No I did not claim that freedom of religion cannot be limited by the rights of others.
The quote you refer to has NOTHING to do with a freedom being limited by the rights of others. Note GOVERNMENT AGENCY. It would also be nice if you would post the entire comment to place it in context rather than just one sentence.
Yelling fire in a theater IS a matter of criminal law. The statement is not ignorant, it is fully accurate and it seems in your response to the statment that you agree that it is a matter of criminal law. It is not a constitutional right. Not sure where you are going with that.
Please, do provide facts. I much prefer them to unsubstantiated news reports or opinions.
My positions are based on facts, not prejudice. I believe you have the two terms confused as I see a lot of prejudice in your posts.
IP: Logged |
posted
If you would learn to read carefully, you would see I posted ALL of that nonsense that said anything.
You are clearly too limited to handle the logic you misuse and hopelessly ignorant of the actual content of the Constitution and the law. The rights described by the constitution are not restricted fro application in criminal law, indeed, thare is the exact place they were designed to be applied.
Your positions are based on ignorance, seasoned with a healthy portion of bigotry.
IP: Logged |
So we are back to the name calling and diverting from the subject.
Interesting.
Rights described by the Constitution are not restricted from application to criminal law. It was however established that yelling fire in a theater is not a Constitutional right. It thus IS criminal law, which is I believe exactly what I said.
IP: Logged |
There is no seperation of church and state. The Constitution is very clear on that. It is convenient to quote a few of the framers of the Constitution when it suits your purpose but the FACT remains that the Consitution says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Therefore, Congress cannot pass any law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
If you try to seperate man from his religion in ANY way as a governmental agency, you are in direct violation of Amendment I of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States.
The founding fathers include more than Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin. While these three may not have felt religion to be important or necessary, many of the others did.
strider this statement right here ignores 200 years plus of history...
you seem to be confused entirely about the differnce between personal rights/responsibilites and governmental rights/responsibilities and it isn't even clear whose personal rights you are defending...
maybe we should put the kama sutra up on the walls of our court houses too..they are religious teachings....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
That statement does not ignore 200 years or history. It's only been in recent history that this government assault on the religious freedoms of government workers and public displays has occurred.
I am not confused at all about the Constitution, I find it to be quite clear on the matter of religious freedoms.
If private individuals wish to donate copies of the kama sutra for display in our court houses, they have the right to do so.
IP: Logged |
posted
I gave you the exact citation of the controlling Supreme Court decision on the rights of one overlapping the rights of another and you have clearly ignored what it said or are incapable of reanig and understanding it.
There is a great deal more to reading than mouthing the sounds indicated by the writing in order.
No, the question was not decided by saying you don't have a Constitutional right to yell fire in a crowded theater. It was decided by pointing out WHY he did not have that right.
In order to exercise a Constitutional right to free speach in yelling fire in a crowded theater, you are imposing on the rights of those in the crowded theater to safety. In other words, whenever the exercise of a Constitutional right would limit the rights of another, you loose the right.
You do not have the right to practice your religion in a manner or place that would impose on me any participation at all. I do not wish to be viewing or hearing you religion or its trappings in public and I have that right.
If you are truely too dense to follow the logic, it is not my fault.
IP: Logged |
posted
Restictions on teachers, restictions on Christmas displays, a judgemental definition of what is too much religion in the workplace, restrictions on prayers at school events.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: Restictions on teachers, restictions on Christmas displays, a judgemental definition of what is too much religion in the workplace, restrictions on prayers at school events.
well? let's try smaller words here...
to be fair? if you honor all the religions? you'll never get any work done.... somewhere you have to draw the line...
my best friend growing up is Jewish i'm Christian...we got to have TWO celebrations for almost every holiday..it was grrrrrreat...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not free speech for a number of reasons. One, privately owned businesses are not subject to Constitutional guarentees of free speach. This alone seperates it from a Constitutional right. Two, it has the potential to cause great harm to others. It is criminal law.
Of course I have the right to practice my religion. You do NOT have the right to not be viewing it or hearing it or its trappings in public. It's right there in the Constitution of the United States.
You do have the right to leave or ignore it.
The only logic which applies is that the wording of the Constitution is thus:
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.
It is freedom "of" not freedom "from". It is illogical to add or change words that are not there and then try to pass them off as fact.
