Removing parts of the 1ST Amendment

[chikenwing]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech,...

This is a right. we have a right to exercise our religion and to teach it to our children. There can be no law enacted that limits our free speech. (barring that exercise detracts from the rights of others)

Your rights end where they infringe upon the rights of others. - not their feelings but their rights.

The person arguing claims teaching religion to someone is Mental abuse. I am just curious how many of our Liberal members agree with him and are willing to put forth an argument to support him.

Did this person advocate that a law be passed requiring the removal of a child from the home by the state’s child welfare services upon suspicion of teaching a child religion? And if ‘convicted’ of such a ‘crime,’ did this person further advocate that the child should be permanently removed?

If not then there is no Free Exercise Clause ‘violation,’ and his argument is rhetorical only.

No kidding

At this point you are right,said poster couldn't bring himself to state that he supports such laws,but his rhetoric would lead a rational person to think he does.

Typical of intolerant bigots of any strip.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The person arguing claims teaching religion to someone is Mental abuse. I am just curious how many of our Liberal members agree with him and are willing to put forth an argument to support him.

Did this person advocate that a law be passed requiring the removal of a child from the home by the state’s child welfare services upon suspicion of teaching a child religion? And if ‘convicted’ of such a ‘crime,’ did this person further advocate that the child should be permanently removed?

If not then there is no Free Exercise Clause ‘violation,’ and his argument is rhetorical only.

No kidding

At this point you are right,said poster couldn't bring himself to state that he supports such laws,but his rhetoric would lead a rational person to think he does.

Typical of intolerant bigots of any strip.

The left are not rational. That Clayton can not see that is telling indeed. Both Polk and his supporters are cowards unwilling to admit what they want in clear terms.

 

[tipofthespear]

…and the tedious, never-ending, pointless battle between theists and those free from faith continues…

But again, no one has advocated that ‘parts’ of the First Amendment be ‘removed.’

Private citizens hostile to religion are not violating any tenet of free religious expression, as long as they don’t attempt to codify their animus toward religion.

That would all be hunkiedorry were it not for the fact that the ACLU and the Socialist Liberals in every area of Government, from City, to County, to State, to the Federal level ARE doing all they possibly can TO CODIFY THEIR ANIMUS TOWARDS Christianity. Anyone who doubts this is in serious need of a reality check in my opinion.

Obviously you’re unaware of the fact that you destroy all of your credibility by exhibiting your ignorance with inane phrases such as ‘Socialist Liberals.’

The ACLU is a private sector entity, not subject to First Amendment restrictions, unlike pubic sector lawmaking entities. The ACLU has also been instrumental in efforts to protect the religious liberty of millions of Americans by indeed keeping separate church and state, as mandated by the Constitution.

Otherwise, you should have no problem finding examples of laws passed by the 'Socialist Liberals' a given city, county, state, or the Federal government that restricted the religious practices of any faith that was subject to judicial review and upheld by the courts as Constitutional.

Obviously you failed to recognize that I LISTED the ACLU SEPARATE from the "socialist liberals" comment. IF you believe that the current power base of the Democrat Party IS NOT SOCIALIST LIBERAL then it is surely YOU who is exercising their "ignorance with inane ideology."

The ACLU HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL in more lawsuits against Christians and Christianity than any other Legal Organization I know of...........What YOU CALL "protecting the religious liberty of millions of Americans......." is actually the ACLU's incessant attacks against anything/all things Christian. Now, maybe for YOU this is "protecting religious freedom" but for those the ACLU assaults .............. yeah, not so much.

Any reasonably intelligent individual who does not recognize that the ACLU is the Legal Wing of the far left Socialist Liberals who have taken over the Democrat Party, is in more dire need of a reality check than any white man in History.........just saying.....

Perhaps you would be better served to concern yourself with your own credibility, and I'll concern myself with mine..........ok?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Got Link?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I do have to admit that it seems as if the ACLU has come down far on the left much more often than anywhere on the right....Maybe it's just me......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Did this person advocate that a law be passed requiring the removal of a child from the home by the state’s child welfare services upon suspicion of teaching a child religion? And if ‘convicted’ of such a ‘crime,’ did this person further advocate that the child should be permanently removed?

If not then there is no Free Exercise Clause ‘violation,’ and his argument is rhetorical only.

No kidding

At this point you are right,said poster couldn't bring himself to state that he supports such laws,but his rhetoric would lead a rational person to think he does.

Typical of intolerant bigots of any strip.

The left are not rational. That Clayton can not see that is telling indeed. Both Polk and his supporters are cowards unwilling to admit what they want in clear terms.

What’s not rational is a hasty generalization fallacy.

