The Logic of the ACLU

[dies-l]

Today the ACLU is our countries number one censor on religion. As I said they take a few token cases a year.

ACLU: Anti-Christian Liberals Union : Stop The ACLU

The ACLU is actually pretty religion neutral.

Essentially, we have a First Amendment that seeks the greatest freedom in religious life by presenting two objectives that have the potential to conflict with each other. The Free Exercise Clause gives the freedom to practice religion as each person sees fit. The Establishment Clause restricts the government from engaging in conduct of picking one religion over another. The latter is necessary to protect the former.

Additionally, the original intent of the First Amendment is that it would be a restraint on the Federal Government, but not the States. It wasn't until the post Civil War era and the passage and subsequent interpretations of the 14th Amendment that caused the First Amendment to be seen as a limitation on State and local government.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, the balance between the FEC and the EC was relatively simple: the Federal government stayed out of the business of religion. They didn't always do it very well, but it worked for the most part. With the Civil War, it became obvious that given the power to do so, some States would act so contrary to the values of our Union that it would be necessary to place greater restraints on State's rights. And, as local government is merely an extension of state government, this would retrain local government as well.

However, asking local governments to stay out of the religion business has been a stickier issue, especially given that local governments are made up of individuals who are often religious and serve people who are often religious. So, with the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine, issues like public school prayer and community sponsored nativities began to put a strain on the balance sought to be achieved by the FEC and EC.

On the one hand, to ban such things appears to many to restrict the religious freedoms of those who happen to want such things to occur. On the other hand, to allow such things appear to many to be a government establishment of religion. As a result, libertarian groups like the ACLU and conservative groups like the ACLJ and others have been arguing adamantly about where that line is drawn.

I happen to have my own opinions on the matter, and I do think that the ACLU has erred too much on the side of restricting religious freedom to avoid the appearance of endorsement or establishment. However, when one looks at their record with a decent understanding of the historical and constitutional issues at play, it is perfectly clear that they are not a "censor on religion" at all.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

So some people committed horrible crimes.

What's more important

1) Prevent similar crimes in the future
2) Satisfying our desire for revenge against them.

Pick one.

Why do I have to pick one? They both are important. Bringing criminals to justice is important. Preventing crimes are important.

Or don't you agree?

 

[mdancin4theLord]

The ACLU is actually pretty religion neutral.

Essentially, we have a First Amendment that seeks the greatest freedom in religious life by presenting two objectives that have the potential to conflict with each other. The Free Exercise Clause gives the freedom to practice religion as each person sees fit. The Establishment Clause restricts the government from engaging in conduct of picking one religion over another. The latter is necessary to protect the former.

Additionally, the original intent of the First Amendment is that it would be a restraint on the Federal Government, but not the States. It wasn't until the post Civil War era and the passage and subsequent interpretations of the 14th Amendment that caused the First Amendment to be seen as a limitation on State and local government.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, the balance between the FEC and the EC was relatively simple: the Federal government stayed out of the business of religion. They didn't always do it very well, but it worked for the most part. With the Civil War, it became obvious that given the power to do so, some States would act so contrary to the values of our Union that it would be necessary to place greater restraints on State's rights. And, as local government is merely an extension of state government, this would retrain local government as well.

However, asking local governments to stay out of the religion business has been a stickier issue, especially given that local governments are made up of individuals who are often religious and serve people who are often religious. So, with the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine, issues like public school prayer and community sponsored nativities began to put a strain on the balance sought to be achieved by the FEC and EC.

On the one hand, to ban such things appears to many to restrict the religious freedoms of those who happen to want such things to occur. On the other hand, to allow such things appear to many to be a government establishment of religion. As a result, libertarian groups like the ACLU and conservative groups like the ACLJ and others have been arguing adamantly about where that line is drawn.

I happen to have my own opinions on the matter, and I do think that the ACLU has erred too much on the side of restricting religious freedom to avoid the appearance of endorsement or establishment. However, when one looks at their record with a decent understanding of the historical and constitutional issues at play, it is perfectly clear that they are not a "censor on religion" at all.

I respectfully disagree.

They most certainly are a sensor on religion and have watchdogs planted all over the country.

One note about the Jeff Curley case. What is sad is that because of the support of the ACLU the monsters of NAMBLA today still pedal and circulate the same material that led to the brutal murder of that little boy. In fact Amazon sold this smut on its website. And the two monsters that killed him......filled their minds with NAMBLA material.
I just read that the ACLU even had the gall to ask the judge in the case to impose a gag order. Wow......defenders of free speech wanting to silence people. I thought they were defending NAMBLA on the same thing. I mean don't you think that they would want all the details and truth of the trial made public? Nope. Nothing that is that would make them look bad.

When you say they are a defender of faith in America I about want to choke. I just did some searching.....and the truth is they are working hard to expunge all signs of faith anywhere. And it starts with the Ten Commandments.
I just read an article where they threatened the National Parks Service to remove three small plaques that had bible verses on them....from a display in the Grand Canyon National Park. Wow...bothered them that bad...three little signs. Oh yea then the Boy Scouts...preventing them from keeping the lease they had at a camp in SanDiego........all over God and their position on homosexuality. Then they asked the Virginia Supreme Court to legalize cross burning on public property. They don't want kids to recite the Pledge.

Editorial: Expunging God from the Grand Canyon? - Florida Baptist Witness

Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds VA Cross-Burning Ban But Sends Law Back to State Court for Refinement | American Civil Liberties Union

I don't know who said it but....the ACLU is the KKK on the left. They force religions to justify even there right to exist. This organization will do anything to win....remember the Monkey Trial? After the schools banned evolution from being taught in schools the ACLU advertised for volunteers to get themselves arrested for teaching evolution and then offered to pay for their defense.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's really weird. It's not any less ignorant than creationism, really. I mean, you're claiming to have no more knowledge than the typical creationist.

Where do you think the theory of evolution came from? Do you think it is just a guess? Do you believe it because you trust the integrity of the prophet Darwin?

Did you really just pick it up like a religion?

I've occasionally suspected people of doing so. I've never seen anyone actually make the claim.

I feel that science supports my position more than theirs, but I realize that just because I feel that way doesn't mean that should dictate legislation or stop anyone else from expressing what they believe.

I wasn't there to witness what I believe happend the same way they weren't there witness what they believed happened. In my opinion, a belief vs. belief scenario (regardless of how much more scientific support one side has) shouldn't be decided by the ACLU or the US government...It's really none of their business. The US government's only involvement in the matter should be making sure both sides have the right to express their views without persecution. The ACLU would probably feel the same way if they actually took the verbiage of the constitution literally rather than trying to define it based on a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a baptist preacher in 1801. That's where they're getting that separation of church and state logic from. The constitution says that congress can't pass any laws favoring any particular religion, and that's it. Congress...not the post office, not the front lawn of city hall, not the elementary school principle's office, or any of the ones the ACLU seems to enjoy targeting.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Your opinion that representing NAMBLA in the Jeff Curley case is the same as defending the man that murdered him conflicts with the reality that ACLU did nothing of the sort.

They were defending an accessory to a horrible crime.

NAMBLA wasn't getting tried for murder, they were targeted for their particular involvement in the crime.

They are partially responsible for what happened. If someone joins a group and says "hey, I'm attracted to young boys" and they provide material saying "that's great, here's how you can find one you like, earn their trust, and lure them away from their parents", they're partly to blame for what happened.

If a person with schizophrenia came up to me on the street and said they want to hurt someone, and I said "well, here's a gun" and trained them how to use it, there would be no question that I'd be partially responsible for anything that might become of it. Why would we look at this any differently?

 

[mdancin4theLord]

I feel that science supports my position more than theirs, but I realize that just because I feel that way doesn't mean that should dictate legislation or stop anyone else from expressing what they believe.

I wasn't there to witness what I believe happend the same way they weren't there witness what they believed happened. In my opinion, a belief vs. belief scenario (regardless of how much more scientific support one side has) shouldn't be decided by the ACLU or the US government...It's really none of their business. The US government's only involvement in the matter should be making sure both sides have the right to express their views without persecution. The ACLU would probably feel the same way if they actually took the verbiage of the constitution literally rather than trying to define it based on a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a baptist preacher in 1801. That's where they're getting that separation of church and state logic from. The constitution says that congress can't pass any laws favoring any particular religion, and that's it. Congress...not the post office, not the front lawn of city hall, not the elementary school principle's office, or any of the ones the ACLU seems to enjoy targeting.

Great post......I agree 100%.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

They were defending an accessory to a horrible crime.

NAMBLA wasn't getting tried for murder, they were targeted for their particular involvement in the crime.

They are partially responsible for what happened. If someone joins a group and says "hey, I'm attracted to young boys" and they provide material saying "that's great, here's how you can find one you like, earn their trust, and lure them away from their parents", they're partly to blame for what happened.

