Replies

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.

" The majority is violating the choice of ALL, by choosing a state religion repugnant to some."

You call the posting of the Ten Commandments choosing a state religion?

That's what Keyes was addressing in this speech.

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

Well good, we are in agreement, because that's why Judge Roy Moore was kicked off the bench. For a marble decoration, no differant from the one at the Supreme Court.

Look, neither yours, nor my rights are violated by the Pledge of Allegiance -"One nation, under God" line, any more than they are they violated by the posting of the Ten Commandments, whether that be in the courtroom of Alabama, or on the walls of the Supreme Court.

" Goverment sponsored religions are coersive by their nature."

Yes, like in Sweden, where the Lutheran Church is sponsored and paid for by the state. Name anything similar here in this case of Judge Roy Moore. You can't, because that's not what Keyes is talking about.

A generic referance to God does not violate your civil liberties in any way, to either believe or not believe, worship or not worship any god you choose.

"Illogical. The majority is violating the choice of ALL, by choosing a state religion repugnant to some."

Again. You cannot name or cite any particular religion here, because it doesn't apply to this case. Unless you believe the acknowlegment of God somehow is repressing or coercing you.

Better get down to the US Capitol building,and tell them to stop opening sessions with a prayer! Oh, and tell the Supreme Court as well...

Benjamin Franklin speech:

"MR. PRESIDENT,

"The small Progress we have made, after 4 or 5 Weeks' close Attendance and continual Reasonings with each other, our different Sentiments on almost every Question, several of the last producing as many Noes as Ayes, is, methinks, a melancholy Proof of the Imperfection of the Human Understanding.

We indeed seem to feel our own want of political Wisdom, since we have been running all about in Search of it. We have gone back to ancient History for Models of Government, and examin'd the different Forms of those Republics, which, having been originally form'd with the Seeds of their own Dissolution, now no longer exist; and we have view'd modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our Circumstances.

"In this Situation of this Assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark to find Political Truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our Understandings?

In the Beginning of the Contest with Britain, when we were sensible of Danger, we had daily Prayers in this Room for the Divine Protection. Our Prayers, Sir, were heard; -- and they were graciously answered.

All of us, who were engag'd in the Struggle, must have observed frequent Instances of a superintending Providence in our Favour. To that kind Providence we owe this happy Opportunity of Consulting in Peace on the Means of establishing our future national Felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need its assistance?

I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth, that GOD governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe, that, without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little, partial, local Interests, our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and a Bye-word down to future Ages. And, what is worse, Mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate Instance, despair of establishing Government by human Wisdom, and leave it to Chance, War, and Conquest.

"I therefore beg leave to move,
That henceforth Prayers, imploring the Assistance of Heaven and its Blessing on our Deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to Business; and that one or more of the Clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that Service." -- Benjamin Franklin-
(speech at the Constitutional Convention, 28 June 1787 )