations, thanksgiving prayers, etc. but there is a problem with making a specific religious view a law or a government giving legal preference to a religion or denomination.

After passing the First Amendment, Congress called on Washington to give a national prayer of Thanksgiving. No conflict. Georgia requiring that state biology courses be taught according to the "First Church of the Risen" - big conflict.

That he provided, at the government's expense, Christian missionaries to the Indians? That he put chaplains on the government payroll? That he provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. That he sent Congress an Indian treaty that provided funding for a priest's salary and for the construction of a church?

Source? From what I have read the Danbury letter was part of a defense against the charges that Jefferson was not religious, the atheist charge from the 1800 campaign, and mounting criticism from New England states that his administration was anti-religion. Thus, he came out with the famous position that church and state should be separate.

Jefferson as a federal government source is corrupt by your positions and thus not to be trusted.

Another "corrupt federal source" is Madison, who fought against the state support of religion and churches. In his address to the Virginia assembly regarding the state supporting a church:

a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined.

Also from the address:

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.
[snip]
Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
[snip]
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
[snip]
Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another. (emphasis added)

Clearly Madison took a strong stand against the role of a state government in religion. It is not the role of government at any level.

State rights are limited in the framework of the federal system - the core of my argument and the core of our federal constitutional system, thus constructionist.

That is nonsensical gobbledegook.

It's back to your stand that all judges are evil and can't be trusted.

You pulled one MINOR exaggeration from my posts and pretend this is the sum total of my argument. Very slick.

No state may violate the Constitution - it's written that way as I quoted earlier.

Duh. I will repeat and clarify. It is CONSTITUTIONAL for a state legislature to pass any law it pleases respecting the establishment of religion, and to allow any subject it pleases to be taught in public schools. Just because you do not agree does not make it unconstitutional.

... no state may invalidate part of the Constitution. Your argument was used, badly, by states defending poll taxes, literacy voting tests, and other measures in the reconstruction era. Or, Wyoming could not pass laws making the owning and reading of newspapers illegal.

You are comparing apples with oranges, as usual.

The position of a state government requiring creationism in school is an usurpation.

More nonsense.

You have since backed off of that position ...

No I did not.

... but allowing the states to regulate or establish a state religion is also a violation.

No, it is not.

... there is a problem with making a specific religious view a law or a government giving legal preference to a religion or denomination.

There may or may not be a problem with it, but it is only prohibited at the federal level.

Georgia requiring that state biology courses be taught according to the "First Church of the Risen" - big conflict.

A stupid requirement, but no conflict.

Jefferson as a federal government source is corrupt by your positions and thus not to be trusted.

More nonsense. Jefferson expressed exactly my position in the part you snipped and erroneously labeled the Danbury letter.

Another "corrupt federal source" is Madison, who fought against the state support of religion and churches. In his address to the Virginia assembly regarding the state supporting a church:...

Virginia had established "freedom of religion" within their state Bill of Rights, so the proposed law (you partially quoted) would have been a usurpation. Madison appropriately argued against usurpation. If Virginia had no such provision for freedom of religion in their Bill of Rights the proposed 1785 bill would not have been a usurpation. There was nothing in the upcoming Federal Constitution or Bill of Rights that would have changed any of this at the state level.

Clearly Madison took a strong stand against the role of a state government in religion. It is not the role of government at any level.

You are correct with respect to the views of Madison. Both he and Jefferson held that view. But neither was stupid. A proposal for a secular government at all levels would have failed. Therefore there were no restrictions on the states in the original Constitution, nor in the later Bill of Rights (in both there was no power given to the federal government over religion). For example, in his initial proposal for a Bill of Rights, Madison wrote, ". . . nor shall any national religion be established". The adopted version of the religious clause of the 1st Amendment states the same thing, though worded differently. It is important that you understand that the Bill of Rights gave us no rights. It only clarified our existing rights, some specifically and some generally.

BTW, Madison also opposed the appointment of chaplains to the two house of congress, and to religious proclamations such as Washington's Thanksgiving Day proclamation. It it obvious that some of Madison's views (as with Jefferson) did not have anywhere near majority support.

