re: #40 palomino

You’re exactly right. Levin’s reference is absurd.

I was trying earlier to categorize Levin’s fallacy but it’s really an entire smorgasbord of bullshit. He’s begging the question because his assumption, that the 1st Amendment only prevents overt Theocracy, is also contained in his conclusion. There’s a fallacy of definition in his refusal to even say what secular means accept to imply that it is the opposite and therefore inexplicably also identical to religion. There is equivocation, theocracy is both a religiously based government and some ambiguous set of entirely religiously based legal restrictions that include the gay marriage ban that he asserts fall short of full blown theocracy. I’m sure I could go on.

Any government that strives towards a secular neutrality then, through the transitive property of pure distilled batshit and the magic of DARVO, becomes exact opposite of neutral and is somehow itself a type of religion.