I would be glad to, though I have a sneaking suspicion that that particular book may contain a vast amount of misinformation (as was the case with The Naked Socialst).

I certainly agree that individual churches should not be forced to recognize marriages that conflict with their religious beliefs, but for the state to do so violates the right of individuals to choose who they love, not to mention going against separation of church and state.

Also, this ridiculous claim that there is some sort of legal distinction between rights and privileges is utter nonsense. As far as the law is concerned, there is no distinction. There are only actions you are legally allowed to take, and actions you are not legally allowed to take, and those actions cannot be different for any group. If an action is legal for one group, it must be legal for all groups. To try and categorize certain actions as being privileges rather than rights, and then to say that the government can grant special privileges to certain groups is nothing but pure, unadulterated bigotry, and it undermines the Constitution which says that all men (and women) are created equal, and deserve equal protection under the law. This sickening attempt to classify certain actions as privileges, and say that it's okay for the government (either Ferderal or state) to create laws that distribute privileges unequally is unamerican, unconstitutional, and morally repugnant.

Those who say that Civil Rights are an attempt to gain "special privileges" are only demonstrating their own ignorance and bigotry.

The quote from Ayn Rand was only part of my post. There was also this:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issu...

;)

Our legal system is not based upon Judeo-Christian thought. A few individual laws here and there might be, but the system as a whole is not.

And I am not saying we should prohibit free exercise of religion. I am simply pointing out that combining religion with the government -- in any way, shape, or form -- is respecting religion, which is unconstitutional. Religion should be neither respected nor prohibited in law. We do a pretty good job of not prohibiting it, but a terrible job of not respecting it.

As for an example of laws that respect religion, one major example of that is laws against same-sex marriage.

Ayn Rand was not implying that all southerners are racists, but simply that claims to state's rights were being made by racists in the south during the Civil Rights movement. I suggest you read the entire chapter to get a clearer view. ;)

This is a very well thought out post, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. :)

However, I would recommend replacing instances of "you" and "your" with references to the owners of United Credit Economy website. When you say "you" and "your," it sounds like you're addressing me, since I'm the one who posted this topic, and I do not agree with the position expressed by United Credit Economy.

Since when are controlling our borders and allowing free immigration mutually exclusive? I see no reason why we can't do both.

The Ten Commandments are a religious symbol. Religious symbols have no place in a government building. The efforts to remove them are entirely justified, and the fact that we even have Judeo-Christian laws in the first place is a violation of the First Amendment.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
~ Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams, 1797

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
~ Thomas Jefferson: Letter to the Danbury Baptists

Well if you don't want to support your claims with logical arguments, I suppose I can't be bothered to take you seriously.

"(E)limiating the right of individuals to live where they want";
The Republic has a clearly defined border, and the Federal government is mandated to protect that border. No wiggle room here, unless you are of the One World Government ilk. But that puts you in opposition with almost all of America, and certainly in opposition with the rest of the world. Not much company there...and rightly so.

~~

I suggest you listen to Milton Friedman's comments on immigration. Free and open immigration is the way to go. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C52TlPCVD......

"(R)efusal to grant LGBT rights";
Way beyond anything that the Founders would have ever considered. I am OK with giving the States their inherent rights to decide this by public ballot. Let the chips fall where they may.

~~

Obviously the Founding Fathers never thought about LGBT rights, as there was virtually no knowledge about such issues 200 years ago. But now that we do have such knowledge, we cannot continue to deny equal rights to a persecuted minority any longer.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
~ Thomas Jefferson

"The southern racists' claim of states' rights is a contradiction in terms. There can be no such thing as the right of some men to violate the rights of others. The Constitutional concept of states rights pertains to the division of power between local and national authorities, and serves to protect the states from the Federal Government. It does not grant to a state government an unlimited arbitrary power over its citizens, or the privilege of abrogating the citizens' individual rights."
~ Ayn Rand - The Virtue of Selfishness, Chapter 17: Racism

"(D)estroy freedom of religion";
You are making the liberal mistake of substituting 'freedom FROM religion' for the original thought...to make sure that there was never a government imposed State religion. It was never intended to ban any religious thought from our secular, or institutional, lives. Read the Founding Fathers tracts, and the declarations that they painstakingly composed...God is never far from sight.

~~

Freedom from religion is part of freedom of religion. You cannot grant freedom of religion without also granting freedom from it. The very core of religious freedom is the right of the individual to believe or disbelieve whatever they want. That means more than just not establishing a state religion. It also means not creating laws that favor any one religion over another, or that favor religion over non-religion. Therefore, religion cannot be a part of any state funded institution or organization, as that would constitute imposing religion on the public by force.

"[...] If you know something about me, you know that I'm an advocate of reason, that I am not a supporter of religion, and I despise anyone who tries to impose his religious ideas by force on other people. That is what the Moral Majority is trying."
~ Ayn Rand -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4196WvmEc...

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
~ Thomas Jefferson: Letter to the Danbury Baptists