George Washington's views, on the other hand, had immense support. And he made no bones about the importance of religion, stating in his Farewell Address, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens". In other words, according to George Washington, you are unpatriotic if you subvert religion. And was Washington talking about any old religion? Absolutely not. In the same address it is written, "With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religeon, Manners, Habits & political Principles".

That is nonsensical gobbledegook.

Meaning you have no basis for response.

You pulled one MINOR exaggeration from my posts and pretend this is the sum total of my argument. Very slick.

Minor?
"We need to move all this case law from the halls to the landfills."
"The federal judiciary claimed it did when it usurped power from the states."
"precedent is a dangerous tool in the hands of a tyrannical judiciary."
"the opinion of another judge(s) who is likely to be corrupt."
"the corrupt U.S. Supreme Court"
It was your central point, as you agreed in #584. For the history of the nation and before, judges are nasty, bad corrupt people and shouldn't be listened to in terms of constitutional law - especially the Supreme Court.

This, "in a nutshell" as you put it was your counter argument to the clauses from the Constitution that state the federal constitution is above state constitutions and laws and apply to all states.

It is CONSTITUTIONAL for a state legislature to pass any law it pleases respecting the establishment of religion, and to allow any subject it pleases to be taught in public schools. Just because you do not agree does not make it unconstitutional.

As the Federal Constitution applies to the state, the state must follow. Thus, a state may not establish a religion. I know it goes against your ideal of a theocratic government but that is the way it is stated.

[no state may invalidate part of the Constitution. Your argument was used, badly, by states defending poll taxes, literacy voting tests, and other measures in the reconstruction era. Or, Wyoming could not pass laws making the owning and reading of newspapers illegal.] You are comparing apples with oranges, as usual.

Not at all, if as you argue, a state can invalidate the First Amendment, it can invalidate any part under the guise of 'states' rights.'

Fortunately, some of the states' sovereignty was given to the Union and their power is also limited by the same document that limits the Federal government.

[You have since backed off of that position ...] No I did not

The you are reneging on your statement?:
Post #475 - I am not opposed to the teaching of evolution, and I never have been.

The rest of your post is more of the same insistence that the Constitution does not apply to the states - which has been shown incorrect.

The closure from Washington to which you quoted "Religion and morality are indispensable supports" is true - but those supports are in the private sector. They have a purpose there - but not in state law.

Meaning you have no basis for response.

No, I meant that your statement, "State rights are limited in the framework of the federal system - the core of my argument and the core of our federal constitutional system, thus constructionist", is nonsensical gobbledegook.

Minor?
"We need to move all this case law from the halls to the landfills."
"The federal judiciary claimed it did when it usurped power from the states."
"precedent is a dangerous tool in the hands of a tyrannical judiciary."
"the opinion of another judge(s) who is likely to be corrupt."
"the corrupt U.S. Supreme Court"

It was your central point, as you agreed in #584. For the history of the nation and before, judges are nasty, bad corrupt people and shouldn't be listened to in terms of constitutional law - especially the Supreme Court.

That is exactly right. And I was much kinder to those jack-asses than Jefferson, who wrote in 1820, "The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone . . . Having found, from experience, that impeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scare-crow, they consider themselves secure for life; they sculk from responsibility to public opinion, the only remaining hold on them, under a practice first introduced into England by Lord Mansfield. An opinion is huddled up in conclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as if unanimous, and with the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a crafty chief judge, who sophisticates the law to his mind, by the turn of his own reasoning. A judiciary law was once reported by the Attorney General to Congress, requiring each judge to deliver his opinion _seriatim_ and openly, and then to give it in writing to the clerk to be entered in the record. A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government."

As the Federal Constitution applies to the state, the state must follow. Thus, a state may not establish a religion.

You must be reading a different constitution than either I or Thomas Jefferson read. I posted his understanding on the matter in a previous post, but you ignored it (you mis-named it as the Danbury letter so I assume you did not read it). Read it this time: "I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." -- 1808

... if as you argue, a state can invalidate the First Amendment, it can invalidate any part under the guise of 'states' rights.'

