Replies

You are wrong on both points:

1. We are not promoting religion. That has been debunked so cleanly that only someone with a religious axe to grind can still throw it out there.

Cite one time the government required someone to be christian to do something. If Judge Moore is sooooo scary it should be easy to find the instance when he forced some one to accept his religion.

Sorry, walking past a monument doesn't do that. I've walked past statues of Budda but I didn't become a Buddist.

If the government was going to establish a religion they would have done it when christianity was far more accepted than today. Say in the early 1800's.

This argument is a straw man.

2. It is idiocy to think that less state power means more freedom. The Founders surely didn't think so thats why the states are a check on fed power per the 10th Amendment. I thought libertarians considered the Founders important.

The reason we have states is because they are closer to the people. It is far easier to influence state govertment than the federal. Therefore, it is far easier to hold them accountable.

I see the state reps and senators all the time. It's a first name basis. And I have attacked one mercilessly. State officals can't hide and can be held to account more easily.

Not so with the feds. Federal officals take months to even reply with a form letter to your correspondence. They have such power it takes million of dollars to defeat them at the pools. The difference is obvious.

And FEDERAL JUDGES! JUDGES are nearly invincible! A corrupt judge or court is almost invincible. It is extremely hard to them to account in any realistic way.

IF you do not like your state government you can move. There are some states I will not even visit. Can't do that with the feds!

So you are wrong on both counts.

Amen!

The 1st admendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Religion as defined by Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary: 1) The service and worship of God or the supernatural, 2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance, 3) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices; 4) a cause, principle, or system of belief held to with ardor and faith

Congress as defined by Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary: The supreme legislative body of a nation and especially of a republic.

So for the literal meaning challenged the 1st Admendment really reads thusly: The supreme legislative body of this nation shall make no law respecting an establishment of 1) The service and worship of God or the supernatural, 2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance, 3) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices; 4) a cause, principle, or system of belief held to with ardor and faith, or prohibiting the free exercise of 1) The service and worship of God or the supernatural, 2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance, 3) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices; 4) a cause, principle, or system of belief held to with ardor and faith; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So who's not following the rule of law? It appears Myron Thompson and the ACLU are not following the rule of law.

Claim: "We are not promoting religion."

Argument: It is not possible for the government to promote religion unless "the government required someone to be christian to do something."

That's a howler.

Coca Cola and General Motors manage to promote soft drinks and light trucks without requiring anyone to purchase them.

"If the government was going to establish a religion ..."

Note that you inserted "a" between "establish" and "religion". Where did the indefinite article come from?

Lurkers are invited to read post #117

Claim: "It is idiocy to think that less state power means more freedom."

Argument: "The reason we have states is because they are closer to the people. It is far easier to influence state govertment than the federal. Therefore, it is far easier to hold them accountable."

Non sequitur.

If the issue were one about the _distribution_ of powers between the federal and state government, this would be a relevant point.

But _distribution_ of powers is not the issue.

You're confusing two different sorts of questions, ie

(a) If government should have the power to promote religion, should that power be vested in the State of Alabama rather than the federal government?

and

(b) If neither the federal nor the state government has the power to promote religion, does federal enforcement of that restriction restrict individual liberty?

You're making an argument for a "Yes" answer to question (a), on the assumption I'm arguing for a "No" answer to that same question.

You've misunderstood the point.

I'm making an argument for a "No" answer to question (b). If you have a (non-idiotic) argument for a "Yes" answer to question (b), let's hear it.

"IF you do not like your state government you can move. [...] Can't do that with the feds!"

Really? I thought the ability to move to another country was presupposed by the "Love it or leave it" slogan many conservatives cite when someone expresses dissatisfaction with the federal government.

BTW: You might be interested to know that the ACLU is the organization which successfully fought for the right to move freely from state to state ;-)

God Bless the ACLU.