Replies

Right. How is teaching religion in school the same as congress passing a law?

The Supreme Court has upheld that the first and fourteenth amendment are one of the liberties protected by the due-process clause in the fourteenth (and fifth) amendments. It meant that not only could Congress not enact a law respecting an establishment of religion, but neither could the State or local govt.

You might as well say that the constitution guarantees a right to privacy and therefore abortion has to be legal. I'll bet that's exactly what you believe. Are you sure you're in the right forum?

Good question I am beginning to wonder myself. I am against abortion, I am against tyranny, I am against anyone who wishes to impose their will on me or my children.

Having said that, I am against the state or local govt allowing religion to be taught in public schools. Why? Simple. I live in an area that has all sorts of religious backgrounds. If you allow the school board to teach a religion in school... it will probably NOT be the bible that is taught. I know you all mean well... but you really are going to make a mess of things if you try and turn this around.

I did not state my position clearly. What I meant was that I think the Bible should be taught in schools. It's one of the founding documents of our culture and part of an important institution in our society. Religions outside of our Judeo-Christian heritage would not be welcome in schools.

In the same vein, I oppose English as a second language, and anything else that weakens the basic institutions of our nation and society. Call me a Western chauvinist if you want. I admit it.

The Supreme Court has upheld that the first and fourteenth amendment are one of the liberties protected by the due-process clause in the fourteenth (and fifth) amendments. It meant that not only could Congress not enact a law respecting an establishment of religion, but neither could the State or local govt.

There is an interesting analogy between the Constitution and the Bible. You and liberals ( with whom you are in accord on this issue ) are like Catholics and the SCOTUS is like the Vatican. You say that the Constitution says whatever the SCOTUS says it says.

Conservatives, or reactionaries ( as they are under the present circumstances ) are like Protestants, in that they insist on reading and interpreting the Constitution by their own lights.

I side with the latter. The interpretation which says that State and local governments are restrained from action in the same way that Congress is restrained stands the meaning of the Bill of Rights on its head. It converts the federal government into a totalitarian state, which status in truth it has reached. Totalitarianism is "the concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority" i.e. the SCOTUS.

This is in fact the significance of this forum's title. It's a radical slogan that advocates the freedom of the citizenry under a republic, notwithstanding the acquiesence of yourself and others to its abolishment.