Freedom From Religion: Sandefur confirms something I have long suspected--that some people actually believe that freedom of religion somehow means freedom from religion. As if somehow, by allowing all men the right to choose their own religion means that, at no point, should anyone else be exposed to it.

Say what?

So then, freedom of the press means no books or newspapers?

Freedom of speech means never hearing anyone talk?

Freedom of assembly means never having to be in a crowd?

Welcome to the happy-dappy upside-down wacky fun world of the 21st century.

As for the actual content of his post--if he's really looking for any conservative who doesn't favor redistribution of wealth, well, his post almost exactly mirrors something Rush Limbaugh, of all people, said yesterday. Limbaugh was chiding a caller who thought Marxism was a "beautiful dream that could never work in the real world." Limbaugh then went on for a while about how there was nothing beautiful about it and how it was better to help people out of their situations than facilitate their staying in them.

So just about any conservative will tell you (as I'm sure Sandefur knows, which is what confuses me about his post) that they oppose welfare--what they're in favor of are programs that help people improve their situations for themselves. This was a large part of what the welfare reform packages were all about, and now that they're working, I think we'd all like to see them carried further.

What they're also not opposed to charities--and I think it would do conservatives a lot of good politically to be more visible in their work in that area.

Really, I think Sandefur has conservatives mixed up with Reagan Democrats.