On 22 Jan 2006 12:31:05 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.
See Ed's post about Thomas, it's true. Granted that was a dissent
but this is what he came right out and said.

I check my facts. g

Now, how much should we gamble on the idea that Thomas, having said that the
First Amendment only applies to the federal government, would take it the
next step and say that the states have a perfect right to prevent the
"expression of" unsanctioned religions?

Oh, he most certainly would say that. His comment about allowing
a state religion was indeed a dissent, *for*the*time*being*. Given
the current direction the court nominees are heading in, he may well
be in the majority in short order.

Basically once you invalidate one bit of it, the whole thing
comes unravelled. I could easily imagine the current crop of
born-agains deciding that what the US needs is just a big dose of
that ol' time religion, and the best way to see it done is by
passing some laws.

At the same time of course, any terrorist religions will be outright
banned.

Jim

Like Liberalism?

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin