“Which is what I said — illustrating that there are alienable rights with legal rights. (IE The existence of alienable rights.)”
Then, in what freakish reality is the right to choose to worship God in the way you choose, without interference by the state, NOT an inalienable right?
>> “Which is what I said — illustrating that there are alienable rights with legal rights. (IE The existence of alienable rights.)”
>
> Then, in what freakish reality is the right to choose to worship God in the way you choose, without interference by the state, NOT an inalienable right?
Um, you seem to be under some delusion as to what the Constitution says: it says that *congress* cannot establish a religion. If the 14th amendment means that the _states_ cannot pass such law, then that is to assert that, via “the magic of incorporation”, the Supreme Court can alter the actual text of the Constitution — precisely because the prohibition is to “congress” and not “the legislature.”
As to the States themselves, most can’t do what’s proposed because they acknowledge the right of Religion as unalienable [human] rights within their own Constitutions.