If a person with schizophrenia came up to me on the street and said they want to hurt someone, and I said "well, here's a gun" and trained them how to use it, there would be no question that I'd be partially responsible for anything that might become of it. Why would we look at this any differently?

You are right once again.

Remember that rape that happened in a bar out east I think.....Jodie Foster played the girl in a movie based on the story. Anyway....there were people prosecuted and found guilty for simply standing by and doing nothing. They were accessories. NAMBLA WAS AN ACCESSORY.

 

[The Paul]

Why do I have to pick one?

Those goals are at odds with each other.

It's not intuitive and maybe it's not fair.

It's how things are, though.

So pick one.

 

[The Paul]

I feel that science supports my position more than theirs

So you feel like science supports you the same way a theist feels like Jesus supports them? Or you actually have at least some grasp of the science?

 

[sandwiches]

I feel that science supports my position more than theirs, but I realize that just because I feel that way doesn't mean that should dictate legislation or stop anyone else from expressing what they believe.

No one is trying to keep people from expressing their beliefs. We are however trying to prevent government from espousing any religious point of view.

I wasn't there to witness what I believe happend the same way they weren't there witness what they believed happened. In my opinion, a belief vs. belief scenario (regardless of how much more scientific support one side has) shouldn't be decided by the ACLU or the US government...It's really none of their business.

Again, creationism isn't science or biology. Evolution is based on scientific evidence of biology. Which one should be taught in science and biology classes?

The US government's only involvement in the matter should be making sure both sides have the right to express their views without persecution.

Not in a science class.

The ACLU would probably feel the same way if they actually took the verbiage of the constitution literally rather than trying to define it based on a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a baptist preacher in 1801. That's where they're getting that separation of church and state logic from. The constitution says that congress can't pass any laws favoring any particular religion, and that's it. Congress...not the post office, not the front lawn of city hall, not the elementary school principle's office, or any of the ones the ACLU seems to enjoy targeting.

I have to say that I'm starting to think that you're not truly an atheist or that you didn't arrive at atheism due to logic, reason, and evidence. I know it's bad for me to use the good ol' "no true Scotsman" but your arguments regarding separation of church and state, what science is, and what evolution is are almost identical to those used by creationists. At the very least it seems you lack understanding of what evolution and science are.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

Those goals are at odds with each other.

It's not intuitive and maybe it's not fair.

It's how things are, though.

So pick one.

They are not at odds with each other.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

sandwiches said, "No one is trying to keep people from expressing their beliefs. We are however trying to prevent government from espousing any religious point of view

."

The ACLU tries to deny people the right to express their beliefs.....EXPECIALLY if its God based. Our government always has had a point of view regarding religion. And if you look back when they commissioned Bibles for its citizens....that very much shows a bias....and its not towards humanism and secular worldviews.

"Again, creationism isn't science or biology. Evolution is based on scientific evidence of biology. Which one should be taught in science and biology classes?"

And evolution.....the theories that scientists have come up with.......have never changed and been thrown out? They are based on the bias of many scientists who so hate the idea of God that even altering the evidence is better than the alternative. Ernest Haeckle comes to mind.......
How was the phrase..."theory of evolution" coined?

Evolution is a religion based on faith. The definition of religion in Funk & Wagnall dictionary says, "A set of beliefs concerned with explaining the origins and purposes of the universe."

"I have to say that I'm starting to think that you're not truly an atheist or that you didn't arrive at atheism due to logic, reason, and evidence. I know it's bad for me to use the good ol' "no true Scotsman" but your arguments regarding separation of church and state, what science is, and what evolution is are almost identical to those used by creationists. At the very least it seems you lack understanding of what evolution and science are."

So can you answer all the questions about the first cause? Why are we here and what is our purpose? What was the first cause? Can your religion based on facts answer those questions? You think science can begin to answer all questions about our first beginnings?

Yours is BLIND FAITH. What evolution reveals is that those who believe it are truly capable of faith in the INVISIBLE...the same as any other religion.

Evolution basically states that complexed elements have developed from simpler elements and living organisms have sprung from non-living chemicals, all by chance. CHANCE. This is its philosophy about the origins of life and the meaning of man. I do not believe in the racist theory of evolution of the survival of the fittest, natural selection. Evolution theory really goes against some very basic laws of science such as the second law of thermodynamics, that left to itself everything becomes less ordered not more ordered or complexed. Observe nature. Things grow old-run down-and eventually die or decay. They LOSE their structure. Evolution however says things develop in complexity and structure.

