>> “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.
First, my point was not a Constitutional one, it was one of Natural Rights and I stated that I thought it was "freakish" to claim that the right to choose one's faith without state interference was an inalienable right. You claimed that it was alienable.
I will let Alexander Hamilton respond:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
While I don't completely agree with Hamilton here, your silly argument that the states have the right (I'm not talking about power here, I'm talking about the *right*) to support one religion over another (and that is exactly what taxation to support one religion over another does) certainly proves Hamilton's fears were not unfounded.