VarlosZ wrote:
I wish I could say the same for the 2nd Amendment. (Grumble grumble)
**
And even if we look to 1789 (and you are aware, I assume, that many people who put a lot of weight into “the original intent of the framers” are in full agreement that all of the rulings have been consistant with this), there is a ton of evidence that shows that Jefferson was not alone in his feelings.
I notice that you earlier write off he as “just a seperatist,” and then pull in close the people you want to use as a source. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.
And ultimately, since the courts always have ruled that SOCAS is a valid interpretation of what the original framers wanted, you are decidedly in the minority on both counts.
**
Well, that is apples and oranges.
Next thing you’re going to say that laws which protect kids from the religious beliefs of their parents because the parents do not belive in blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses), medicical treatment of any kind (Christian Science) or put poisonous snakes in their kids’ hands!
Not that I am equating peyote consumption with this, but you are totally mixing up your precedents here, and it was established that religious freedoms are not allowed to get in the way of other rights or go contrary with established laws.
Yer pal,
Satan
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, three weeks, two days, 16 hours, 47 minutes and 1 second.
4587 cigarettes not smoked, saving $573.50.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 22 hours, 15 minutes.
“Satan is not an unattractive person.”*-Drain Bead (Thanks for the ringing endoresement, honey!)
Just a little story to illustrate how absurd Alan Keyes’ comment was.
I grew up in an Islamic country (well, Turkey, which isn’t that Islamic, but that’s what the people around me believed in for the most part) and was surrounded by people who’s religion was different from mine. Did this pressure me? No, of course not. I was a visitor to this country, and knew I came from a place where things were different, and that I would return to this country. This is a completely different situation from that of a Jewish, Muslim, atheist, or other kid in an american public school being told he is not a true American because of his “wierd” beliefs.
jahn wrote:
Which I find really interesting, because during the alcohol Prohibition period imposed by the 18th Amendment, Christian churches were allowed to use real wine in their communion ceremonies.
**
No, what courts have done is ruled that SOCAS is a valid interpretation of what the First Amendment means today. (I also don’t want to bicker about the fact that a strict SOCAS has consistently been rejected by the Court. If I did, I’d say that the Supreme Court has held that “The First Amendment does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other–hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; ‘so help me God’ in our courtroom oaths–these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.” But I won’t 
).
The facts remain uncontroverted: (1) Jefferson had a separationist view described in his Danbury Baptists letter. (2) Separationists attempted to get their view ratified in the First Amendment. (Early drafts read “Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience,” and “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”) (3) These efforts failed.
(4) Jefferson himself understood that his view was not the one generally held by the government when he wrote in 1802 about the Danbury Baptist letter: “It furnishes an occasion, too, which I have long wished to find, of saying why I do not proclaim fastings and thanksgivings, as my predecessors did.”
Despite all of the above, the Supreme Court ignored all other historical evidence to the contrary, and held that the Danbury Baptist letter encompassed the entirety of the original intent of the Framers. This was plainly wrong. The saying that “the Court is not final because it’s right, it is right because it is final” seems particularly appropriate here.
Actually, I simply mentioned Reynolds for the fact that the Supreme Court can get things wrong. And if they can screw it up in the case of polygamy (totally aimed at supressing the Mormon faith), they can screw it up for SOCAS.
Yours,
jahn
**
As I have shown, at worst (to my argument) the Courts have been ruling in the manner that is has been for over 150 years now. And in a country which is 225 years old or so, that is a significant time for a presidence to be set don’t you think?
**
And I suppose he was the only person who thought as he did, right?
**
This is quite argumentative, and doesn’t prove a point either way since I’m sure I could say that the other side had ideas that they wanted but didn’t get in either.
This does nothing for your point, as it forces you to admit that I could make the same point about your side.
Please don’t turn compromise into “your side failed,” because by the nature of the political process, so did yours. That’s why it’s a COMPROMISE.
**
I don’t believe that you can use this as a “fact,” since the motivations for his letter cannot be anything “factual,” only the letter’s words itself, unless you plan on bringing Tom back for a spell.
