The First Amendment

[ConHog]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

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]

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]

3479 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.

[revelarts]

"I perceive two fundamental difficulties with a narrow reading of the Press Clause.

First, although certainty on this point is not possible, the history of the Clause does not suggest that the authors contemplated a “special” or “institutional” privilege. . . . Most pre-First Amendment commentators “who employed the term ‘freedom of speech’ with great frequency, used it synonymously with freedom of the press.” . . .
Those interpreting the Press Clause as extending protection only to, or creating a special role for, the “institutional press” must either
(a) assert such an intention on the part of the Framers for which no supporting evidence is available . . . ;
(b) argue that events after 1791 somehow operated to “constitutionalize” this interpretation . . . ; or
(c) candidly acknowledging the absence of historical support, suggest that the intent of the Framers is not important today. . . .

The second fundamental difficulty with interpreting the Press Clause as conferring special status on a limited group is one of definition. . . . The very task of including some entities within the “institutional press” while excluding others, whether undertaken by legislature, court, or administrative agency, is reminiscent of the abhorred licensing system of Tudor and Stuart England—a system the First Amendment was intended to ban from this country. . . . In short, the First Amendment does not “belong” to any definable category of persons or entities: It belongs to all who exercise its freedoms."

Chief Justice Warren Burger, who wrote in response to the press-as-institution view:
https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/supreme-court-review/2014/9/sentelle.pdf

[revelarts]

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-constitution-does-not-require-complete-separation-of-church-and-state-it-affirmatively-warren-e-burger-124-2-0208.jpg

The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger


.
.
.
https://www.azquotes.com/public/picture_quotes/cf/89/cf8911fbcbec42fb043e96031754f664/earl-warren-938821.jpg



Churchmen are quick to defend religious freedom; lawyers were never so universally aroused as by President Roosevelt's Court bill; newspapers are most alert to civil liberties when there is a hint of press censorship in the air. And educators become perturbed at every effort to curb academic freedom. But too seldom do all of these become militant when ostensibly the rights of only one group are threatened. They do not always react to the truism that when the rights of any individual or group are chipped away, the freedom of all erodes.

Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren

[revelarts]

GOP Senator Grabs The Mic And EXPOSES Entire Democrats (Biden Harris White House) For Violations Of 1st Amendment Rights

He presents the basics of what the govt clearly should not be doing according to the constitution.
and the Judges ruling against Biden Harris for what they've unconstitutionally did on EVERY major social media platform.
Censoring speech they did not like, under threat of "consequences", and having outlets promote their messages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g8rRZ1HhuM

UPDATE:

For some reason the other video is down
Here's the whole hearing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkIYRdWYbk4