Bill D — I wholeheartedly agree with you, to a point. I part your company when you trundle out the likes of Jerry Falwell as "conservative." The dork's a "reactionary," i.e., someone who wants to return to an idealized past that never really existed.

As for laws being distinguishable by whether they prevent us from doing something (praying in public) as opposed to restricting those who would dictate we MUST pray — I feel there's no difference worth mentioning. My point is that liberals (read as leftist, socialist, communist, whatever) want to make a law to govern it; a conservative (read as individualist, free-marketer or whatever) knows you can't legislate morality and doesn't try. I reiterate: "He governs best who governs least."

As for laws that restrict the rights of those who would restrict my rights — what a crock. It's just another name for trying to legislate morality. Societies are formed of fluid sets of in-groups and out-groups and we join/dislike them at various stages of our lives. Most people are uncomfortable with "different" people — i.e., members of an out-group. That's why there are fights at Catholic-public high school football games. Five years later they may marry on of the other team's cheerleaders. Do we really need laws saying we can't "dislike" those people?

Now, substitute school allegiances — with a dash of religious rivalry thrown in — with national, racial or whatever differences. Is it going to help to make laws? I doubt it. People will either grow out of their prejudices, or they won't. Laws aren't going to make any difference. But liberals will sure as hell pass them.

Just one more observation and I'll wrap up this rant — Have you ever noticed that nobody ever makes a law that doesn't forbid the population from doing what it would do naturally? Not sure if that's good or bad, I just find it interesting....

cheers,

david