The fact is he wrote that letter, and those words were enough to get several generations of several branches of government to say that we have a wall of separation between church and state. THAT is a fact.
Seems to me that you are so worried about how Jefferson’s views have way too much importance in the minds of SOCAS advocates, but you are prepared to say that several generations of all three branches of the government have got it wrong as well? Sorry, but I think that is inconsistant.
**
What evidence might this be, please? It mustn’t be so convincing that for 125 years we have yet to take it into account.
**
For 125 years…
Hey, a better example of the Court getting something wrong was DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) which said slavery was nifty! But, I don’t need to tell you that different courts corrected this in a relatively timely fashion.
The court does make mistakes, and they are corrected.
SOCAS has not been corrected. You think maybe that’s because it’s not a mistake?
Yer pal,
Satan
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, three weeks, two days, 19 hours, 37 minutes and 7 seconds.
4592 cigarettes not smoked, saving $574.09.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 22 hours, 40 minutes.
“Satan is not an unattractive person.”*-Drain Bead (Thanks for the ringing endoresement, honey!)
I’m glad that we agree on the issue that prompted my initial post (that the original intent of the First Amendment was a compromise, something in between Jefferson’s separationism and what you incorrectly-attribute-to-be-my-position of endorsement of religion), and we only disagree as to issues irrelevant to that discussion (the appropriateness of modern interpretation).
Yep.
Nope.
I’m not quite sure why you attribute what I’ll label the “endorsers of religion” to being “my side”. My position actually lies somewhere around the compromise of the First Amendment, as actually originally adopted. But you do seem to understand that it was a compromise:
My point exactly. Hurrah. The First Amendment was not Jefferson’s Wall of Separation (nor was it what the “endorsers” wanted). It was a compromise that was subsequently ignored when the Supreme Court chose Jefferson’s side in 1878 and 1947.
The rest of the post deals with the question of what the modern interpretation of the Establishment Clause should be, a discussion probably best left to another thread, for clarity’s sake. But since you asked this final question:
Actually, the Court has gone most of the way in correcting it this year, in it’s Mitchell v. Helms decision, basically stating that vouchers used at religious schools would be found constitutional under the Establishment Clause. Funding for parochial schools has been the biggest issue in Establishment Clause law. Vouchers have been vociferously opposed by separationists, and may have been by Jefferson. Probably worth a new thread if you want to continue this…
Jahn,
The source you site, Joseph Story, is hardly objective in this matter. His interpretation of the original intent of the first amendment was surely tainted, in some way, by his belief that, “at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects.” It’s also worth noting that you omitted from the section you quoted an interesting line or two:
[sarcasm]I wonder why you would cut that section out.[/sarcasm]
However, even if we were to take his interpretation as literal truth, it still would not conflict with anything I have said.
I said only that the first amendment intitially applied to the only part of government it had authority over: the national. There isn’t an amendment that applies to the states until the 14th.
That brings us to the crux of the issue (which you have inexplicably avoided to this point). What the scope of the first amendment was originally intended to be, and even why it was placed into being, is completely irrelevant in light of the 14th amendment, which extended the protections of the Bill of Rights (albeit in piecemeal fashion) to the state governments. The 14th Amendment is just as much a part of the constitution as the 1st amendment or the 1st article. As a whole document then, amendments and all, the constitution dictates that no government – local, state, or federal – may establish religion. From that point on, the matter is left open to interpretation. However, logic dictates that government does establish religion when it recites prayer to school-children. That prayer (or that nativity scene, or star of David, etc.) declares that the partiular religion being sanctioned is more valid than religions not similiarly sanctioned, and more valid than the lack of religion. When government is silent on all matters such as these, religion is left to man’s conscience.
As an aside, there is no reason for you to assume that original intent is the only valid method of constitutional interpretation. Constitutional scholars from the 18th century on have maintained that the document was written in majestic yet open-ended language. A stable instrument of government can ill afford to become archaic. Was original intent even the original intent of the framers?
Running around in circles in front of my monitor with closed eyes and fingers in ears yelling “nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah”,
VarlosZ
This is simply proof that as a historical fact, the early nation did consider itself to be Christian, and recognized that fact publicly. This supports my main point that the original understanding of the First Amendment was not Jefferson’s separationism.
