[lugsoul]

"And so what you can do on the basis of materialist, secular belief you *cant* do on the basis of a monotheistic religious belief? Why? Why is one motivation held to a different standard? "

"What if Congress was bribed by burqua manufacturers to pass the law, with NO religious intent at all. Does it suddenly make it *okay*, just because the intent was secular?"

It doesn't make it "okay" but it is not unconstitutional. The simple reason is that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the imposition of a uniform code of SECULAR beliefs. It does, however, prohibit the establishment of religion. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Founders.

[WOSG]

"It doesn't make it "okay" but it is not unconstitutional. The simple reason is that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the imposition of a uniform code of SECULAR beliefs. It does, however, prohibit the establishment of religion. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Founders. "

Again, you express the absurd conclusion that law could be deemed unconstitutional or constitutional based solely on the state of mind of the legislators at the time of enactment. And how pray tell will you read their minds?

Either the *text* of the state law violates Constitution, or it does not. So again - Burkhas - in or out? Mind reading at this extreme level is flawed Constitutional jurisprudence.

I have no bone to pick with the founders, they are on my side. My bone is solely with bad constitutional interpretation of the past 30 years and the animus against Free Excercise of Religion in Federal courts.


"The simple reason is that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the imposition of a uniform code of SECULAR beliefs. "

The ACLU would love you - but NOTE - the 1st Amendment free speech etc. clause protects us from imposition of *any* beliefs, secular included!!