Yes, let's waste taxpayer's money to argue over something that won't benefit the taxpayers and has already been consistently decided on by federal courts for decades. Should we also waste time and money enacting slavery laws just so the federal courts can tell us again and again that they're unconstitutional? Gee golly, the voters in Alabama want slavery back! Let's just vote on it and "see what becomes of it!" What if Muslims want the Alabama legislature to meet and waste taxpayer money to debate whether verses from the Qu'ran can be posted in courtrooms? Sure! Argue away! It's not like we're in debt and have better things to spend our time and money on. Alabama citizens voting on an unconstitutional issue is how you challenge its unconstitutionality!
Wrong. If you want to challenge whether the separation of church and state should exist, then you need to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution to remove the express mention of the separation of church and state that exists in the first amendment. Enacting an amendment to the United States Constitution doesn't occur when Alabama citizens vote on something.
As far as "squirrels like me" saying anything about 2nd Amendment challenges, A) that is irrelevant to this discussion, and B) you don't have the slightest clue as to what my stance is on that, so don't create straw man arguments by pretending like you do.
First Amendment doesn't "expressly mention the separation of church and state."
While I realize that's how the SC has typically twisted the phrase regarding the "establishment of religion" I disagree with that interpretation. The SC isn't infallible. Study history. That phrase was meant to prevent the government from creating a "Church of the US" and forcing everyone to be subject to the rules of that church as had happened when the "Church of England" had been created and used to impose the personal will of Henry VIII (who only wanted a divorce). It was never intended to prevent the expression of religion. In fact, the rest of the amendment --which you ignore -- expressly prevents stifling the expression which is what is happening here.
"Separation of Church and State" does not truly exist in the way it has been implemented in the last 30+ years.
This is really a small part of a much larger argument. We have drifted so far into the protection of the whims of a minuscule minority that the rights of the majority are being trampled. Should 1000 people really be denied their right to express their faith because it makes one person uncomfortable?
We've seen it with smoking. The non-smoking minority of the 70s pushed the agenda to the point that smokers are essentially exiled now.
What about my tomato aversion. The sight of the things makes me physically ill. I hate them. Seeing them on salad bars or on people's sandwiches or plates ruins my dinner. Since I am inconvenienced shouldn't I have the right to demand that all tomatoes be removed from restaurants around the country? Why aren't my rights being considered?
116 Replies
19450 Views