PDA

View Full Version : The First Amendment



ConHog
06-02-2012, 02:46 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.


Really just want to focus on the religious portion here.

Contrary to what some (mostly those who dislike Christians) would like to believe the COTUS certainly does not promise to protect ANYONE from being exposed to ANY religion.

I really don't understand why so many think that is the case.

aboutime
06-02-2012, 02:53 PM
We all know how those who claim to know the words of the 1st amendment always distort them, or create their own context to suit their political needs.
For instance.
Nothing makes those who define the 1st amendment in their own words angrier than when you ask them to show you...where in the constitution. The words Separation of Church and State appear.

Is that something those who want to destroy the constitution must use to make their argument sound better?
Hopefully. Americans have finally begun to learn. Thanks to the freedom of the 1st amendment, and the World Wide Web, called the Internet. How knowledge is such a wonderful tool to fight those who are destined to fail.

darin
06-02-2012, 02:55 PM
I wonder how the courts define 'respecting'.

Is it "Congress shall make no law with respect to an establishment of religion. As in, congress won't make any laws that direct an established, state-run religion."

Or is it "Congress will not rule regulate any religious organization good or bad".

I sorta think its the latter.

Kathianne
06-02-2012, 02:58 PM
A good source, I've used it for teaching first amendment. I found out about it at that LA program I spoke about:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/teachers-religious-liberties

ConHog
06-02-2012, 03:00 PM
I wonder how the courts define 'respecting'.

Is it "Congress shall make no law with respect to an establishment of religion. As in, congress won't make any laws that direct an established, state-run religion."

Or is it "Congress will not rule regulate any religious organization good or bad".

I sorta think its the latter.

I was taught that it ONLY referred to Congress couldn't make any religion the "official" religion, nor could it out law any religion; yes that includes Islam. It doesn't however mean that Congress can't pass laws that pertain to religion, IE some religion can't claim human sacrifice as a protected right etc etc.....

Coupled with the rest of the first, that clearly tells us that we have the right to voice our religious beliefs.

Kathianne
06-02-2012, 03:03 PM
We all know how those who claim to know the words of the 1st amendment always distort them, or create their own context to suit their political needs.
For instance.
Nothing makes those who define the 1st amendment in their own words angrier than when you ask them to show you...where in the constitution. The words Separation of Church and State appear.

Is that something those who want to destroy the constitution must use to make their argument sound better?
Hopefully. Americans have finally begun to learn. Thanks to the freedom of the 1st amendment, and the World Wide Web, called the Internet. How knowledge is such a wonderful tool to fight those who are destined to fail.

I believe the 'separation' idea came from a letter of Thomas Jefferson, yep:

http://www.free2pray.info/1separationchurchstate.html

ConHog
06-02-2012, 03:08 PM
I believe the 'separation' idea came from a letter of Thomas Jefferson, yep:

http://www.free2pray.info/1separationchurchstate.html

True, but they don't read the TRUE meaning of Jefferson's words.

He meant that the First created a wall that the government couldn't pierce to interfere with anyone's right to worship as they please. He certainly didn't mean that the government couldn't recognize the religious views of the people.

As an example, the First in noway means a city can't have a nativity scene.

Kathianne
06-02-2012, 03:11 PM
True, but they don't read the TRUE meaning of Jefferson's words.

He meant that the First created a wall that the government couldn't pierce to interfere with anyone's right to worship as they please. He certainly didn't mean that the government couldn't recognize the religious views of the people.

As an example, the First in noway means a city can't have a nativity scene.

For crying out loud, why do you imagine I chose the site I did? It gave analysis that was identical to what you just try to claim as a thought. Did you read it? If not, cool, but then don't quote my post and link. Thank you.

ConHog
06-02-2012, 03:12 PM
For crying out loud, why do you imagine I chose the site I did? It gave analysis that was identical to what you just try to claim as a thought. Did you read it? If not, cool, but then don't quote my post and link. Thank you.

was that even remotely necessary? I was essentially agreeing with you.

Kathianne
06-02-2012, 03:17 PM
was that even remotely necessary? I was essentially agreeing with you.

It's one of the reasons I have so little tolerance for your postings at times. You act like you want discussion, then you attempt to co-opt others contributions. Soon followed by, 'I see your point, but sometimes/people/issues are not quite what you say, imo this is wrong, here is how I am right...'

If you'd just say your point of view or even specify what you think may be wrong in someone else's post, but not co-opt, it wouldn't be so very annoying.

Kathianne
06-02-2012, 03:23 PM
CH, I'm sorry for getting upset in public, but you've often asked me why I get so peeved with you. Now you know. I've tried to ignore it, but perhaps it's just better to acknowledge it. Now you do what you want, I'll just go, "here we go again..." and try to move on from there.