What’s not rational is putting words into peoples’ mouths and lying about what their position is on an issue.

And again, there are no First Amendment violations here, that a private citizen upsets you, hurts your feelings, or offends you is also not a First Amendment violation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No kidding

At this point you are right,said poster couldn't bring himself to state that he supports such laws,but his rhetoric would lead a rational person to think he does.

Typical of intolerant bigots of any strip.

The left are not rational. That Clayton can not see that is telling indeed. Both Polk and his supporters are cowards unwilling to admit what they want in clear terms.

What’s not rational is a hasty generalization fallacy.

What’s not rational is putting words into peoples’ mouths and lying about what their position is on an issue.

And again, there are no First Amendment violations here, that a private citizen upsets you, hurts your feelings, or offends you is also not a First Amendment violation.

You are willfully ignorant. Both of them have stated in no uncertain terms they think teaching children below some unestablished age religion is Mental abuse. They have stated it should stop. They have stated it is illegal to abuse children. Golly gee they couldn't possible mean they want parents arrested now could they, MORON.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The person arguing claims teaching religion to someone is Mental abuse. I am just curious how many of our Liberal members agree with him and are willing to put forth an argument to support him.

Did this person advocate that a law be passed requiring the removal of a child from the home by the state’s child welfare services upon suspicion of teaching a child religion? And if ‘convicted’ of such a ‘crime,’ did this person further advocate that the child should be permanently removed?

If not then there is no Free Exercise Clause ‘violation,’ and his argument is rhetorical only.

No kidding

At this point you are right,said poster couldn't bring himself to state that he supports such laws,but his rhetoric would lead a rational person to think he does.

Typical of intolerant bigots of any strip.

So you’re going to label him an ‘intolerant bigot’ for something he never said he advocated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That would all be hunkiedorry were it not for the fact that the ACLU and the Socialist Liberals in every area of Government, from City, to County, to State, to the Federal level ARE doing all they possibly can TO CODIFY THEIR ANIMUS TOWARDS Christianity. Anyone who doubts this is in serious need of a reality check in my opinion.

Obviously you’re unaware of the fact that you destroy all of your credibility by exhibiting your ignorance with inane phrases such as ‘Socialist Liberals.’

The ACLU is a private sector entity, not subject to First Amendment restrictions, unlike pubic sector lawmaking entities. The ACLU has also been instrumental in efforts to protect the religious liberty of millions of Americans by indeed keeping separate church and state, as mandated by the Constitution.

Otherwise, you should have no problem finding examples of laws passed by the 'Socialist Liberals' a given city, county, state, or the Federal government that restricted the religious practices of any faith that was subject to judicial review and upheld by the courts as Constitutional.

Obviously you failed to recognize that I LISTED the ACLU SEPARATE from the "socialist liberals" comment. IF you believe that the current power base of the Democrat Party IS NOT SOCIALIST LIBERAL then it is surely YOU who is exercising their "ignorance with inane ideology."

The ACLU HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL in more lawsuits against Christians and Christianity than any other Legal Organization I know of...........What YOU CALL "protecting the religious liberty of millions of Americans......." is actually the ACLU's incessant attacks against anything/all things Christian. Now, maybe for YOU this is "protecting religious freedom" but for those the ACLU assaults .............. yeah, not so much.

Any reasonably intelligent individual who does not recognize that the ACLU is the Legal Wing of the far left Socialist Liberals who have taken over the Democrat Party, is in more dire need of a reality check than any white man in History.........just saying.....

Perhaps you would be better served to concern yourself with your own credibility, and I'll concern myself with mine..........ok?

You could have saved all that typing by simply stating: “I have no idea what I’m talking about and I can provide no examples of laws passed by the 'Socialist Liberals' that a given city, county, state, or the Federal government restricted the religious practices of any faith that was subject to judicial review and upheld by the courts as Constitutional.”

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I do have to admit that it seems as if the ACLU has come down far on the left much more often than anywhere on the right....Maybe it's just me......

The ACLU has simply supported the religious freedom of Americans by preventing the un-Constitutional conjoining of church and state.

That one perceives the ACLU as partisan is subjective.

Social conservatives and Christian fundamentalists become frustrated when the courts time and again invalidate laws that violate Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The left are not rational. That Clayton can not see that is telling indeed. Both Polk and his supporters are cowards unwilling to admit what they want in clear terms.

What’s not rational is a hasty generalization fallacy.

What’s not rational is putting words into peoples’ mouths and lying about what their position is on an issue.

And again, there are no First Amendment violations here, that a private citizen upsets you, hurts your feelings, or offends you is also not a First Amendment violation.

