If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Stop the Ground Zero Mosque -- Join us on FACEBOOK
On Sep 2, 11:40*am, "mazorj" wrote:
READER ALERT: *We've veered way OT here and what follows is a lengthy response to Jud's feeble attempt to defend Beck. Although I said mazorj could have the last word (and I am sure that he will!), I must begin my rebuttal to say that nowhere in my post did I attempt to defend Beck. Re-read please and then re-read again. My post said that you overuse buzz words, and asked you to explain the MLK 'desecration', to which you did respond but didn't come near to defining how Beck committed 'desecration'. And yes, I am well aware that the 1st Amendment addresses government suppression of free speech, not on a citizen-to-citizen basis. Do you consider people who object to building an Islamic cultural center blocks away from Ground Zero to be hypocrites when they see nothing objectionable in having a rabid neocon crypto-racist like Beck cynically desecrate the site and date of MLK's seminal speech? Just asking (and yes, veering OT, mea culpa). I guess the 1st Amendment rights only apply when people are saying what you agree with. "Rabid neocon crypto-racist?" There should be a penalty for using too many 'buzz words' in the same sentence. Please tell us all just how you think Beck 'desecrated' the site and date? Oh, that's right, I am sorry, I forgot...it would have been totally proper and correct and not desecration if it was someone with whom you agreed, and in reality, nothing to do with MLK at all. In case you need a reminder...the Constitution guarantees everyone to air their grievances. Jud -mea maxima culpa- Flame on! You may have the last word. ======================= (Jerry, pay attention too) Why is it that whenever someone's ox gets gored like I just did to Beck's, the most common (and weakest) response is to rise to the defense with some drivel about encroaching on the offender's First Amendment rights? *This is a straw-man argument, totally worthless. Nowhere did my flame on Beck say or even suggest that he had no legal right to do what he did, or that he should be muzzled. *But "Hello?" *Jud, you do realize, don't you, that just because something is legal doesn't make it right by any number of non-statutory standards and values that might be applied? More like a rant than a flame. Patting yourself on the back for "goring Beck's ox" are you? Maybe in your mind that's what happened. The way I see it is that you have been drinking too much of the ultra- liberal Kool Aid. It offends you that someone with a different point of view than yours happened to hold a rally on the same date and at the same venue of a previous rally. You don't seem to think that it was 'right' for Beck to be there at that particular time and place, by YOUR values. Perhaps you would like to be consulted for your opinion and permission for a ruling in the future? For example, Islamic schools in America have the FA right to teach their students their interpretation of their religion, including harsh laws of punishment, asserting that women are vessels of sin and are inferior to males and subject to their domination, that as a religious principle, martydom by suicide bomb is an admirable avenue to heaven, that democracy is the Satanic illusion, etc. *It's all perfectly legal under the FA as long as they don't cross the line into performing illegal acts or openly urging others to act out their cruel, violent beliefs on anyone. But you and I and probably 99% of our fellow Americans would feel that we have the right - and indeed the responsibility - to exercise our FA right to denounce these practices and even the teaching of them. *THAT is a crucial part of the FA. *If someone speaks, someone else has the right to rebuttal. It doesn't matter if the rebuttal takes the form of sweet, gentle Koombaya sessions, or is essayed as a strongly worded Internet flame (which mine was). *You and I can even tell each other to shut the hell yup without violating the FA. *The FA only guarantees the right to make a statement without prior restraint by the government. *(Even that can be curtailed but we'll skip that for now.) *The religious beliefs I described, no matter how you or I may feel about them, are protected by the FA... and so is our right of rebuttal. *THAT, sir, is the real power of the FA at work. So following that logic, the FA does not give Beck the right or even the expectation that no other citizen shall call him a moron or evil or question his motives or the sensitivities of the times and places he chooses to speak - or *even to shut up (which I didn't). *You dish it out, you better be prepared to take it. Oh I can take it, I have been spoken to in harsher terms before. By your reasoning then, you should also expect the same sort of response. I am actually quite amused by the liberal 'outrage' that someone had the temerity to 'desecrate' MLK, although there was no reference to him, just the fact that the rally was held when and where it was. I have no beef with the Park