You said: “First of all, it is ridiculous to assert that the first amendment was an attempt to protect state-sanctioned religious bigotry.” That statement is what is false.
Yes, I have avoided it because I have only been defending my original point, that the original intent of the First Amendment is not what most believe it to be.
Actually, not only did I ever make that statement, I disagree with it. However, I do think it is part of proper interpretation, and when done, should be done honestly.
Yours,
jahn
DoctorJ said:
How so?
No of course I wouldn’t like it. But if the leaders of that government believe those statements were true and decided to post those signs on the wall, it would be their right. It would be my right to protest and vote against them.
Satan:
Without quoting each of your examples … let me just say that religious rights go in both directions.
If a teacher is leading a class in a Christian prayer and you are an athiest or a Muslim, you have to right to not participate.
If, as you said, a teacher is leading Moslem or Wiccan prayers in school, if my fifth grader were a believer, he has the right to not participate.
I actually exercised this right myself once without even really knowing anything about all this. I was in third or fourth grade (can’t recall exactly) and our teacher was leading us in a song in which each of us individually was to sing a line that called out our zodiac sign. I refused to do it because I believe the whole zodiac/horoscope thing to be occult-oriented.
The teacher had freedom of religion to lead that song. I had freedom of religion to refuse to participate.
It goes both ways. Okay, lets say someone’s leading Christian prayers in a school and a Muslim kid gets offended. He obviously has the right to refuse to pray, but he also has the right to protest. The teacher who led the prayer, equally, has the right to lead the prayer. The school board has the right to make a decision about what to do. The people have a right to vote the school board members out of office if they disapprove of their decision.
tracer: interesting! I never knew that.
pldennison: I said that state and national leaders have freedom of religion too. You responded:
Well, the Constitution is designed to protect religious people from people with this very attitude! Just because you feel that way doesn’t mean they don’t have the right.
Regarding a nativity scene you said:
Of course it’s giving preference to one religion over another! If the individuals elected to government wish to express their freedom of religion in this way, they should be allowed to! Same for any other religion! If they want to put up a little buddha they should be allowed to.
How does this cause the government to “respect an establishment of religion” ??? Nothing is being “established” as a state or national religion. People who happen to work in government are exercising their religious rights.
Second … thank you for quoting the Jefferson passage. Note his whole point … he was fighting for religion and fighting for it’s protection FROM the states! In other words, he was essentially saying the states have no business getting into the affairs of a church. It has nothing to do with the notion that somehow people in government cannot exercise their first amendment rights!
I seriously wonder if the ACLU would sue Jefferson today over this letter. He said …
How dare he! He’s a government official and he’s proclaiming his blessings on religion. Shame on him.
By the way, yes I’m well aware of Jefferson’s beliefs.
tomndeb said:
Minority religions have freedom of religion too, and the First Amendment protects them just like anyone else. If their rights are violated, appropriate action should be taken like in any other case.
AerynSun: thank you for correcting my quote!
JoeBlank: thanks for posting the actual source of our debate!
You said:
Well please show me where you get it because I literally do not see it anywhere. It says Congress can’t make a law that respects the establishment of religion. All right, that makes sense. Then it says it can’t prohibit anyone’s free exercise of their religious beliefs. So Congress can’t pass a law that says Hinduism is the national religion, and it can’t prohibit anyone (including government officials) from exercising religious freedom.
As for the several of you who pointed out that being in a classroom minority is different from being in a different country and being a religious minority … true, good point, but you are saying that if you don’t pray the prayer that you are being told you are “less than American”. How so? If I were in a classroom and a lady up front led everyone in a Buddhist prayer, I would not participate, and I would not feel one ounce less American.
And when you went on the playground and all the Buddhists taunted you and beat you up for being weird, and told you you were going to hell because you didn’t believe in THEIR religion and told you your parents were freaks, how American would you feel?
How American would you feel lying in the hospital after they’ve removed your spleen due to the beatings, or going home to find a cross burning on your lawn or swastikas spray painted on your house?
