Thread Split: First Amendment Rights

[Shu2jack]

Interesting, I got a negitive rep point for "Spinning both sides and counterdicting myself.

Out of curosity, would anybold be able to point out where in my previous post in this thread that I "spun" the issue or counterdicted myself?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

1. I don't think people of faith should have more rights than others, but they shouldn't have fewer either.

Very well. Yet it is not a "right," natural or otherwise, for any religion to impose its will on the people via the actions of the government. The government is not the arbiter in the struggle of ideas.

There is nothing quite so silly as a group of people claiming they're being oppressed for simply not being allowed to force their beliefs on another group of people.


2. I have a lot of friends in Mississippi and, really, don't let Hollywood define them for you. A Muslim in Mississippi is in no worse shape than he would be most other places.

I don't let Hollywood define Mississippi for me. I base it on having lived there as a child, in part, and from knowing their education ranking (50 out 50 states, including D.C. on ALEC scores) and their history of intolerance.

Let's think a moment as to how a Muslim Arab would do in good ol' Miss...

Former Mississippi governors Kirk Fordice and Haley Barbour, Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Kay Cobb, and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott have all addressed the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization founded by white separatists. Lott has spoken to them five times, and told them they "stand for the right principles and the right philosophy."

The CCC advocates white rule, and teaches the racial inferiority of non-whites. They're strongly Christian. I doubt too many Muslims are counted among their members.

http://www.cofcc.org/

This embarrassing situation with Lott and the others forced Jim Nicholson, former GOP party chairman, to call for Republican members of the CCC to quit the organization.


As a last point, many of the early settlers came here not to escape religion or live in a secular state, but to be free to practice a religion that was not well tolerated in their home countries.

Wasn't it religious tolerance they sought, not freedom from religion?


It is a myth that the first settlers here were seeking religious tolerance. The vast majority settled here for different reasons, whether political or economic. Our early history doesn't revolve around Plymouth.

The Puritans of New England wanted to reform the Anglican church, setting the example by building a holy community in the New World. They then set about repressing the religious freedoms of others. Though they fled religious repression in England, they sought religious domination in America.

Roger Williams came to Massachussetts and preached toleration and separation of church and state, and was banished for it. Note: He didn't like muslims or hindus or jews...but thought they ought be left alone.

Williams built the Rhode Island Colony, which then became a haven from those seeking refuge from the persecution of the Puritans. One of those was Anne Hutchinson, who preached religious tolerance and was forced to leave the Puritan enclave.

Here, if your interested, is a little essay by Puritan John Cotton condemning democracy:

http://www.skidmore.edu/~tkuroda/hi321/LordSay&Sele.htm



Regards,


Steve

 

[Marginal]

This thread was not meant to be "About God" it was about the Interpretation of the Amendments. How if you Can TWIST the meaning of Pass no laws restricting practice of religion into somthing as stupid as "You can have no religion in government" then you can easily twist pass no law limiting freedom of speech into somthing as evil as "you can not speak out against your government"... because its THE SAME TWIST.

If the government is to make no law restricting the practice of religion or the free exercise thereof, then you have to insure that one religion isn't restricting another religion's free practice. With a state lead prayer before a football game, a class etc, your are infringing on the rights of others to pracice their differing forms of religion if you happen to pick one (simply because it happens to be the majority religion) and make everyone chant along. Not sure how preventing a dominant religion from impedeing the free practice of another is twisting the meaning there.

For example, creationism would be a fun topic if it was expored giving equal weight to all interpretations. Imagine a teacher having to seriously present Cronus and Zeus, The Devil Dingo, etc right along with the Bible as equally valid options.

 

[Phoenix44]

The Constitution has always been interpreted by the courts, and forbidding prayer in school is part of the interpretation. As soon as you allow prayer in school, it introduces God into school. What if you don't believe in God at all?

I'm a religious person. I practice my religion in my home, in the homes of my family and friends, and in my house of worship, and I'm glad I have the freedom to do so. I have no desire whatsoever to practice it in my workplace (a public institution), and I absolutely fail to understand why other people feel so strongly that they MUST introduce their religion into the public arena. And make no mistake about it, it's THEIR religion they want in the public schools, not mine.

 

[ghostdog2]

Just getting back to this thread and sorry to see that childhood memories and ancient history still define the South for some.

About politicians addressing controversial groups, that shows little. Career pols speak to anyone who will listen. Governors and Senators make literally hundreds of speeches annually. Teddy Kennedy could address MADD and the NRA in the same day and I wouldn't read too much into it.

As for the education stats, I guess we can only assume all uneducated people are prejudiced and there are no educated bigots. I'm not sure a college degree makes anyone any more tolerant.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'll stick with mine. There are lots of fine people in the South, give them a chance.

 

[ghostdog2]

I see Technopunk's point. Or I think I do. The meaning given the First Amendment is strained and artificial. If you were to apply that same type of reasoning to the other Amendments it would do harm to the Framers' intent.
I think that's it and I generally agree.

 

[Marginal]

In fact... it also applies to the right to assemble and have free speech... SAME Amendment... If the wording in that Amendment means that you cannot have "Religion" on Government Buildings... it must also state the same thing about Assembling and Speaking...

Not really. There are limits on each of those respectively, and there's no valid reasoning supporting the claim that since A is A, that A is also B. For example, you can't publish damaging lies, can't incite people to imminent lawless action. There are also limits on the freedom of assembly etc. There's no support for the line of thinking that since one freedom is restricted for the public good that the others must be restricted in precisely the same way. It's never been done that way.

Nobody ever tries to argue, "Since I'm not allowed to assemble a large group at midnight along mainstreet and have a crowd strip naked while screaming "Fire! Fire!", the freedom of the press is threfore negated... Same chain of dominos though.