[Osborn F Enready]

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Ok, maybe my historical example was confusing, so I will restate my state division one, which is just like the Spain one, and I want to hear why and how the division of states socially and religiously is justified:

"Say New Jersey has a large amount of Muslims as their leaders and main population. With a central government, they have little religious authority over law making. With more power to the states, they can give more power to the Muslim religion, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm just speaking hypothetically. With more power to the Muslims in New Jersey, why would you want to live in New York, where say more Catholics live and are being treated better? Now you have a growing population of Muslims in NJ and more and more Catholics in NY. This causes religious strife and tensions. This causes DIVISION."

A divided nation is ineffective, violent, and will cause more harm than an ineffective and violent central government. In the latter case, the people are united and are strong in numbers and can overthrow a violent and completely ineffective government. In the former case, the people are divided and are fighting amongst each other and have no strong numbres to get any reforms accomplished. Civil is a common effect of this division. Look at the United States civil war for example, in why two sides of the nation disagreed over an economical advantage, but a social disadvantage (slavery). Prove me otherwise historically or by another means that these divisions either will not happen, or will be positive for our nation, if that term has any meaning to you.

I say:
I take offense at your accusation, but I will let it pass in the hopes of clearer understanding.

As to your question: The state, or nation, has no intrest in observing religious divide. The state, nor the Federal Government recognize any state or federal advocated religion. There is no such thing, and the basis of this argument is bunk. Slavery was imposed servitude by force, being condoned, or at least RECOGNIZED by the government. Religion is a personal choice, and it is specified in the Constitution that the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This type of strife can only be dealt with when RIGHTS are violated.

I do not want to insult you, but we are not even on the same page here. You example is not a valid example to question, in regards to state or federal authority. The last paragraph of your post that I highlighted is purely speculation on opinion about a divided nation. What constitutes a "nation" that works without divide? As of now, many states have concealed carry weapons laws, and many do not. THEY ARE DIVIDED. This provides a choice for people who refuse to accept that they are not allowed by law to carry a loaded, concealed weapon. Your entire argument here is flawed, from its core.

Please examine what I just said, and understand that I cannot address things this far out of context, as it is not reasonable nor justifiable in happening. Now go up to Sonarts post, and notice how he cites evidence, in a legal, or constitutional format. I look forward to addressing his argument, as it is solidly based, though flawed.

Also, as I said in the beginning of the thread: Please limit how many subjects you address per post, as it makes for long drawn out answers in reply.