I cannot believe you are having this much trouble understanding. Where did you go to school? Berkeley? One final time: the First Amendment applies only to the Congress. It reads, "Congress shall make no law...". Read the interpretation by Jefferson (above) over and over until you understand.

The you are reneging on your statement?: Post #475 - I am not opposed to the teaching of evolution, and I never have been.

Huh? You wrote: The position of a state government requiring creationism in school is an usurpation. You have since backed off of that position . . .. I wrote, "No, I did not". I have never stated that if a state government requires creationism it is a usurpation, so a clearer response would have been, "I never held that position". I apologize for confusing you.

The rest of your post is more of the same insistence that the Constitution does not apply to the states...

That is stupid beyond belief. I never said the Constitution does not apply to the states. Anyone with half-a-brain knows that the Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government (well, it did at one time), and the constitution prohibits the states from certain activities, such as Bills of Attainder (well, it did at one time), ex post facto laws (well, it did at one time), and it prohibits slavery (okay on that one, so far). What I said was the 1st Amendment did not apply to the states. Thomas Jefferson agreed with me, so I don't care whether you and other big-government leftists do, or not.

That is a typical leftist argument used to undermine our social mores and replace them with Marxist doctrines.

"It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." -- 1808" In so far as any human authority....

Of course since the rest of the organization of human authority in this country has determined that the Constitution and its guarantees applies to all governments in the the borders of the US.

I cannot believe you are having this much trouble understanding. Where did you go to school? Berkeley? One final time: the First Amendment applies only to the Congress. It reads, "Congress shall make no law...". Read the interpretation by Jefferson (above) over and over until you understand.

No schooling was here in the Midwest, at private religious universities.

The problem with your argument is that you have rejected my sources because they are evil judges - that is it, nothing else despite part of their job on the Supreme Court is to be Constitutional experts - and you have responded with one quote from Jefferson in the last year of his presidency. A quote which you yourself only understand that the federal government has no place in religion.

You are not accepting that the entire Constitution applies to all of the states. States can not violate the 4th if they wanted to, nor the 1st.

Anyone with half-a-brain knows that the Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government (well, it did at one time), and the constitution prohibits the states from certain activities, such as Bills of Attainder (well, it did at one time), ex post facto laws (well, it did at one time), and it prohibits slavery (okay on that one, so far). What I said was the 1st Amendment did not apply to the states. Thomas Jefferson agreed with me, so I don't care whether you and other big-government leftists do, or not.

Obviously you are lacking that half a brain if the 13th and 14th apply to the states but the 1st doesn't....just because one speech of Jefferson led you to believe so. That statement completely destroy you own arguments. One amendment apllies but not the other.

BTW - the constitutionalist position does not make a left wing position....unless it gets in the way of your blessed theocracy of course.

Small, non-invasive government is a cornerstone of the conservative position. One that is overlooked by far-right, big government advocates like yourself - where big government is great when it furthers far right social principles.

The rest of us Conservatives want small, limited government at all levels because we trust the people to make their own decisions about their own life. They don't need the State as Big Preacher.

That is a typical leftist argument used to undermine our social mores and replace them with Marxist doctrines.

Not at all, it advocates that religion is the purview and responsibility of the individual not the state.

I realize this is an idea hard for a theocrat to understand that Conservatives have that problem with government being Big Brother, the Mommy of the nanny state, and Big Preacher of the Bible State.

Of course since the rest of the organization of human authority in this country has determined that the Constitution and its guarantees applies to all governments in the the borders of the US.

That is BS, and you know it is. Unelected judges have determined that the Constitutition has no guarantees.

I had no idea you were living such a sheltered life. Let me give you a few examples: In 1993, or so, Chief Justice Rehnquist was very upset that a law he supported was ruled against (5-4). The law involved asset forfeiture, an activity that is specifically prohibited in the Constitution at both the state and federal level. Rehnquist whined to the media, "This law was not too unconstitutional!" About a decade ago (maybe less), Justice Souter voted on the side of the teacher's union, explaining, "I know this law is unconstitutional, but I am supporting it for labor peace". Of course, if you have not been living in a cave this past year you will know that O'Connor and other Supremes publically declared that their considerations were based on international law (vs the Constitution). So get off this "evil judge" rant. Judges have been violating their oath since Marbury vs. Madison, and they (with few exceptions) deserve no respect.