Service for granting him the permit, nor do I want to see the Becks of the world subjected to prior restraint by the government. *The fault, dear sir, lies not in ourselves, but in the star performer. *If he had chosen a different date for his rally at the Lincoln Memorial, you'd hear scattered disgruntled objections to the place of the venue but not the massive uproar that this created. *Likewise if he had kept the date but moved the rally. *(In either case he'd still hear objections to the nature of his views, although that's always going to happen and is a separate debate on the merits, not the circumstances.) That's where I can agree with you! If it was held elsewhere and/or on a different date, there would STILL be objections from the uber- liberals. So, what's the beef? If the objections were predestined, it really didn't make a difference, did it? But... for him to hold this event at the same time and place as MLK and then try to claim that both were pure coincidence, GMAFB. *He willfully created a perfect storm of public outrage against him when he could have avoided most of it. *His adoring fans may be dumb enought to believe that the timing and venue were "pure coincidence" but I and millions of others aren't buying it. For us it was a sly, too clever by half, deliberate poke in the eye against MLK, blacks and other people of color. * I think that now he genuinely regrets his sophomoric decision to make it a "two-fer" by adding the MLK angle. *Not because it was offensive, but because it drew most media attention away from his intended purpose and the content of the rally. *In communications it's called stepping on your own message. Again, I find myself agreeing with you (GASP!), to a point. I am not sure that I buy his 'coincidence' story either, but that is beside the point. I don't see where it is a poke in the eye or offensive. Going on that premise, no one should EVER hold a rally at ANY place or on ANY date where an historic speech previously took place. Political correctness and over sensitivity anyone? Let me make it perfectly clear: *To paraphrase Voltaire's classic take on free speech, I will defend to my death Beck's right under the FA to hold his rally, any time and anywhere he wants; but I also will go to my grave exercising my FA right to publicly despise and denounce him and all others of his ilk, his views, his actions, and his hypocricies, in the strongest terms I can summon. OK, we are on the same page again except the part about the "hypocricies." Would that be based in fact, or in your own personal opinion? Despise, denounce him, his ilk, views and actions all you like. This is a free country after all, but don't confuse your own opinions as fact. If you can dispute my characterizations of Beck (allowing for hyperbole) then please, exercise your FA right to do so. *By failing to provide any factual rebuttals and falling back on a hackneyed Usenet strawman dodge, you have deserted the field after adding nothing of significance. Alright, I will! You have called him "rabid" (hyperbole I assume?) and a "crypto-racist." From previous posts I note that you enjoy using the prefix 'crypto' a lot, but I still fail to see where he is a racist, crypto or otherwise! Please enumerate anything he has said or done to lead you to believe that Beck is a racist. Holding that rally doesn't make him a racist. I am half expecting you invoking Godwin's law at any moment. No strawman argument here. You made the allegation, now please explain yourself. I have not deserted the field, but returned to it, this time only, to respond to your false allegations that I have feebly defended Beck. I am not defending Beck per se, but to his holding a rally at a time and place of his choosing, coincidental or not. And Finnan, don't bother sticking your fetid nose into this again. *We already know what your despicable views are, as posted through your unending parade of transparent nyms in rcc and the documented history of your bigoted tirades in other newsgroups. (Go ahead now, Jud. *Try to claim that I am trying to muzzle Finnan and strip him of his FA rights. *As if. *Not even close to being true, both here and with Beck.) Hee hee hee! I wish someone could muzzle Finnan. I just wish that you could see that holding that rally does NOT make him a racist. That's a serious allegation, which is false. - mazorj "There's a reason why free speech was part of the very first amendment to the Constitution." The Second Amendment protects all the others. In a different post you mentioned shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. That Supreme Court ruling was made by Oliver Wendell Holmes, where he made the famous "Clear and present danger" statement. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Stop the Ground Zero Mosque -- Join us on FACEBOOK