All I am saying in this discussion, because I certainly am not a scientist with a PHD is that…. so many things that we think on this earth are absolutes are not and were not. History has shown us that even what science defines as truth today may be laughed at hundreds of years from today. Neither the theory of evolution nor the theory of special creation can be proven scientifically
What can we really be sure of? You tell me.
You can't prove or exclude 100% that there is no God.

What was it that Napoleon said....man will believe ANYTHING as long as it's not in the Bible.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."-*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95


"The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "-Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "-*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).


"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."-J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.


"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].


"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."-*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."-*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.


"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."-*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."-*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

Evolution begins and ends with a hopelessly illogical premise. Nothin plus chance equals everything. So do answer these questions for me ok....

What created the matter and energy necessary to create the universe?
You posses all knowlege by stating evolution is fact...I am sure you know these answers and will quickly post them.

For every cause there is an effect. What was the first cause? If the effect is evolution....what caused it?

If we are nothing but evolved animals, then why don't we live like animals? Isnt the rise in violence just survival of the fittest? ARent secually transmitted diseases including AIDS the logical result of man living as an animal with no basis for morals? ARent the 40 some million babies aborted in America since Roe the end product of a philosophy that offers NO VALUE FOR HUMAN LIFE? Obviously you believe that life arose from nonliving matter. How can this be...explain.

What I see is this....You probably want me to believe that some 3 billions years ago there was this soup, consisting of nitrogen, ammonia etc...bubbling away and out of this goop...came the first cell. Where did the soup come from? If energy...where did the energay come from?

Not spontaneous generation, Pasteur proved this theory to be wrong. Life only arises from life...I think that is a fact. How when no life existed, did substances come into being which are absolutely essential for life, but which can only be produced by life? Talkin DNA here. It is absolutely essential for life to exist. But DNA can only be produced by life. How when no life existed did DNA come into existence?


Where this soup came from? Spontaneous generation I think they call it.

 

[selfinflikted]

."Evolution is a religion based on faith. The definition of religion in Funk & Wagnall dictionary says, "A set of beliefs concerned with explaining the origins and purposes of the universe."

And the ToE attempts to do neither of those things. Therefore, your classification of evolution as a religion is rubbish.

 

[dies-l]

I respectfully disagree.

They most certainly are a sensor on religion and have watchdogs planted all over the country.

One note about the Jeff Curley case. What is sad is that because of the support of the ACLU the monsters of NAMBLA today still pedal and circulate the same material that led to the brutal murder of that little boy. In fact Amazon sold this smut on its website. And the two monsters that killed him......filled their minds with NAMBLA material.
I just read that the ACLU even had the gall to ask the judge in the case to impose a gag order. Wow......defenders of free speech wanting to silence people. I thought they were defending NAMBLA on the same thing. I mean don't you think that they would want all the details and truth of the trial made public? Nope. Nothing that is that would make them look bad.

When you say they are a defender of faith in America I about want to choke. I just did some searching.....and the truth is they are working hard to expunge all signs of faith anywhere. And it starts with the Ten Commandments.
I just read an article where they threatened the National Parks Service to remove three small plaques that had bible verses on them....from a display in the Grand Canyon National Park. Wow...bothered them that bad...three little signs. Oh yea then the Boy Scouts...preventing them from keeping the lease they had at a camp in SanDiego........all over God and their position on homosexuality. Then they asked the Virginia Supreme Court to legalize cross burning on public property. They don't want kids to recite the Pledge.

Editorial: Expunging God from the Grand Canyon? - Florida Baptist Witness

Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds VA Cross-Burning Ban But Sends Law Back to State Court for Refinement | American Civil Liberties Union

I don't know who said it but....the ACLU is the KKK on the left. They force religions to justify even there right to exist. This organization will do anything to win....remember the Monkey Trial? After the schools banned evolution from being taught in schools the ACLU advertised for volunteers to get themselves arrested for teaching evolution and then offered to pay for their defense.

You are free to disagree, but by doing so, you are holding a view that is objectively incorrect. The "evidence" that you cite actually supports my point: that the ACLU is interested primarily in preserving a specific view of constitutional interpretation, and they take cases that are consistent with that view, regardless of whether the beneficiaries of their services are Christians, pagans, atheists, racists, perverts, or anyone else.

Under the ACLU's interpretation of the Establishment Clause as expanded by the Incorporation Doctrine, Federal, State, and local government have no business teaching or promoting religious views unless part of an open forum for all views to be shared. Personally, I think that this is an overly restrictive view of the EC, but I know it is one that is shared by many, and it is not an unreasonable one.

 

[The Paul]

They are not at odds with each other.

Look, you can ignore all the data and say that, but it doesn't change the fact that taking vengeance against people who have wronged us and preventing further harm are at odds with each other.

You have to pick one, and if you plug your ears and sing "lalala" then all you do is pick one in ignorance.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So you feel like science supports you the same way a theist feels like Jesus supports them? Or you actually have at least some grasp of the science?

A little bit of both.

I have some understanding of the science behind it...not as much as an actual scientist or someone with a degree in the field. I've seen a few posters on this thread giving off the vibe that they're experts on the matter, but I highly doubt that's the case considering that the real experts on the matter have decades of experience and training so simply reading their publications hardly puts someone in a position of authority where they can talk down to others when discussing the matter.

Reading the publications of an expert doesn't make them experts themselves, they're taking the expert's word for it in a lot of cases and having faith that the scientists are being honest in the documentation of their observation and conducting their tests in an ethical and unbiased manner without letting preconceived notions dictate how they report their results.

I think the position of "if you don't feel as strongly about it as I do, it must be because you don't understand it enough" is a position of arrogance. I was listening to an interview/debate conducted between Daniel Dennett and a Rabbi (whose name I can't remember) and they were discussing the matter of which side of the Evo vs. ID was more closed-minded. Dennett's response was along the lines of "when discussing theories like these, it's the ID side that makes the claim that they know 100% percent beyond a shadow of a doubt how it all happened, but a true scientist understands that science is a humbling field where you always operate on the premise that you might discover something tomorrow that will shatter what you think you know today". I thought it was a great quote...not because he was pointing out a flaw in the ID position, but because the fact that he would make that acknowledgement leads me to believe that he is of the understanding that there could be a difference between "the best answer we have today" and "the right answer"

While 99.9999% of the scientists agree on evolution as a whole, there's still division on some of the details which makes me hesitant to acknowledge it as 100% fact.

I still haven't completely ruled out the possibility that both sides are wrong and nobody knows how it all happened.

So to make a long story short (I know it's a little late for that ), I personally view evolution as the most plausible answer for me, I'm the kind of person where I need all of the numbers to be in before I'm willing to make it my final answer...pardon my bad "Who wants to be a millionaire" pun.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

You are free to disagree, but by doing so, you are holding a view that is objectively incorrect. The "evidence" that you cite actually supports my point: that the ACLU is interested primarily in preserving a specific view of constitutional interpretation, and they take cases that are consistent with that view, regardless of whether the beneficiaries of their services are Christians, pagans, atheists, racists, perverts, or anyone else.

Under the ACLU's interpretation of the Establishment Clause as expanded by the Incorporation Doctrine, Federal, State, and local government have no business teaching or promoting religious views unless part of an open forum for all views to be shared. Personally, I think that this is an overly restrictive view of the EC, but I know it is one that is shared by many, and it is not an unreasonable one.

They take cases that protect the deviant. Do you think that I am the only person in the world with similar views? Just google ACLU and look how many anti ACLU websites come up. They are primarily interested in preserving cases that are consistent with the cases I have highlighted. They have an agenda and it is evil, that is to any moral person who wants to protect the righteous.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

Sandwiches ....going to answer my questions?

 

[dies-l]

They take cases that protect the deviant. Do you think that I am the only person in the world with similar views? Just google ACLU and look how many anti ACLU websites come up. They are primarily interested in preserving cases that are consistent with the cases I have highlighted.

Lots of people believe a lot of things that are wrong. The fact that a belief is shared by many people does not make it any more or less true.

They have an agenda and it is evil, that is to any moral person who wants to protect the righteous.

Oh well, I suppose that means that you believe that I am not a moral person who wants to protect the righteous. You are entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong. (But, generally, when a person resorts to flaming, it is because they have no reasonable basis to support their position; just sayin.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Lots of people believe a lot of things that are wrong. The fact that a belief is shared by many people does not make it any more or less true.

Correct, it doesn't make it any more right just because a lot of people believe it... but it does, however, dictate what kind of laws we have in place as long as they don't favor a particular religion.

For example, I felt that the smoking ban here in Ohio was wrong. I was of the mindset that if a particular place allows smoking, and someone doesn't like to be around it, then they simply shouldn't go to that place. However, they put it up for a vote, the majority voted in favor of the ban, and it became a law. I didn't like it, but I understand that in a system like ours the vote is very important so I adhere to that law. If we allowed people to usurp the constitution and bypass the voting process everytime a small group felt that the majority was too stupid to make the decision, we'd have an even worse division in the people of this country than we have now.