Obviously you are lacking that half a brain if the 13th and 14th apply to the states but the 1st doesn't.

The other amendments apply to the states as well because there are no restrictive clause. The 1st restricts its prohibitions to the congress. Jeesh!!!

BTW - the constitutionalist position does not make a left wing position

Correct. You, however, believe that judges are the sole authority on the constitution. That is exactly what the leftists want the peasants to believe. Strict constructionists, on the other hand, believe the constitution is the supreme authority, and that there are co-equal branches with an executive and congress that punishes the judiciary when it steps out of line in its rulings. Modern day collusion between the branches renders that unlikely.

Small, non-invasive government is a cornerstone of the conservative position.

Exactly. Of course that (non-invasive government) is highly unlikely as long as our nation is ruled by judicial fiat.

The rest of us Conservatives want small, limited government at all levels because we trust the people to make their own decisions about their own life.

Sure you do. You sound more like a liberterian than a conservative, except no liberterian in his/her right mind would trust the sole interpretation of our constitution to unelected judges. Therefore, you must be a leftist troll.

The other amendments apply to the states as well because there are no restrictive clause. The 1st restricts its prohibitions to the congress. Jeesh!!!

Sooner or later you'll realize that all amendments, all of the articles apply to all states because that's simply the way the Constitution was written.

The amazing thing is you would arguing the opposite in the university and school cases where Christian groups and publications were first banned but then sued for their rights under First Amendment protections. State schools have to follow the First Amendment but not the state....that just doesn't figure.

The 1st protects freedom of the press within the states. You, however, believe that judges are the sole authority on the constitution.

Not sole - but you didn't like Madison either.

[Small, non-invasive government is a cornerstone of the conservative position.]
Exactly.

If so, you should be arguing against the intrusion of government into religion rather than for it. "Maybe you're a leftist troll."

You sound more like a liberterian than a conservative

Arguing from a noninvasive, limited government point, I am often considered a libertarian conservative. I can live with that classification from those with the mental capacity to understand libertarian views.

Therefore, you must be a leftist troll.

Another ignorant ad hominem attack.

The conservative view of the role of government in regards to religion might best be explained by Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 "Commentaries on the Constitution". The following are excerpts:"The real object of the [first] amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. . . ."
"The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;— these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. . . ."
"Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, . . . did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty."
"Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation. . . "

"... the whole power over the subject matter of religion is left exclusively to the State governments to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice and the State constitutions."

Put another way, "the powers of the federal government are few and defined; the powers of the states respectively, or of the people, are virtually unlimited.

States face the same constraints as the federal government - otherwise tyranny is merely transfered not prevented.

Since you obviously do not know, conservatives believe in a limited government that also encourages traditional morality. You are not a conservative. I might be convinced to believe the libertarian part, but not from what I have heard so far.

Your ignorance is embarrassing. This why I prefaced my remark with a comment for those with intelligence and a minimum mental capacity.

Traditional morality is the responsibility of the people - not the government. A common refrain for the conservative has been "The government can not legislate morality." Morality can only be instilled by the social institutions of morality - churches and families being primary.

Once, this was an understood in conservatism. Then came the rise of authoritarian moralism - the government has a divine right to proscibe and control all behavior of the people. This is the position you have been promoting. There isn't a problem with invasive government as long as it is invading the realm of personal morality and behavior.

The refocus of no invasive government to the right kind of invasive government led to a split, the religious authoritarian and the small government period position. The religious authoritarians, when confronted by their hypocrisy in no longer desiring small government, to lash out with the unfounded lie that the old conservative position of small government period is amoral and uses libertarian as a pejorative.

Of course, this is not only a purposeful lie, it is a position of gross ignorance. Insisting that people be responsible for morals through church and family rather than government fiat is not an amoral position. Somehow, that seems to be an incomprehensible thought to those that believe people must be controlled for them to behave. Those who believe in people more than the government must the be discredited through attack.

But then, independence is not conducive to a theocracy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.