On Sep 3, 12:03*am, "mazorj" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message ... On Sep 2, 11:40 am, "mazorj" wrote: READER ALERT: We've veered way OT here and what follows is a lengthy response to Jud's feeble attempt to defend Beck. snipped for brevity only Excellent response. *Civil, to the point, and no flamage. For the most part, I happen to agree with you, but I still (and always will) challenge the "perception" of Freedom of Speech. *Everyone, including Supreme Courts past, seems to believe that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, and there's nothing the recipient can do about it. *The truth of the matter is that the Founding Fathers put Freedom of Speech in the Bill of Rights to allow the people to criticize the government without fear of retaliation by that government. *Any true Constitutional scholar will tell you that. *It's only because of groups like the ACLU and "open-minded" judges that Crucifixes in urine, burning the flag, Al Sharpton's racial rhetoric, KKK and neo-Nazi rallies, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, the Westboro Baptist Church protests, the National Enquirer, and everything else is now considered "freedom of expression" (I defy ANYONE to find that phrase anywhere in the Constitution). We could go on for hours, but I will close with a saying we used when I was on active duty, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Jerry Enjoying a good debate. ====================== Thanks for the civil reply. this section snipped as not related to my response below The FA also prohibits government establishment of religion. *Some of the noted cases brought by ACLU were when someone tried to stop government suppression of religion, but sometimes the suits were against government practices such as Christmas crèches on government property. *The religious establishment clause prevents it. *Even if the display is privately funded, playing the "free speech" card won't win that case. Again, as far as Free Speech goes, I see your points and agree with them, but in my own opinion (layman that I am) the courts have been extremely liberal (meaning generous) with their interpretation. I do want to comment about your religious comment above. You state correctly that the First Amendment prohibits the government to ESTABLISH a religion. This was intended to stop any actions like those that Henry VIII did to England. Putting up a Nativity Scene, Menorah, Buddha, Mohammed, or any other religious icon of any sort does not "establish" any religion, though at a stretch, it may be construed as an "endorsement." Again, we could argue for hours, but it's nice to be able to discuss potentially "hot topics" without resorting to name-calling and insults. And for that, I thank you. Jerry |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Stop the Ground Zero Mosque -- Join us on FACEBOOK
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message ... On Sep 3, 12:03 am, "mazorj" wrote: "Jerry Dennis" wrote in message ... On Sep 2, 11:40 am, "mazorj" wrote: READER ALERT: We've veered way OT here and what follows is a lengthy response to Jud's feeble attempt to defend Beck. snipped for brevity only Excellent response. Civil, to the point, and no flamage. For the most part, I happen to agree with you, but I still (and always will) challenge the "perception" of Freedom of Speech. Everyone, including Supreme Courts past, seems to believe that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, and there's nothing the recipient can do about it. The truth of the matter is that the Founding Fathers put Freedom of Speech in the Bill of Rights to allow the people to criticize the government without fear of retaliation by that government. Any true Constitutional scholar will tell you that. It's only because of groups like the ACLU and "open-minded" judges that Crucifixes in urine, burning the flag, Al Sharpton's racial rhetoric, KKK and neo-Nazi rallies, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, the Westboro Baptist Church protests, the National Enquirer, and everything else is now considered "freedom of expression" (I defy ANYONE to find that phrase anywhere in the Constitution). We could go on for hours, but I will close with a saying we used when I was on active duty, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Jerry Enjoying a good debate. ====================== Thanks for the civil reply. this section snipped as not related to my response below The FA also prohibits government establishment of religion. Some of the noted cases brought by ACLU were when someone tried to stop government suppression of religion, but sometimes the suits were against government practices such as Christmas crèches on government property. The religious establishment clause prevents it. Even if the display is privately funded, playing the "free speech" card won't win that case. Again, as far as Free Speech goes, I see your points and agree with them, but in my own opinion (layman that I am) the courts have been extremely liberal (meaning generous) with their interpretation. I do want to comment about your religious comment above. You state correctly that the First Amendment prohibits the government to ESTABLISH a religion. This was intended to stop any actions like those that Henry VIII did to England. Putting up a Nativity Scene, Menorah, Buddha, Mohammed, or any other religious icon of any sort does not "establish" any religion, though at a stretch, it may be construed as an "endorsement." Again, we could argue for hours, but it's nice to be able to discuss potentially "hot topics" without resorting to name-calling and insults. And for that, I thank you. ___________ Wouldn't "tolerance" be more appropriate than "endorsement"? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Stop the Ground Zero Mosque -- Join us on FACEBOOK
