Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1.    #1  
    US Constitution, 1st Amendment:

    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.

    Something to think about: the word "of" is used throughout the 1st Amendment, yet there are people/groups/courts modifying the meaning to the point that the word "from" is how they read the word "of". This amendment states we have the freedom OF religion (anyone can choose their religion or not). The 1st Amendment does not state that all US Citizens must be free FROM religion.


    Whatever your faith/non-faith, is it right to modify how the 1st Amendment is interpreted in this manner?

    Note: This is intended for honest debate, not personal or religious attacks or slander. Thanks, Chris.
    I see pandas.
  2. #2  
    There will always be people that put their own spin on anything.

    I don't think religion should be forced on anyone, but no, changing it to make it mean what you want is not right.

    I think the freedom of religion covers it quite well, you have the freedom to believe or not believe, as you wish and that is the way it should be.
    Sent from my favorite gadget!
  3. #3  
    I believe the non-religious are protected by this verbage. If that's what you're asking...

    besides, these no such thing as 'modifying' an interpretation. You may think someones interpretation is a modification of what is written, but that would still be an opinion.
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #4  
    Most debates however revolve around a related but different subject... the display of religious symbols on government, or publically funded, properties. It's not about "freedom from" but rather, insurance that the gov isn't endorsing or promoting a religion.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Most debates however revolve around a related but different subject... the display of religious symbols on government, or publically funded, properties. It's not about "freedom from" but rather, insurance that the gov isn't endorsing or promoting a religion.
    oh I see. Well the concept of 'separation of church and state' isn't explicitly anywhere in the constitution, but Jefferson claims that the 1st amendment implies a certain wall of separation. He would know... I guess...
    IMO if seeing a religious symbol on a wall is offensive to you, you're too sensitive.

    as long as there are no laws written that show favoritsm to a particular religion, I feel the gov is behaving constitutionally in this regard.
  6. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Most debates however revolve around a related but different subject... the display of religious symbols on government, or publically funded, properties. It's not about "freedom from" but rather, insurance that the gov isn't endorsing or promoting a religion.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
    Means displays of religious symbols on public land are not allowed. But:

    or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
    Does not mean the government can't select members of only certain press outlets for the White House Press corps or snub certain other press outlets altogether.

    Hmmm.
    Last edited by groovy; 12/21/2010 at 04:02 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions