The Due Process clause was fully ratified, so I'm not sure where this "made up" claim comes from. This clause prohibits local governments from violating protections outlined in the Bill of Rights without due process.

Your position results in the ability of states to abrogate every right in the 1st without recourse. That is not only a wrong and dangerous interpretation, but fundamentally unAmerican.

"unless specifically prohibited"

As Due Process prohibits...

"The 14th amendment incorporation clause is completely wrong. It only says that a person is both citizen of the United States and Citizen of the State. I can't think how you can incorporate anything in the constitution since no part of the constitution gives a citizen a single thing other than immunities or privileges. "

It extents the protections from the 1st (establishment clause - along with most of the Bill of Rights) to the states via the Due Process clause, effectively protecting citizens from my examples at the state level. States absolutely do not have the ability to pass patently unconstitutional laws.

"Your argument is completely false because even if a state did allow religions symbols to enter a public facility it in no way actually interferes with the free excercise of your chosen religion. "

I was rather clear as to what my examples were so I'm not sure why you brought up symbols. I agree with you in any case.

I will appease you. But I'm curious what the relevance is. I'm guessing you have some gotcha in mind, and yet I have a feeling it will be little more than dismissing the court's interpretation as false and egregious, while at the same time attempting to assert your own as objective and true. I'd even entertain this line of argument if you saw fit to provide epistemic justification for your truth claim. But you already scoffed at that...

Now, in all fairness to you, I'm not well versed enough on this case to give an accurate reply wrt the privacy argument. However, I do not think it is a bad thing to restrict religious definitions (insofar as there is no scientific or otherwise objective definition of personhood) from imposing on a mother's natural rights of self-ownership and determination. I reserve judgment on this particular case, but do think there is sufficient and sound argument to oppose compulsory motherhood. Furthermore, I'd have to draw the line at rape or incest victims as I find this manifestly unethical and in most cases abjectly cruel.

"You're on the defensive, so everything looks like a strawman. But enough is enough. "

What must I "defend" against? A position that admits to ignoring the intent of the framers? You make the majority of my case for me.

"I have to leave off here, so my final observation is that, while you make error after error ("genuine ethics evolve over time"--you've obviously failed Philosophy!),"

I'm sorry, but how is that in error? History is littered with demonstrable ethical progression. Hell, even modern deontological ethics have changed from the likes of Hume and Kant and more modern thinkers such as Rawls. Even Kant's categorical imperative has been interpreted differently by different authors. Rawls, for example, uses it to argue for ethics as fairness and provides several epistemic arguments and thought exercises (veil of ignorance etc) to determine what's truly "fair."

I'm sorry, but It seems to me that someone holding the position that ethics, unlike all other domains of knowledge, does not evolve must either be arbitrarily ascribing to an absolutist ethic or uneducated in ethics itself. I'm willing to assume that you're not merely ignoring history here. Perhaps you can meet me half way and clarify.

They are unconstitutional as they are an establishment of religion. The letter of the constitution is ambiguous here, so we've looked at the deestablishment of state churches and incorporation of the 1st into the 14th here. That's even ignoring the objective fact that the framers in no way intended to allow religious statism free reign given the conditions they were escaping. Religious freedom, sure, but that's a far cry from redefining science in order to sneak your personal beliefs into the syllabus.

I'm sorry, but using the state to grant authority to and forcibly impose a religious ideology is simply not constitutional, nor what the framers intended. Christians are going to have to allow their ideology to stand or fall on its own.

Furthermore, state public schools receive federal funding, so even if you wish to stick to the 'congress only' narrative, you still need to reconcile using federal tax money to fund mandatory religious education.

Additionally, I find it odd that the leaders of the creationism movements would spend so much time trying to distance ID from creationism. The fact is, they know it's a religious concept, and that imposing it in public schools would be unequivocally unconstitutional. If this argument had any merit why not simply admit that's it's religious, and argue that mandating religious education is legal? It's equally wrong, but not as manifestly so (insofar as even a Bush-appointed conservative Christian judge saw right through the Dover lies).

Why? It's a hypothetical constitutional issue that could occur. You don't want to play with it, fine.The important thing would be how we deal with it, legally and constitutionally. "

I just explained why. It's nonsensical. I'll tell you what, I'll entertain it if you can dig up text that would even allow it. Yes, I realize it's a hypothetical situation, but if it's not actually possible, then it's a horrible analogy. It's essentially a general purpose strawman. It's would be just as reasonable to debate whether Congress will make possession of tshirt a felony tomorrow.

"I would observe in passing that if Oliver Wendell Holmes had been told by some kind of oracle that 75 years after his death federal judges would declare that laws forbidding men to marry men and excluding homosexuals from military service were unconstitutional (that is, in violation of the U.S. Constitution), he would have died laughing. Or crying. "

What's your point? Genuine Ethics evolve over time, as do historical narratives. You seem to have this notion that cultures don't read their beliefs, vanity and agendas into things like law. This should be evidenced by the mere fact that the vast majority of educated people recognize the fundamental concept of rigid separation, while a small but vocal religious base does not.

"Coherent epistemology, my eye."

Anti-intellectualism doesn't suite you. Or at least it shouldn't. Stating stat something is objective means absolutely zero. As far as you've demonstrated your objectivism is merely your subjective interpretation of law.

"While I have been arguing from the Constitution, from the text itself, you are the one quoting scholars and justices (the ones who share your views, naturally). "

Of course I disagree. You create a strawman of my positions by focusing on scholars and justices when you intentionally ignore the words of Madison and Jefferson themselves.

"Does that particular religion trouble you? The specter of a theocratic Christian state seems never to be far from your thoughts. "

Why, did someone steal your Christmas? I'd imagine that I, like most Americans, are influenced by and have the most knowledge of, Christianity. Additionally, it is the predominant religion in our country and already dictates certain areas of my life. I'm hardly scared of any monolithic Christian agenda, but I do see a growing need to oppose legislative and historical revisionism, statism etc. The context of the video being discussed here was evolution denial/cretionism in public school, I believe. It only seems reasonable to offer contextual examples.

The 1st is part of the Bill of Rights.

You've completely missed my point otherwise. Of course the religious can participate in elections, lobbying etc. Who is arguing to the contrary? Really? However, it cannot legislate its doctrine, as in either of the examples in my previous post.

Your question is nonsensical legally, so I see little reason to entertain it. The Justices who interpret constitutional matters are either elected or appointed by elected representatives. This is how our nation was intended to function.

"Wait a minute--the 2nd Amendment only refers to militia bearing arms, right? "

Your attempt to strawman is noted. I believe the 2nd does indeed refer to each citizen, but is not apparent from the mere letter of the constitution.

Additionally, I'm neither a Dem nor liberal in the modern sense. Adjust talking points accordingly.

Constitutional objectivism without a coherent epistemology to support it is not interesting. You, the populist minority, see objectivity where 250 years of foundational and legal scholars, not to mention Christian Justices, have not. You're certainly welcome to whatever beliefs you wish to hold, but in order to forcibly impose them on us, you're going to have to come up with legal proof. That doesn't exist to the extent the vocal Christian collective states, so I'm in no way worried about serious encroachment. The fact that you seek a strict view that excludes the intent of the framers speaks volumes about your ability to defend your position.