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message ... .... I do want to comment about your religious comment above. You state correctly that the First Amendment prohibits the government to ESTABLISH a religion. This was intended to stop any actions like those that Henry VIII did to England. Putting up a Nativity Scene, Menorah, Buddha, Mohammed, or any other religious icon of any sort does not "establish" any religion, though at a stretch, it may be construed as an "endorsement." Again, we could argue for hours, but it's nice to be able to discuss potentially "hot topics" without resorting to name-calling and insults. And for that, I thank you. Jerry =================== It's been said "Never argue religion or politics." I'll debate either at the drop of a hat. But we're now on the verge of mixing the two. This may be a good time to defer to the wisdom of "Let's agree to disagree." However, as a partial answer, allow me one last essay in which I discuss another amendment, after which the floor is all yours for what should be the last round of this hopefully informative exchange. Both the First and Second Amendments have required us to decipher the meaning and intent of specific language in the context of their time. A "strict" modern interpretation of the term "establishment" of religion as you described it would logically produce your interpretation. Conservatives generally favor that approach since it tends to limit today's enlarged scope of government. I can think of other interpretations. One would be seeing "the establishment of" as a noun instead of a verb, as in "the existing institution or entity known as religion in all its forms". That would strongly support the "liberal" interpretation of separation of church and state. Government is prohibited from doing anything that favors the particular cultural "establishment" that we call religion, not just the act of establishing an official state religion. Even allowing a Christmas crèche in front of city hall favors both the particular"establishment" that we call religion, as well as a specific organized religion. Yes, my take hinges on vocabulary and grammar, but so does yours. The other "revisionist" approach would be to recognize that while 18th Century America had its different sects and that even their relatively minor differences gave rise to discrimination and violence (a primary motive for that part of the FA), they all were of the Christian persuasion. Except for the occasional odd Pennsylvania Dutch or Jewish immigrant or whatever, no one objected to general acceptance of observing Christmas, placing Christian totems on public property, (Christian) prayer in school, etc. It was part of who we were back then. But now we have a great many citizens who adhere to myriad forms of religion foreign to us, and even some who are vehemently opposed to all religious beliefs (atheists and some agnostics). Many of them object to Christmas crèches, prayer in school, religious icons sitting year round on public property, etc. as government aiding in the "establishment of religion" however you want to interpret it. Since these practices often are in direct opposition and even insulting to their religious beliefs, their rights are being trampled upon. This certainly violates the spirit, if not the literal language of a law intended to protect religious freedom and equality. You prefer to use a more restricted sense of the term "establishment". However, there is a bigger issue at stake here than the particulars of any amendment: "Strict" interpretation of words and clauses is not always in the best interest of conservative values, let alone our collective interests. To show this I need to draw a parallel between the First and Second Amendments. You correctly noted that the primary justification for guaranteeing free speech was as a citizens' defense against government oppression. The Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" (RKBA), as written, puts teeth in the citizens' right to defend (through their "well regulated" militias) against government oppression - in both cases this being against the newly formed federal government. The former colonials were extremely fearful of replacing a foreign tyrant with a home-grown one. Now keep two things in mind. By then, in most cases only colonial (and then state) governments could authorize formal standing militias; and that states, not the federal government, were still considered the fundamental authorities