IP: Logged |
You are ignoring the law, which has ruled repeatedy that what you want to be is not corrrect and and you have no such right, while what I request of the Constitution is. You need to seriously study the laws and court rulings. However, though, I'm sorry to have to point it out, you seem too dudnerheaded and stubborn to be capable of doing that.
I am quite tired of your insults amd insinuations and childish demands and remind you again, I want no more of them. I have on several occasions requested that you cease ever using my name or refering to anything I may say or do. Now, please show some of the qualities of a gentleman and do so.
IP: Logged |
posted
Is it Prince Charles "OF" England or Prince Charles "FROM" England?
I have been assured (over and over and over again to the point of absolute rudeness) that the two propositions "of" and "from" are never interchangable.
Hence, logically, it follows and is required that these two things, "Prince Charles of England" and "Prince Charles from England", must be describing different people, even though I am certain they each refers to exactly one person and that there is only and exactly one person for either of them to refer.
Is it possible that logic is illogical after all?
IP: Logged |
Once again you go into the name calling. It doesn't prove your point, it only weakens it.
I get a kick out you telling me who not to address. Don't post incorrect statements and I will have no need to address you.
I've always found that gentlemanly qualities involve discussing things in a mature manner. Not reverting to insults and name calling which you seem extremely quick to do.
I'm not ignoring the law, I'm following the Constitution which is the law. You are the one that is ignoring it.
The two words, of and from are not interchangeable in the Constitution. The Constituion was written very carefully and specifically, from is not there, of is.
Your comparison is illogical. You have two descriptions, both of which are correct. As the Constitution only has one, "of", you cannot change it to "from". It is quite specific and in this instance it very directly changes the meaning of the word.
IP: Logged |
posted
What religious holidays does the government recognize?
Christmas is a secular holiday as well as a religious one.
New Year's Day Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. Washington's Birthday Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Columbus Day Veterans Day Thanksgiving Day Christmas Day New Year's Day 2005
IP: Logged |
posted
Christmas is a secular holiday. You might notice the Santa Claus's, the Christmas Trees, the colored lights, the presents, nearly all of which have very long histories going back to pagan holidays and traditions.
So Christmas was originally a time of festival by the pagan peoples of Europe. It was taken over by Christians as a matter of convenience, yet the pagan traditions continued and today, few celebrate the holiday as Christs birth. It is celebrated as a time to get together, give and recieve gifts and eat tons of food. From Wikipedia:
Christmas (literally, the Mass of Christ) is a holiday in the Christian calendar, usually observed on December 25, which celebrates the birth of Jesus. According to the Christian gospels, Jesus was born to Mary in Bethlehem, where she and her husband Joseph had traveled to register in the Roman census. Christ's birth, or nativity, was said by his followers to fulfill the prophecies of Judaism that a messiah would come, from the house of David, to redeem the world from sin. Early Christians celebrated more the subsequent Epiphany, when the baby Jesus was visited by the Magi (and this is still a primary time for celebration in Spain). Efforts to assign a date for his birth, though better known from Writings from some centuries later, would have been important to all Christians then, no less than now. The precise chronology of Jesus' birth and death as well as the historicity of Jesus are still debated.
Modernists contend that December 25 was only adopted in the fourth century as a Christian holiday by the Roman Emperor Constantine, to encourage a common religious festival for both the Christians and the Pagans.
In predominantly Christian countries, Christmas has become the most economically significant holiday of the year, and it is also celebrated as a secular holiday in many countries with small Christian populations. It is largely characterized by exchanging gifts within families, and by gifts brought by Santa Claus or other mythical figures. Local and regional Christmas traditions are still rich and varied, despite the widespread influence of American and British Christmas motifs through literature, television, and other media.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i been thinking about starting a new church we'll worship MONEY.... oh yeah i forgot they got that one already darn....
Best religion yet.... brilliant.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt.
IP: Logged |
posted
i wonder how we could write up the faith based funding grant proposal?
well? we need ten million in ones to build the pews, five million in twenties to build the altar, and 20 million in hundreds to wallpaper the sanctum sanctorum
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Can I prove it? No. If you want to get technical about it Satan wouldn't have a birthday because he existed prior to the earth's creation and the creation of dates.
I simply did a web search and that was the date that popped up about a dozen times. It seems it is the date which Satan is celebrated by his followers.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
