Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Paul Harvey's take on prayer in public/Xmas (In general, a "freedom of speech" topic)
keith63
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 165 (174456)
01-06-2005 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by coffee_addict
01-03-2005 1:47 PM


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.
Here is the basic misunderstanding of the first amendment. To understand it you must know where the founding fathers were comming from. They were searching for religeous freedom from a country that had a state sponsored religeon. There intent was that:
1. Congress ... The last time a checked a school member or student at a football game is not a congressman!!
2. shall make no law ... again saying a prayer is far from making a law!!
3. respecting the establishment of a religion ... No one is saying that from this point on everyone has to become a member of the local baptist church under penalty of law because a baptist person said a prayer at a football game.
4. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... Here is the big one that most people who quote seperation of church and state miss!! A person praying at a game is not establishing a state or Federal religeon, thus not against the constitution, but prohibiting prayer is prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and should be a violation of the constitution!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 01-03-2005 1:47 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by berberry, posted 01-06-2005 2:16 PM keith63 has replied
 Message 125 by Jazzns, posted 01-06-2005 2:55 PM keith63 has not replied

keith63
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 165 (174464)
01-06-2005 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by berberry
01-06-2005 2:16 PM


Why is this so difficult to understand?
I don't know? Why dont you understand it?
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I think, like the first ammendment, this also says
No State shall make or enforce any law
Again if I am right a faculty member or student, by praying, are not making any laws. If anything someone says is "making a law" I would sure like to know that bacause I could think of some great laws I would like to speak. I am a public high school teacher after all. Maybe while I'm at it, and since I'm making laws, I could get the same insurance benefits as congressman. If so let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by berberry, posted 01-06-2005 2:16 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by berberry, posted 01-06-2005 2:51 PM keith63 has replied

keith63
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 165 (174469)
01-06-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by berberry
01-06-2005 2:51 PM


Re: No, you're still WRONG
Where do you get the silly notion that this only applies to law-making?
By reading the entire thing instead of a chosen part out of context.
Try to concentrate on this part:
because that's how misinterpretations, such as you are making, happen.
Lets read the whole part in context.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
When taken in context this clearly says the state can't deny any persons equal protection under the law. I think the state implies our elected officials who legislate law. No laws are being broken, written, or enforced, No one is mandated to participate, therefore it shouldn't fall under the 14th amendment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by berberry, posted 01-06-2005 2:51 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-06-2005 3:13 PM keith63 has not replied
 Message 129 by berberry, posted 01-06-2005 3:17 PM keith63 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024