Recent content by Rastis McNastis

Everyone gets their rights under secularism. As long as their religion does not infringe upon the rights of others, then their religious rights will remain intact. I hope you are joking. Forcing one to remain in a relationship against his/her wishes is certainly a violation of rights...

It was meant for you, and you obviously understood it. Regardless, if you wish me to elaborate: Secularism does not equal atheism.

Secularism != atheism.

Indeed, that is all I am arguing for. Perhaps reclarification would not even be the best means, but just make it more general. Instead of "Congress shall pass no law" how about "no law shall be passed in the United States"? Thus it becomes undeniably clear that it is applicable to all levels...

I have not denied the correctness of this argument. As I have acknowledged, all precedence is on your side. However, precedence is not all. If there is any argument over whether it applies to states or not (as there clearly seems to be) then a grave risk exists. This argument is not respected...

Perhaps, but having been personally acquainted with someone using the very argument (that the first amendment does not apply to states) in order to promote banishment of homosexuals, I see a valid concern. Where there is a lack of clarity there is danger of oppression. You yourself imply that...

Though precedence is clearly on your side, do you see the possible risk of right-wing, fundamentalist judges actually granting state-supported religion based on the argument that the Constitutional amendment only applies to the federal? If such a risk exists, in what way would it be wrong to...

I can see that amendment being construed in such a way that public monies could promote religion, and as such cannot support it. While I see no harm an amendment clarifying the separation of church and state, the wording of Ron Paul's proposed amendment is itself not explicit enough to prevent...

Though the amendment is not really necessary, there is always an advantage to being more explicit. Regardless, when publicly owned space is used for religious reasons, there will most certainly be religious bias.

Though the amendment is not really necessary, there is always an advantage to being more explicit. Regardless, when publicly owned space is used for religious reasons, there will most certainly be religious bias.

Well, your argument seems to be that the only reason obvious promotions of religion should be allowed is because they are not occurring at the state level. Then it is not the religious nature that makes such promotion illegal, and the religious rights of the minority have no protection from the...

Might I interject? Perhaps this has already been brought up, for I have not yet read the entire thread. ... but is the tyranny of the majority you support much better than the supposed tyranny of the minority you decry? Even if the Constitution does not explicitly ban promotion of religion at...