Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <1128041383.332507.148880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> writes:

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <1128039425.976591.159110@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> writes:

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <1Z6dnc6q0oS8yKHeRVn-qA@ez2.net> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> writes:

"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:dhhhc3$391$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> writes:

<Knickkkers@Hang-up.com> wrote in message
news:ghgoj1h5q53gup2399301fspldp7qjb2em@4ax.com...

On 29 Sep 2005 10:12:04 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

(Please don't get me wrong about the women's
liberation movement. I think the movement brought about some needed
changes.)

So, is it your position that you get to decide when, or why changes
are necessary?

If you live in a state that is decidedly fundamentalist oriented (such
as the bible belt), do you suppose women would get as fair a shake as
those living in---say New York?

And if you say that "states" should decide, why would anyone accept
the idea that a women in a retarded geographical venue be accorded
LESS rights than one how lived a few hundred miles north?

You missed the part about the same law applying equally to all citizens.

That's right. The good old fourteenth amendment.

And if you've been paying attention, you will have noticed that
Fred does not regard the 14th amendment in exactly the
same way that everyone else involved here does.

Unless I've missed something, I see that Fred says that people deserve equal
rights, but that states and localities can engage in religious speech, maybe
even promote religion. He seems to argue that only the Feds can not pass
laws with respect to religion, but that the States are free to pass them.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that people be treated in a disparate
manner. Indeed, he seems to be saying that if the States are prohibited from
religious speech, it is because of the 14th Amendment, not any of the
others. It appears to me that he is saying that the 10th specifically gives
States the RIGHT to endorse religion, because the Feds are specifically
prohibited, and stuff that is not up to the feds is left up to the states.

But, I don't need to sit here and explain Fred, he seems to be able to do a
pretty good job of doing that himself.

I think you have it right.

And if Utah could proclaim Mormon as being the Official State
Religion, and give it financial and zoning breaks it would
deny to Baptists, then I would argue that this is in fact not
an example of the equal treatment before the law.

You might understand the 14th Amendment, but you're not thinking the
14th Amendment. My complements to your brainwasher.

The 14th Amendment would prohibit financial and zoning breaks on the
basis of religious beliefs. However, Utah could officially recognize
Joseph Smith's birthday, for example. Not to be disrespectful, but
non-Mormon Utah residents could simply ignore the day, not that
non-Mormons wouldn't mind taking a day off from work and school too.
This is all hypothetical of course.

And absent the 14th, there is nothing in the Constitution,
if "strictly constructed", to prohibit a Utah law designating
being a Quaker as a capital offense, as was once the case in
the colony of Massachusetts (Baptists were treated only
marginally better)


-- cary

Yes, although I don't believe that the Reynold's opinion referenced
your specific example, the Reynolds opinion mentioned some less extreme
abuses of power with respect to the colonies.

Regardless, the 14th Amendment isn't going anywhere so what's your
point about the Quaker example?

To illustrate, by an absurdly extreme example, why I think that
the fact that "the 14th Amendment isn't going anywhere", nor
does the current interpretation of it seem likely to change
soon, to be two very Good Ideas indeed.


-- cary

You are evidently a brainwashed "prisoner" of conscious with respect to
the separationist lies about the establishment clause. The
establishment clause is your filthy security blanket which you believe
protects you from bully pulpit preachers and you're not about to let
anybody pull it away from you.