What if there was no Selective Incorporation?

Before the conclusion of Gigallow vs. New York (or was it another case?), the Bill of Rights was thought to not apply to local governments. Supreme Justices decided to selectively incorporate most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment, making them apply to all levels of government in this country.To me, Hangdawg's statement is an indication of belief-driven-theology rather than evidence-driven-theology.Us objective thinkers would like to think that the evidence guide or judgements, not our preconceived worldview.I see the implication of the first and 14th amendments as a human rights issue. For example, as much as I'd like to see religion banned in this country (yes, I'm a horrible person), I would never support a political movement to do so not because of the Bill of Rights but because of the human rights issue that is involved.My question is mainly for the other side of the political spectrum here (you know who you are). What if there was no Selective Incorporation? Would you support a christian theocracy on the state level? Scratch that, would you support a political movement that wants mandatory prayer, to the Judeo-christian god, in public places?Note: Hangdawg's statement that I quoted above would seem to say yes in this case.

To answer your question, Admin_______, whereever is fine.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I'm not a lawyer, so all my arguments here are more or less theoretical than practical, BUT...I think every situation where one half of the separation clause is going to be used, we must also look at the other. IOW, "congress shall make no law respecting..." may be used to try to take prayer away from a public school football game, but then you are violating the second half, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". As far as the hindu family in the crowd, I disagree that their being offended by a prayer is the same as having their right of religion taken away. No. MANDATORY is what draws the line. If you have a cross or a Buddha in on the courtyard, you are not mandating that anyone worship it. If you have prayer at your council meeting or school games, or whatnot, you are not mandating that everyone pray. There is a difference.

Don't you understand that while you are not mandating that everyone pray, you are mandating that everyone give respect to your symbols and practices, while actively denying them that same respect until they get enough people to overrule you?Indeed you are mandating that they give respect to your symbols and practices at times and places where they are supposed to be considered equal with you as their money and service have gone to make those public places exist.You can say that no one has to respect the symbols and practices, and are free to ignore them, but that mandates that they have to expend energy to ignore your symbols and practices, including the ones that are overtly offensive to them. And they are certainly not free to criticize or act against the offensive symbols and practices.Nor are they able to simply add their own symbols or practices to yours. They are mandated to instead exhibit their symbols and practices privately so as not to offend YOU by making them seem equal through free placement... until they'd get a majority.Remember, this is coming from a guy that has no problems with prayers at football games.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Point taken. I realize it is a complicated issue, and I'm really not prepared to debate it from a legal standpoint.

So, why is it necessary to ask God to bless, watch over, safeguard, or otherwise participate or observe a sporting event, civic/political function, or secular educational process in the first damned place?Isn't humankind capable of conducting human activities without supernatural assistance or interference?What the hell is so damned impossible or important about scoring one more point than the other team, funding a sewer treatment facility, or graduating a bunch of substandardly educated nitwits that requires the participation of a deity?

Because it makes us feel good, no other reason.

So why don't we simply have a common masturbation session instead?

Takes too long, and do we really want to see grandpa spanking his monkey?

... better than being bored to tears by some long, drawn-out benediction.

I disagree.At least you can sleep through the benediction.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

I'm willing to accept this answer, but it does seem you are prepared to advance your theories from a legal standpoint (even if caveated) and do argue that your position is correct and others are wrong.I hope this means that until you actually have a case, you will support the side of fully separating church and state, or stay out of the argument altogether?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No.Would I support a government that believes in the creator?
YES! Notice the word creator in there. No, nor would I support a law forbidding it.