This forum is a very good idea, I'm glad you suggested it.

ConHog
06-02-2012, 03:24 PM
It's one of the reasons I have so little tolerance for your postings at times. You act like you want discussion, then you attempt to co-opt others contributions. Soon followed by, 'I see your point, but sometimes/people/issues are not quite what you say, imo this is wrong, here is how I am right...'

If you'd just say your point of view or even specify what you think may be wrong in someone else's post, but not co-opt, it wouldn't be so very annoying.

I don't give a shit if you like me or not, has nothing to do with the first amendment. Take your belly aching to the steel cage. We can play down there if you like.

Kathianne
06-02-2012, 03:25 PM
I don't give a shit if you like me or not, has nothing to do with the first amendment. Take your belly aching to the steel cage. We can play down there if you like.

I'm off to work, perhaps you can read the last post before this? Swearing doesn't bother me, btw.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
06-02-2012, 03:40 PM
As great as Jefferson was he was not the only Founder nor the only contributor to the birth of our Constitution.
Jefforson had a truly great mind but so did the others . Even Hamilton that wrongly wanted a powerful Central Bank early on. The trick was how do you insure religious freedom without regulating it?
Whats wrong now is people have forgotten that and cry regulating it is the correct path when its far more accurate for the government to do just the opposite. Currently those so radically opposed to Christianity are the ones so strongly in favor of anti-American and anti-Christian religions. They scream freedom (from ) when talking about Christianity and freedom (of) when talking about Islam or any other anti-christian religion!
With that they try to have it both ways which really means they promote the destruction of Christianity while promoting the advancement of its replacement = Islam.. As Islam more readily fits the socialist mindset.
The hypocrisy is that they use the same Constitution (same amensment)to advance the destruction of one religion and the advancement of another.- :salute:--Tyr

my guess is that Jefferson would call them all jacknapes..

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
06-02-2012, 03:43 PM
I don't give a shit if you like me or not, has nothing to do with the first amendment. Take your belly aching to the steel cage. We can play down there if you like.

What? You guys have a steel cage here!-:cool:

ConHog
06-02-2012, 03:47 PM
What? You guys have a steel cage here!-:cool:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/forumdisplay.php?26-Steel-Cage

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
06-02-2012, 04:08 PM
http://www.debatepolicy.com/forumdisplay.php?26-Steel-Cage
Thanks for the info..
That's really ... coooooool
A steel cage match but with no bloodshed..:clap:

aboutime
06-02-2012, 08:26 PM
I was taught that it ONLY referred to Congress couldn't make any religion the "official" religion, nor could it out law any religion; yes that includes Islam. It doesn't however mean that Congress can't pass laws that pertain to religion, IE some religion can't claim human sacrifice as a protected right etc etc.....

Coupled with the rest of the first, that clearly tells us that we have the right to voice our religious beliefs.


The words are rather OBVIOUS. As in 'CONGRESS shall'. It doesn't say President, Lawyers, or Supreme Court members. Just CONGRESS.

aboutime
06-02-2012, 08:38 PM
3479 All Americans need to learn what it ACTUALLY says.

Mr. P
06-04-2012, 01:11 PM
We all know how those who claim to know the words of the 1st amendment always distort them, or create their own context to suit their political needs.
For instance.
Nothing makes those who define the 1st amendment in their own words angrier than when you ask them to show you...where in the constitution. The words Separation of Church and State appear.

Is that something those who want to destroy the constitution must use to make their argument sound better?
Hopefully. Americans have finally begun to learn. Thanks to the freedom of the 1st amendment, and the World Wide Web, called the Internet. How knowledge is such a wonderful tool to fight those who are destined to fail.

EXACTLY WHY SOME GOVERNMENTS and the UN want control of it.

DragonStryk72
06-04-2012, 11:51 PM
I wonder how the courts define 'respecting'.

Is it "Congress shall make no law with respect to an establishment of religion. As in, congress won't make any laws that direct an established, state-run religion."

Or is it "Congress will not rule regulate any religious organization good or bad".

I sorta think its the latter.

Actually, I think it's both, really. A state run religion would be preferential treatment almost by default, and that would violate the Equal Protections Clause. At the same time, if the government "sanctions" certain religions and not others, then they're getting into the territory of deciding which religions are "right" and which are "wrong".

avatar4321
06-05-2012, 01:32 AM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.


Really just want to focus on the religious portion here.

Contrary to what some (mostly those who dislike Christians) would like to believe the COTUS certainly does not promise to protect ANYONE from being exposed to ANY religion.

I really don't understand why so many think that is the case.

I agree. In fact, it explicitly telling us they cant stop us from exposing you to any religion.

Which means I have a right to go door to door sharing the Gospel. You have the right to shut the door in my face. But I do have the right to exercise my religion freely and share it with others.