In another thread, Hangdawg writes:
Froggie writes:
Except for the fact that the Bill of Rights applies at all levels of government.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This statement is only talking about congress passing laws.
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.