You are willfully ignorant. Both of them have stated in no uncertain terms they think teaching children below some unestablished age religion is Mental abuse. They have stated it should stop. They have stated it is illegal to abuse children. Golly gee they couldn't possible mean they want parents arrested now could they, MORON.

One has lost the argument when he resorts to insults.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What’s not rational is a hasty generalization fallacy.

What’s not rational is putting words into peoples’ mouths and lying about what their position is on an issue.

And again, there are no First Amendment violations here, that a private citizen upsets you, hurts your feelings, or offends you is also not a First Amendment violation.

You are willfully ignorant. Both of them have stated in no uncertain terms they think teaching children below some unestablished age religion is Mental abuse. They have stated it should stop. They have stated it is illegal to abuse children. Golly gee they couldn't possible mean they want parents arrested now could they, MORON.

One has lost the argument when he resorts to insults.

One that ignores facts and reality never had an argument to begin with, go stick your head deeper in the sand maybe you can find China.

 

[tipofthespear]

Obviously you’re unaware of the fact that you destroy all of your credibility by exhibiting your ignorance with inane phrases such as ‘Socialist Liberals.’

The ACLU is a private sector entity, not subject to First Amendment restrictions, unlike pubic sector lawmaking entities. The ACLU has also been instrumental in efforts to protect the religious liberty of millions of Americans by indeed keeping separate church and state, as mandated by the Constitution.

Otherwise, you should have no problem finding examples of laws passed by the 'Socialist Liberals' a given city, county, state, or the Federal government that restricted the religious practices of any faith that was subject to judicial review and upheld by the courts as Constitutional.

Obviously you failed to recognize that I LISTED the ACLU SEPARATE from the "socialist liberals" comment. IF you believe that the current power base of the Democrat Party IS NOT SOCIALIST LIBERAL then it is surely YOU who is exercising their "ignorance with inane ideology."

The ACLU HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL in more lawsuits against Christians and Christianity than any other Legal Organization I know of...........What YOU CALL "protecting the religious liberty of millions of Americans......." is actually the ACLU's incessant attacks against anything/all things Christian. Now, maybe for YOU this is "protecting religious freedom" but for those the ACLU assaults .............. yeah, not so much.

Any reasonably intelligent individual who does not recognize that the ACLU is the Legal Wing of the far left Socialist Liberals who have taken over the Democrat Party, is in more dire need of a reality check than any white man in History.........just saying.....

Perhaps you would be better served to concern yourself with your own credibility, and I'll concern myself with mine..........ok?

You could have saved all that typing by simply stating: “I have no idea what I’m talking about and I can provide no examples of laws passed by the 'Socialist Liberals' that a given city, county, state, or the Federal government restricted the religious practices of any faith that was subject to judicial review and upheld by the courts as Constitutional.”

There are a plethora of examples to review........and as you appear to consider yourself an expert, I suggest you do your own research...........I will give you one hint to start you off though.......you can google Judge Roy Moore of Alabama and review his case history with the Federal Government and the ACLU.........and that is just ONE of thousands on the Record to be reviewed.

And I see you wish to "restrict" this to certain criteria which was not stated in the original commentary, but that is the way folks do it when they can't uphold their initial argument. Don't worry, you aren't the first to do this, and you won't be the last.......

Consider the following.........both the House and the Senate have a "Chaplain." Each begin their day with a "prayer." The 10 Commandments are carved in Stone in more than one location in Government Buildings...........why exactly is this Constitutionally acceptable and the citizens of this Nation are not afforded the same freedoms? Oh, yeah, that's right; because Congress and SCOTUS "exempt" themselves from many of the Laws they suffer the citizens with. Because SCOTUS says something is Constitutional does not make it so, just makes it a definitive example of SCOTUS defiling the Separation of Powers as established in the Constitution when they practice "legislating from the bench."

1) Separation of Church and State.........NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION! Never was, never was INTENDED to be.....

2) Abortion Rights............NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, and no Constitutional Foundation exists for this absurd ruling by SCOTUS. And, quite surprisingly, there are more than a few Constitutional Scholars on the Left who fully agee.



Guess you gave up defending the ACLU? Well, that's one giant leap for understanding anyway........

 

[tipofthespear]

I do have to admit that it seems as if the ACLU has come down far on the left much more often than anywhere on the right....Maybe it's just me......

The ACLU has simply supported the religious freedom of Americans by preventing the un-Constitutional conjoining of church and state.

That one perceives the ACLU as partisan is subjective.

Social conservatives and Christian fundamentalists become frustrated when the courts time and again invalidate laws that violate Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Let's do the "goose"........"gander" thing........please post examples of these "laws" that were invalidated which violated the Establishment Clause that Christians were so frustrated with..........