All because you were forced to reveal your non-belief in Buddhism at school, in a government sanctioned action. Pathetic.
Good heavens–do you really think it is the legitimate business of government to assign truth to statements of religious belief, and to give them the imprimatur of government? Do you not see how this couldn’t be remotely Constitutional in this country?
Someone here is utterly unfamiliar with what constitutes “establishment” as interpreted by the courts. Someone else here also thinks rights come without responsibility, and feels a teacher would be perfectly justified in wasting time that could be spent on education by leading a class in prayer.
What is the teacher doing leading prayers, anyway? Is that what the teacher was hired for? Is this a public school? Do you understand the concept of the captive audience? Why is this teacher abusing her position, by leading prayers to an audience who is not free to leave?
If it makes you feel any better, horoscopes are bunk. The Zodiac, referring to the divisions of the sky into discrete areas that contain certain objects, is useful enough for astronomers.
Nope. Teachers leading Christian prayers in a public school is a clear Establishment Clause violation. Don’t believe me? Try it.
Um, no it isn’t. The Constitution is designed to define and limit the powers of government. Please learn some civics and history before you make statements like that.
Elected official are elected to govern, not to attend prayer meetings. Are you not aware that there are appropriate and inappropriate places to exercies one’s rights, and they come with responsibilities? Or are you one of those “anything goes” people?
Which the courts have ruled repeatedly is unconstitutional. Look it up. It’s unconstitutional for government to prefer one religion over another, or religion over nonreligion. Thus the courts have ruled, and I am inclined to agree.
:::::sigh::::: I can’t believe there is someone who doesn’t get this.
Please, please, please look up the legal literature on the Establishment Clause. Giving religion, or A religion, the official imprimatur of government, using public money, on public lands, by public servants, is a violation.
. . . using tax money, on publicly-funded property.
People in government can do whatever they want in their homes, on their time.
Becuase in that situation they are not acting ** as individuals**. They are acting as the Government of the United States.
Example from my Navy days:
It is customary on naval vessels to announce the arrival of distinguished visitors. These visitors are announced ** by title**. Hence, the Governor of Florida is announced as “Florida, arriving”, the President as “United States, arriving”. I’ve seen this applied all the way down to the mayor of a city. In that role the distinguished visitor embodies the organization he/she represents.
Back to the question, in private members of Congress can pray as much as they want, in a session of Congress, they are praying as the Congress of the United States. This is the government giving credence to religion. IMHO.
Argh. Thanks to VarlosZ for pointing out that using original intent is a controversial idea in itself. Did they originally intend to prevent wiretaps without a court order? Of course not - but the document was written to grow with the country.
Okay, so how do we implement this? What is a law “respecting an establishment of religion?” Some would interpret this to mean only laws that attempt directly to establish a church-state. However, the word “respecting” leaves open a far broader interpretation. Many interpret the clause to include laws that indicate the state is favoring one religion over another, or over non-belief. This is clearly a step in the direction of establishing a church-state, and thus is a law “respecting” establishment. As Satan pointed out, over a century of jurisprudence has developed the latter interpretation. Perhaps the founders didn’t contemplate this application of the Amendment, but that makes it no less valid.
FriendofGod wrote:
That’s just soooooo typical of what a Pisces would say. 
douglips said:
Uh … right. I’ve never once heard of anything like this happening. I was pretty religious in a non-religious school and that never happened to me in six years. I’m not saying it hasn’t happened or doesn’t happen. I’m sure it does. And like any other such situation, the rights of minority religions should be protected fiercly.
So are you saying in my hypothetical situation I should back down and compromise my beliefs? I believe I should stand up for what I believe no matter what the consequences. You will ALWAYS find yourself to be the religious minority in some place or some situation in life, even in America. If something like your, ah, extreme example actually happened to me today … I would not have backed down on my beliefs, and I would have taken legal action. No matter what your beliefs, you will find them being attacked by someone in an extreme way.
pldennison said:
I am well aware of what the courts have ruled, and I am inclined to disagree. The courts can be wrong you know. Think Dred Scott.
