Replies

The speration of church and state nonsense that is so often brought up by those opposed to religion in government and public right to expression was meant to keep the government FROM imposing one religion standard on people NOT from preventing the right to freedom of expression. There have been major cases on this topic, and it has been found that relgion IN government and freedom OF people's right to expression do NOT violate the constitition

Seperation does NOT mean abandonment by government altogether it simply means government can not force their religious beliefs on anyone ever again, like they did in England. A public display on governmental property is NOT forcing ANYONE to beleive one way or another, and the government has EVERY right, as do our citizens, to express their beliefs- contrary to what the ACLU deceitfully tells you.

So let me break down your argument:

You have the right(?) to tell the government to coerse my wealth from me in order to build a public display depicting symbols from your religion?

BTW: what is the meaning of a right to you? Just to be fair here's where I'm coming from.

"A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries); a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action--which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a 'right' pertains only to action--specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive--of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights--and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values." [Ayn Rand "Man's Rights," Virtue of Selfishness, 124; pb 93.]"