[Lindykim]

You've still not responded to the question I asked you in post #44.
So how about it?

"Your reasoning is flawed. It implies the possibility that our gov't can function as a morals neutral entity. If so, then tell me what guides the reasoning of this morally 'neutral' entity?"


Tell us the source of the 'morality' our morals neutral gov't should use. Or are you one of those who believe it's possible to make morals-neutral judgements? And if so, then give me an example of this by telling me what your reasoning is in regards to abortion.

[Long Cut]

"tell me what guides the reasoning of this morally 'neutral' entity?" "

The Constitution, plus common sense and reasoned thought?

We once again come to that old discussion of "morals". Whose? When? Based on what?

I assert that the government has no business making people's morals for them. The government has the responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens, defend them from external attack, and otherwise "ensure the blessings of Liberty". Laws, therefore based on common sense (murder, stopping at a stop sign) and the idea of protection of those rights are entirely appropriate. Those seeking to regulate what a person does to HIMSELF (or to his "soul") are not, if he is doing nothing to harm another. In fact, they come uncomfortably close to tyranny.

As for abortion, leave it for another thread. With someone else playing me.

[Long Cut]

BTW, what does this perpetual discussion of "morals" have to do with whether or not it is advisable for the government to regulate religion, ban some of them, elevate others etc. in full violation of the Constitution?

Christianity is the majority religion in America today. Why can't you leave it at that? Why this urge to attack the minority ones, even to the point of demanding that they "respect" Christianity above all others, or even advocating the banning of some of them?

This seems to be a strictly Constitutional question. I see not where "morals" come in, save as a means of circular argument.