Your main point seems to be summed up with this quote:
I believe any government leader has the right to say, “This is my religious belief, and I believe it’s right, and I believe if more Americans believed this it would benefit their lives and cause the country to be greater than it is.”
Let’s suppose a devoted born-again Christian gets elected President (don’t anybody shudder now). What’s he or she supposed to do, ignore their beliefs? Of course not! The President leads by example. If he or she thinks living a Christian life is a good thing for people to do, he or she should live that life boldly and proudly before all the world to see without apology. If people don’t like it, well there are elections to take care of things like that!
Again, to extend my illustration, same with a Buddhist or any other religion. And what would be wrong, for example, with a Buddhist president decorating the White House with items that reflected his beliefs? It would be the President’s right! He or she has freedom of religion like anyone.
Now, people like myself would obviously try to counter the President’s message in that situation. Athiests would try to counter the message of a Christian president.
More in the next response …
You also said:
But what you don’t see is that THIS flies in the face of religous belief, and not just Christian. One of the primary beliefs of Christians is that it is our mission in life to share the gospel truth with as many people as possible. In addition to that, the Bible urges us to pray without ceasing. I pray at work about work-related problems (and get rather creative solutions many times I might add!). If I were still in school, I would pray in school.
You are putting limits on the freedom of religion. You are saying when someone can and cannot exercise their freedoms.
I can tell you honestly that if I were ever to run for any public office (which I’m not inclined to do), and if I won, I would not hesitate to pray with my staff at the beginning of the day. Why? Because it just makes common sense to ask God to help us in making decisions during the day! The decisions made are always better quality when you ask God to direct you. Now if you live in my district and think I’m wasting taxpayers money, then vote me out at the next election! It’s a free country. But it’s a free country both ways. If the community WANTS their government official to pray before they make decisions, they should have the freedom to have that if they want it.
I would also unhesitatingly vote based on my conscience, which of course would be based on my Christian beliefs. If a community wants that, they should be able to vote for someone like that! Again, it goes both ways. If a community wants, they should be able to vote for someone who is antagonistic toward God and/or athiestic (sp?).
grem0517 said:
Well all I can say is this. Lets say you’ve got a President who’s unabashadly Muslim. WITH the full force of the bully pulpit of government behind him/her, the President should have the freedom to endorse a religion. And yes I’m well aware that that is essentially the thing the courts have said is NOT the case in the past few decades, but I think they are tragically mistaken.
Now make no mistake about it. The President and no member of Congress should ever have the freedom to enforce any religious belief of any kind! EVERYone, including government officials, should have the freedom to promote and live any religion they want. Just because the President’s Islamic doesn’t mean I’m going to be! And the President shouldn’t have the power to force the issue. But he/she should have the freedom to endorse and promote.
Lets put it this way. There are company presidents who build their business based on Biblical business principles. They obviously have freedom of religion to do so. Why shouldn’t a President have freedom of religion to build the government based on Biblical governmental principles? Again, if the country doesn’t want that, vote the guy out, or vote in a Congress that will keep him/her in check!
The truth is, people always say “you can’t legislate morality” but that’s untrue. ALL laws are based on someone’s idea of morality. The question isn’t whether you can or can’t legislate it … the question is, whose morality or moral standards are going to be used? And again, that’s what elections are for. We look at the candidates, find out what they believe (or what they say they believe at least!), and elect them based on that. If they prove to be phony we vote them out!
That’s all for now. Anyway, I’m sure many of you disagree but I hope I gave you some food for thought at least.
FoG,
It seems to me like you’re mixing situations here.
I agree (depending on when and how said, see below).
I agree again! (two for two, we’re on a roll here)
–emphasis added–
Ummm, starting to disagree. What if one of your staff members didn’t want to participate? What if one of your staff members refused to be in the room? If you’re paying your staff out of your own pocket, ok. Not ok if you’re paying them with tax money. This is the difference between the acts of an individual and the acts of a government. The line can get a little fuzzy at times, but generally seems clear enough to me.
No! The person who is President can do what they wish. If the bully pulpit they’re standing behind has the Presidential Seal on it, no they can’t. That was my point. As soon as the Office is invoked, the man becomes the Office, and the Office is forbidden to endorse a religion.
