The First Amendment

[ConHog]

What? You guys have a steel cage here!-

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

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

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

Thanks for the info..
That's really ... coooooool
A steel cage match but with no bloodshed..

[aboutime]

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]

1stbig.jpg All Americans need to learn what it ACTUALLY says.

[Mr. P]

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]

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]

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.