[FBD]

Remember, we do live in a republic.

Plus, I think you are missing the conjunctive clause: OR, as in:
"or prohibiting..."

BTW, the Ten Commandments are on the walls of the Supreme Court. How does your stance of the 14th amendment square with that?

More from Alan Keyes, on this subject:( please read the section on parallel rights, Regarding the individuals right to bear arms):

"The practical foundation of all the rights and privileges of the individual citizen is the rights that inhere in the citizen body as a whole, the rights of the people and of the state governments.

The latter effectively embody their ability to resist abuses of national power. Such rights include the right to elect representatives, and to be governed by laws made and enforced through them.


The establishment clause of the First Amendment secures a right of the people. Until now, though, many have treated the first two clauses of the amendment as if they are one. ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This practice ignores both the linguistic and the logical contrast between the two clauses.
Where the first clause deals with a right of the people (that is, a power of government reserved to the states and to the people), the second clause deals with an action or set of actions (the free exercise of religion) that cannot be free unless..."

Parallel rights and actions

"The failure to observe this distinction leads to the absurd presumption that all government action in matters of religion is somehow inherently a contravention of individual freedom.

This can be no more or less true in matters of religion than it is in any other area in which both individuals and governments are capable of action and decision.

The government's power to arm soldiers for the community's defense does not inherently
contravene the individual's right to arm himself against personal attack.

The government's power to establish institutions of higher learning does not inherently contradict the individual's right to educate his young or join with others to start a
school.

The government's power to engage in economic enterprises (such as the postal service or electric power generation) does not inherently contradict the individual's right to private enterprise.

It is possible for government coercively to inhibit or repress any of these individual activities, but it is obvious that government action does not in and of itself constitute such coercion.

As the U.S. Constitution is written, matters of religion fall into this category of parallel individual and governmental possibilities.

Federal and state governments, in matters of religion, are forbidden to coerce or prohibit individual choice and action.

Within the states, the people are free to decide by constitutional majority the nature and extent of the state's expression of religious belief.

This leaves individuals free to make their own choices with respect to religion, but it also secures the right of the people of the states to live under a government that reflects their religious inclination.

As in all matters subject to the decision of the people, the choice of the people is not the choice of all, but of the majority, as constitutionally determined, in conformity with the principles of republican government.

(Which the U.S. Constitution requires the people of each state to respect).

Subverting the wisdom of the Founders:

The Constitution reflects the view that the choice with respect to governmental expressions of religious belief must respect the will of the majority. Unless, in matters that should be determined by the people, the will of the majority be consulted, there is no consent and therefore no legitimacy, in government.

Though it may be argued that matters of religion ought to be left entirely to individuals for decision, this has the effect of establishing in the public realm a regime of indifference to religion. Thus, a choice of establishment is inevitable, and the only question is whether the choice will be made by the will of the people or not.

The U.S. Constitution, being wholly republican, decides this question in favor of the people, but in light of the pluralism of religious opinions among the people, forbids any attempt to discern the will of the people in the nation as a whole.

By the First and 10th Amendments, the Constitution reserves to the states, they deprive the nation of this prudent and logically balanced approach to the issue of religious establishment.

Whether through carelessness or an artful effort to deceive, they ignore the distinction between the individual right to free exercise of religion and the right of the people to decide their government's religious stance. They have, in consequence, usurped this right of the people, substituting for the republican approach adopted by the Constitution an oligarchic approach that reserves to a handful of un-elected individuals the power to impose on the entire nation a uniform stance on religion at every level of government.

The right to decide the issue of establishment is a fundamental right of the people. It is also among the most likely to cause bitter and passionate dissension when the religious conscience of the people is violated or suppressed. That may explain why it is the very first right secured from federal violation in the Bill of Rights.

When they take this right from the people, the federal judges and justices depart from the
republican form of government. They impose, in religious matters, an oligarchic regime upon the states. They therefore violate, in letter and spirit, Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.
This section, [Article IV, Section 4 ] declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government . . ."