Again, IMHO.
BTW, tracer, thanks for my first good laugh of the morning!
FoG said:
But the President and Congress, by the mere fact of the positions they hold, innately convey the idea of enforcement and power to any position they take.
Let me ask you this- suppose Christianity were a small minority in this country. Suppose that only 1 in every 20 people in this country were Christians. And suppose that the other 19 were Unicornists*.
You talk about “well, I’d just vote them out”, but guess what? You’re outnumbered 19-1. They’re not getting voted out, no matter how hard you work for it. Hell, most of the time you can’t even find a single candidate in an election who isn’t talking about the wonders that the Invisible Pink Unicorn has provided for them.
Would you be happy with the politicians talking constantly about the joy that the Invisible Pink Unicorn provides? Would you feel like you were really part of the community when every December you drive through streets decorated for the Unicornfest, and when every program on TV seems to be another animated special about the mystery of the Unicorn?
Would you feel bound by the laws which are based in Unicornism- that is, that the homosexuals and bi-sexuals are the truly blessed people, and that heterosexuals need to come to terms with their deviancy? Would you be happy if your tax dollars were spent on clinics to help heterosexuals be converted back to homosexuality? Would you be happy when your teenager is taught the joys and techniques of masturbation at high school? As masturbation is a major tenet of Unicornism, removing such programs from the school means removing Unicornism from schools; and since Unicornism has been the religion of every President since the Founding Fathers- who many claim created this country to be an Unicornist country- why should things be any different? And, of course, your son is taught about how YHWH was a deranged lunatic who created the Earth in order to torture its inhabitants; thankfully, the Unicorn stepped in to bring light and love to humans and protect them from the evil YHWH. After all, that’s the standard Unicorn theory on the creation of the Universe.
And how easy is life on your son? From the first time he prayed to Christ while the teacher was leading prayers to the Unicorn, he’s been a target of the other kids. After all, to children, different is disgusting. And so your child- who is too young to even comprehend what Unicornism and Christianity are- gets beaten up regularly for being different. The teacher does try to stop it, but every time she leads the children in prayers to the Unicorn, every time the children pass the hallways that has the Unicornist Commandments written upon it, it just reinforces the belief in all of the children that Unicornists are normal; anyone else is weird.
I think your problem, FoG, is that you don’t understand what it’s like to be a minority, and that you don’t understand what it’s like to be on the losing side. You’re a Christian; most people are Christian. And so most people generally follow the beliefs that you do. And most people generally believe the things you do. What the First Amendment, and the SOCAS, is about, is protecting the rights of those who don’t believe in what the majority believes, because popular opinion doesn’t mean Truth; and no one should feel that they live in a country which is hostile to them because they have a different set of beliefs.
*None of the tenets presented in the following are necessarily the tenets of Unicornism; they are presented merely as example.
sigh BECAUSE THE COMPANY IS A PRIVATE ENTITY! The President is the leader of the US, and as such, speaks for the entire US. I’m sorry, but as a Pagan, I don’t want the President endorsing Christianity. Hell, which flavor would he endorse! Protestantism? Well, then, all those Catholics are heathen idol-worshippers. I mean, on a practical level this doesn’t work. Never mind that the government endorsing a religion is EXACTLY what the First Amendment set out to prevent!
And John had a good point…you have no idea what it’s like to be a minority. Yes, I have had people taunt me in school because I refused to say the Pledge. I refused to call God MALE, for crying out loud, and I was made fun of. For an adult, this is hard to understand and deal with. For a child, it’s sheer hell. I have had friends turn away from me because of my beliefs. Imagine what they’d do with the weight of the government behind them. Suddenly I’m a traitor to what the Republic SHOULD be. shakes head Not in my lifetime, hon.
And one final thing. You CAN’T legislate morality. Every law that has tried is failing miserably. Then again, I’m one of those kooks who is for drug legalization, and legalizing prostitution.
Note: In my previous post, I meant that you can’t legislate PERSONAL morality. My bad for making it unclear.