Replies

“I also said that a local community (i.e. not the federal government which you don't seem to understand or just ignore because it does not fit your world view) should be allowed to make it's own decision on whether it wants to have a manger scene or Christmas tree displayed at it's local municipal building. It's called federalism.”

Your argument seems to make a distinction that doesn't exist between actions of the federal government and the state government that would tend to restrict our God given rights.

If it is an Unconstitutional respecting of the establishment of religion for the Federal government to recognize particular religions and not others, it is equally Unconstitutional for the State governments to do the same.

You can (and seem to be) arguing that putting up a manger is not respecting the establishment of religion. I agree, but respectfully submit that it is not a legitimate function of government under its limited and enumerated powers (and thus should not be done).

But to argue that the State is not equally obligated to recognize those rights as the Federal government is in error.

"If it is an Unconstitutional respecting of the establishment of religion for the Federal government to recognize particular religions and not others, it is equally Unconstitutional for the State governments to do the same."

Again, I refer you to the numerous examples that I have given of our founders in writings and action that say it is Constitutional for a state to establish religion but not the federal government. Those are not my sentiments, but our founders. I would not choose to live in a state that had a state mandated religion. Eventually, the people of the states that did have a state mandated religion (Conneticut and Mass) caved in and repealed this. But the force of the federal government did not cause this, it was their own people coming to that conclusion that caused this.

The individual liberty outlined in the Constitution in regards to worship is the freedom of each individual to worship as they choose, not the establishment part. Now, the court in the last 20 years has said the establishment of religion part applies to all states, but that goes against what our founders said. Personally, I agree with the founders over David Souter. The same guy who voted for New Loundon over Suzette Kelo...

"You can (and seem to be) arguing that putting up a manger is not respecting the establishment of religion. I agree, but respectfully submit that it is not a legitimate function of government under its limited and enumerated powers"

We agree on one thing, lets look at the second part of this. It is your opinion whether a local government should do this, however that community should be left to decide what is or is not a legitimate role for their local government to be a part of. I disagree with a lot of laws and ordinances in places like Berkley California (such as their "Green" ordinances and living wage ordinances), however it does not violate anyone's individual liberties so who am I to tell Berkley what they should do? It should be up to the residences of Berkley. If they restrict peoples personal God given right of self defense with ridiculous firearms laws (as they do in Berkley and the rest of Cali) then it is my business. See the difference here?