Sheldon
Senior Member
- Apr 2, 2010
- 5,213
- 1,431
- 48
Okay I've read most of the thread I think.
The First Amendment prohibits the government from allowing any religion or religious group to receive special consideration or favor from the federal government and disallows granting power to any religious group. It also disallows the government from interfering with the religious thought, faith, and practice of any person or religious group EXCEPT when such practice violates basic laws of the land. Sacrificing virgins for any purpose, for instance, would violate the basic laws of the land and the feds could absolutely interfere with a religious ceremony regardless of how much the doctrine of the group required that sacrifice.
Where the First Amendment applies to Mani specifically is that Mani can practice, believe, state his beliefs re religion anywhere he chooses without interference from government EXCEPT when that practice or speech violates the unalienable rights of another. And he can choose to be free of any religious influence on his own property if he chooses that meaning he can order the Jehovah Witnesses to leave and not put up any Christmas lights if he doesn't want to.
It does NOT mean that he never has to hear a Christmas Carol or see a religious symbol or be exposed to another's religious thoughts in the public sector.
I agree. But since I've never heard anyone argue that it DOES mean you never have to hear a Christmas carol or see a relgious symbol I really don't understand the value in trying to make that some huge point in the debate. It's nothing more than a statement of what should be obvious.
It's political value. Victimology sells well. News, pundits, op-eds, they all say it and then it gets parroted around until it becomes an internet fact.
I believe someone on the last page used "silent majority". That pretty much sums up the mindset.
Imao, anyways.