[FBD]

"It is ludicrous to see a major political figure like Keyes claim that states are free violate our individual rights. -- I'd like to see him defend the CA assault weapon prohibition on this basis, for instance..

I wanted to high-light this post, to point out the relevant areas, addressing your comments above:

---

'Parallel Rights and Actions
(by Alan Keyes):

"The failure to observe this distinction leads to the absurd presumption that all government action in matters of religion is somehow inherently a contravention of individual freedom.

This can be no more or less true in matters of religion than it is in any other area in which both individuals and governments are capable of action and decision.

The government's power to arm soldiers for the community's defense does not inherently contravene the individual's right to arm himself against personal attack.

The government's power to establish institutions of higher learning does not inherently contradict the individual's right to educate his young or join with others to start a school.

The government's power to engage in economic enterprises (such as the postal service or electric power generation) does not inherently contradict the individual's right to private enterprise.

It is possible for government coercively to inhibit or repress any of these individual activities, but it is obvious that government action does not in and of itself constitute such coercion.

As the U.S. Constitution is written, matters of religion fall into this category of parallel individual and governmental possibilities.

Federal and state governments, in matters of religion, are forbidden to coerce or prohibit individual choice and action.

However:[Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution]:
Within the states, the people are free to decide by constitutional majority the nature and extent of the state's expression of religious belief.

This leaves individuals free to make their own choices with respect to religion, but it also secures the right of the people of the states to live under a government that reflects their religious inclination."

[tpaine]

It is ludicrous to see a major political figure like Keyes claim that states are free violate our individual rights. -- I'd like to see him defend the CA assault weapon prohibition on this basis, for instance..

Remember, we do live in a republic. Plus, I think you are missing the conjunctive clause: OR, as in: "or prohibiting..."

Do you have a point in making those two comments?

BTW, the Ten Commandments are on the walls of the Supreme Court. How does your stance of the 14th amendment square with that?

How does the 14th prohibit USSC wall decorations? -- I don't think it does..

More from Alan Keyes, on this subject: please read the section on parallel rights, Regarding the individuals right to bear arms:

[Keyes writes]
Parallel rights and actions
"The failure to observe this distinction leads to the absurd presumption that all government action in matters of religion is somehow inherently a contravention of individual freedom.
This can be no more or less true in matters of religion than it is in any other area in which both individuals and governments are capable of action and decision.
The government's power to arm soldiers for the community's defense does not inherently contravene the individual's right to arm himself against personal attack.
The government's power to establish institutions of higher learning does not inherently contradict the individual's right to educate his young or join with others to start a school.
The government's power to engage in economic enterprises (such as the postal service or electric power generation) does not inherently contradict the individual's right to private enterprise.
It is possible for government coercively to inhibit or repress any of these individual activities, but it is obvious that government action does not in and of itself constitute such coercion.

No one has ever said it has.. --- In the case of these activities...
State religious activities are not the same.

As the U.S. Constitution is written, matters of religion fall into this category of parallel individual and governmental possibilities.

Not true. Goverment sponsored religions are coersive by their nature.

Federal and state governments, in matters of religion, are forbidden to coerce or prohibit individual choice and action.
Within the states, the people are free to decide by constitutional majority the nature and extent of the state's expression of religious belief.

Contradictory reasoning. >BR>This majority "expression" would be coersive on its face.

This leaves individuals free to make their own choices with respect to religion, but it also secures the right of the people of the states to live under a government that reflects their religious inclination. As in all matters subject to the decision of the people, the choice of the people is not the choice of all, but of the majority, as constitutionally determined, in conformity with the principles of republican government.

Illogical. The majority is violating the choice of ALL, by choosing a state religion repugnant to some.
It's a coersive 'choice' on Keyes own terms.
The man has slipped a mental cog in his religious zeal, imo.