The Press and Extreme Right

[Colleen Thomas]

I did not post the 1st Amendment in it's entirely as it pertains to religion. An error on my part and should have read as follows:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

This establishes that the poeple of the US have the right to excercise freedom of religion and, necessarily, is inclusive of the right to be free from religion as one cannot excercise freedom to choose religion if they are not free from religion.

My apologies for the error, I hope this clarifies the logic behind my position.

You lost me at properly interpreted. Sorry, but your interpretation is no more proper than mine.

I can support mine with historical fact and ancedotal evidence every bit as strong as anything you can produce to interpret your position.

For example, if your interpretation is correct, why does the charter of Virginia demand recognition of God to hold office? Surely, while the framers were still alive to ask what they meant, such an egrigious violation of your interpretation would have been rectified?

The important part of that amendment is the first four words. Congress shall not pass. If your state wants to descriminate, have at it. If your town wants only puritans, ca sera sera. If you want to beat little Jimmy like a red headed step child to make him got to church, here's the paddle. So long as the Fed isn't passing laws to establish one religion's predominance, your religion is your own bussines. your right to exercise it in a manner you are comfortable with, inalienable and enowed in you by your creator, ot granted by this document.

It will be excesively hard to convince me your interpretation is the proper one, when application of it in the form you suggest is not part of the historical record prior to the cvil war, to my knowledge.

You seem to be a very logical thinker, so logically, if the amendment expressly says it is dealing with congress's ability to pass such laws, It isn't even aimed at you, the individual.

For a great amount of time, religious expression, etc. was governed by the states. Exemplfying the fact that the fed was denied the ability to legislate there making the power to regularte relion a reserve power of the states. Following that, the power to say you had to be of X religion to hold office or X religion(vodoo for example or the naveho religion) is outlawed in this state/county/parrish/town/territory.

 

[H Dean]

Colleen

You lost me at properly interpreted. Sorry, but your interpretation is no more proper than mine.

Properly interpereted meaning that the entirety of the US Constitutional Amendments are considered according to logical interperetation. That is, not creatively.

I can support mine with historical fact and ancedotal evidence every bit as strong as anything you can produce to interpret your position.

Historical fact is not always consistant with logical and literal interperetation. For instance, the US Supreme court has made rulings inconsistant with the wording of the Constitution and which were not logical. The "clear and present danger" ruling is such a thing. The FCC is another area which, according to logical and strict interperetation of the US Constitution, is illegal.

For example, if your interpretation is correct, why does the charter of Virginia demand recognition of God to hold office? Surely, while the framers were still alive to ask what they meant, such an egrigious violation of your interpretation would have been rectified?

This requirement is not Constitutional and would not withstand a challenge if brought to the US Supreme Court, assuming they used a logical and strict interperetation of the Constitution. Also, one must remember that the application of the US Constitution to all citizens has been a progression over the short time in which the USA has existed.

The important part of that amendment is the first four words. Congress shall not pass. If your state wants to descriminate, have at it. If your town wants only puritans, ca sera sera. If you want to beat little Jimmy like a red headed step child to make him got to church, here's the paddle. So long as the Fed isn't passing laws to establish one religion's predominance, your religion is your own bussines. your right to exercise it in a manner you are comfortable with, inalienable and enowed in you by your creator, ot granted by this document.

I commented on this in my previous post, factually demonstrating that this is not a correct belief or interperetation. One must, when considering the US Constitution, take it in it's entirety. This is why I posted the other articles that I did. It is those which applies these rights to individual citizens. Also, part of the subject matter of this comment has been judged by the US Supreme court and your comments are inconsistant with both their rulings and a logical interperetation of the US Constitution.

It will be excesively hard to convince me your interpretation is the proper one, when application of it in the form you suggest is not part of the historical record prior to the cvil war, to my knowledge.

Decisions by the US Supreme Court have been illogical and incorrect on many occassions. Many of these occassions were over turned and new rulings made. Their decisions, right or wrong, do not negate logic. When I refer to "proper interperetation" I refer to logical interperetation and not, necessarilly, to "judged" interperetation.

You seem to be a very logical thinker, so logically, if the amendment expressly says it is dealing with congress's ability to pass such laws, It isn't even aimed at you, the individual.

This might be true if not for other Amendments which apply those rights, specifically, to individual citizens. This fact changes the "target" to be more inclusive to and not exclusionary to each individual. *I have already demonstrated the articles applying these rights to the citizenry and not just to Congress.

For a great amount of time, religious expression, etc. was governed by the states. Exemplfying the fact that the fed was denied the ability to legislate there making the power to regularte relion a reserve power of the states. Following that, the power to say you had to be of X religion to hold office or X religion(vodoo for example or the naveho religion) is outlawed in this state/county/parrish/town/territory.

Ths is a sad but true fact. There are many such laws on the books of various states today. This does not make them logically sound nor does it mean they will withstand a Constitutional challenge.

Incidentally, I am enjoying this discussion.

 

[H Dean]

Adendum

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This has been applied to the individual states by the US Supreme court. Therefore, the states can do nothing to prohibit the free excercise of religion. This applies, logically, a freedom from religion as already demonstrated.