[extropy-chat] Constitution Restoration Act will effectively transform the United States...

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The first amendment states:"Congress shall make no
> law respecting an
> establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
> exercise thereof.."
> 
> This only means that congress shall not endorse,
> subsidize, or
> prohibiting the right of any person to exercise the
> religion of their
> choice and/or definition.

Including forcing other people to exercise the same
religion.  A Buddhist or a Muslim, for instance, would
not have to acknowledge the Christian God.  This
legislation would set up situations where they would
have to, for instance by requiring them to argue for
their rights in court from a Christian perspective or
risk the judge saying they have no rights.  (Any judge
who took issue with that could be impeached for doing
so.)

> As numerous scholars have elucidated over the years,
> the Decl of Ind
> and the Constitution are inseparable and
> interdependent documents, as
> each bolsters the cause of the other.

They are separable: the DoI isn't the law, but the
Constitution is.

> > Those who refer to "God" in this manner often
> don't
> > care for those who promote "Natural Law".  And if
> you
> > object, what could you do?  Your Natural Law has
> no
> > place in the eyes of their God - emphasis on
> "their".
> 
> On the contrary. Whether they believe in my
> interpretation of reality
> is immaterial, so long as we all respect the idea
> that individual
> liberties are not granted by mere men, they
> originate in our natures.

But which liberties?  The set of liberties that you
believe Nature gives you is different from the set of
liberties certain priests believe God gives you.  Who
is to say which prevails?  This is why we have laws in
the first place: to spell out which liberties are, in
fact, in effect.  These laws may justify themselves as
a clarification of the rights granted to us by Nature,
but the fact remains that reasonable people have
disagreed enough over these rights to require laws.

(Example: I believe that I should be free to voice
support for whichever candidate I wish to handle the
administrative duties of the government.  Some others
may believe that I should only be free to voice
support for the candidates supported by the current
government, since to support anyone else would be to
lend support to our enemies who do not agree that our
government is doing God's will under His direct
inspiration - which means that any action of our
government is unquestionably the correct action - and
obviously God never intended to allow me to support an
enemy unless I myself was an enemy.)