The ACLU is a Liberal Organization. To suggest otherwise is to have lost contact with reality.

 

[tipofthespear]

What’s not rational is a hasty generalization fallacy.

What’s not rational is putting words into peoples’ mouths and lying about what their position is on an issue.

And again, there are no First Amendment violations here, that a private citizen upsets you, hurts your feelings, or offends you is also not a First Amendment violation.

You are willfully ignorant. Both of them have stated in no uncertain terms they think teaching children below some unestablished age religion is Mental abuse. They have stated it should stop. They have stated it is illegal to abuse children. Golly gee they couldn't possible mean they want parents arrested now could they, MORON.

One has lost the argument when he resorts to insults.

So, I suppose when you "resorted" to insulting me, you were conceding the argument?

Good...........I can move on......

 

[SFC Ollie]

I don't believe i've ever stated my own personal view of religion, and I probably never will. it's my own business and all that.

But tell me how a Cross erected by Veterans to honor Veterans is unconstitutional? I don't give a rats ass how many justices sit on their ass and misread the constitution. there is nothing in that one sentence that says any such thing..........

It's one simple sentence, Unless you read into it something you want in it; it means nothing more than exactly what it says.

 

[tipofthespear]

I don't believe i've ever stated my own personal view of religion, and I probably never will. it's my own business and all that.

But tell me how a Cross erected by Veterans to honor Veterans is unconstitutional? I don't give a rats ass how many justices sit on their ass and misread the constitution. there is nothing in that one sentence that says any such thing..........

It's one simple sentence, Unless you read into it something you want in it; it means nothing more than exactly what it says.

You are quite correct................it is not un Constitutional............

(but don't suggest such to the ACLU, ya know, they are just protecting the religious rights of all Americans...........and have to prevent the possibility of some nut being offended by seeing that cross............great bunch of guys for sure, them ACLU guys)

 

[JoeB131]

[

I've seen this "dodge" used before and the problem is you are suggesting as is now becoming more popular that specific species "evolve" within their own species, and do not "evolve" into a higher life form. ONLY PROBLEM IS this is in direct contradiction to Darwin's writings in "The History of Man," and with the beliefs of the majority of evolutionists who accept that man "evolved" from the ape..........

Except evolutionists don't believe that man evolved from apes. They believe that apes and man shared common ancestor species. Clearly, your ignorance of evolution does not invalidate it, but it makes it harder to have a logical discussion on the issue.

And, were your idea to be accepted as truth, then the "natural" truth would be that "evolution" is no longer in effect.........and the second problem with your argument is that IF EVOLUTION is truth, then the evolving species (regardless of their abilities to sustain themselves) WOULD STILL BE GOING ON!

The forces of evolution probably don't apply to modern humans, as we don't allow our weaker members to die. Gosh darn, we don't let Corky the Retard get eaten by a Saber Tooth Tiger, we put him in Special Ed.

Sometimes we even elect them to Congress... but thankfully Michelle Bachman isn't running for another term.

[
So, again, show me these please........then you got an argument, but not until then. Until then you have a flawed theory that has no truth in it.

Show me the evolutionary flawed variations of man............there should be countless numbers of them roaming the earth should there not?

Again, evolution happens among SPECIES, not invididuals. That you don't understand this concept is part of the problem. Of course, you have thousands of genetic variations. It's why people from Africa are dark skinned and people from Europe are light skinned.

What you Creationist tools fail to take into account is time. These changes happen slowly over millions of years. Species rise and fall. In the case of humans, H. Sapiens Sapiens crowded out all the other variants.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't believe i've ever stated my own personal view of religion, and I probably never will. it's my own business and all that.

But tell me how a Cross erected by Veterans to honor Veterans is unconstitutional? I don't give a rats ass how many justices sit on their ass and misread the constitution. there is nothing in that one sentence that says any such thing..........

It's one simple sentence, Unless you read into it something you want in it; it means nothing more than exactly what it says.

It's on public Land.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Case closed.

 

[LittleNipper]

I don't believe i've ever stated my own personal view of religion, and I probably never will. it's my own business and all that.

But tell me how a Cross erected by Veterans to honor Veterans is unconstitutional? I don't give a rats ass how many justices sit on their ass and misread the constitution. there is nothing in that one sentence that says any such thing..........

It's one simple sentence, Unless you read into it something you want in it; it means nothing more than exactly what it says.

It's on public Land.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Case closed.

The land doesn't belong to Congress. It belongs to whomever will use it. The fact is that there are government controlled cemetaries all over the world. Imagne them breaking down all the crosses and the stars of David. And then there is the Red Cross... That gets funding.