of, and ascendant over, the "United States of America." ("The United States are, not is." Lincoln reversed that forever in preserving the Union.) Militias were formed under the states' inalienable right to provide security for their citizens. They were to ward off local threats, be they Indians, local lawless elements, or foreign intruders. As such they acted as an arm of the state government in lieu of a standing state army or statewide police force. Here's the problem. The Second Amendment has a clause that, under a "strict" reading, confers RKBA only in the context of a "well regulated militia." Which means that under a "strict" (limited, restrictive) reading it does NOT confer a blanket right to gun ownership as it has been taken to mean by firearms advocates. If anything, because it is silent on the matter, it implies that gun ownership can be limited by a state to weapons necessary for their well regulated militia. (States might even forcibly mandate possession of militia-type weapons for able-bodied men as Switzerland has done, since the Second Amendment also is silent on this.) But conversely, that also means that even under the Second Amendment, states are free to limit or even prohibit firearms outside the context of their militia (now the National Guard). The Second Amendment is targeted only against Congress passing laws that would disarm citizens so that they could not form (well regulated) militias to ward off federal troops sent by an oppressive federal government. (When I say "oppressive" I don't mean it at the level of "the income tax is oppressive government" or any of the other similar modern complaints. The framers were addressing the depravations of a truly oppressive and often brutal Crown government.) At this point, Jerry, you probably think you know where I'm coming from and where I'm going with the gun thing. Wrong, oh Great Karnak! :-) I am a responsible owner of many firearms, from pocket pistols to military weapons. I've been issued a concealed carry permit and on occasion have used it. That's why the gun owner in me was delighted when the SCOTUS struck down the ridiculous, gun-grabbing Washington, D.C gun laws. It opened the door to a more liberal (yes, liberal! - for the reasons I just outlined) interpretation of the Second Amendment. Which IMO is a very good thing. Overly restrictive gun laws are toppling like drunks on a pitching ship deck. As with all the other Constitutional rights, the Second Amendment has to be viewed today in the context of times and circumstances not imagined by its writers. To parallel one of your comments, the words "personal and home defense against criminals" are nowhere to be found in the Constitution. But to me and the many responsible, law-abiding gun owners, that is the primary reason why I would want firearms; and we should not be subjected to gun laws that are intended to thwart - or merely have the effect of thwarting - responsible personal possession and carrying of firearms. (There also are other legitimate pursuits such as hunting and collecting and target shooting.) In this case the decision to strike down any unreasonably proscriptive interpretations of the Second Amendment was the right (no pun intended) thing to do, even though it bears all the earmarks of an action by an "activist court". And here I'll summarily dismiss in advance any claims that what the court did was not "activist." It was. To my great dismay, my honest reading of the *entire* Second Amendment, as put in the context I just described, does not indicate that the framers were intending to confer a blanket RKBA as it is interpreted by firearms advocates. Since there were few if any local laws restricting firearms, they presumably didn't see the need to address that. But by being silent on that aspect while specifically protecting the existence of armed, well regulated militias, they missed the opportunity to craft a true RKBA for all citizens. Local firearms laws weren't even on their map. They just wanted to ensure that the federales couldn't legally disarm an opposing local defense system (militia) against invasion by an oppressive federal government. Period. The "activist" SCOTUS ruling brings things forward by enlarging its interpretation in order to address today's firearms issues. Hallelujah and Amen. I don't know that we're necessarily polar opposites on strict versus contextual interpretation, but my view is that the Constitution cannot be viewed as set in stone, because it is abysmally (though necessarily) deficient in explaining how its limited, literal verbiage should be applied to developments and circumstances not even envisionable by its writers. Yes, it can be amended through a long, tortuous process, but if we only went that route we'd be amending the damn thing several times a year to accommodate modern realities. (Or worse yet, convening Constitutional Conventions to mass produce amendments. If that ever happens, Katie bar the door!) Absent a continual stream of amendments, we are forced to ask ourselves "What would George or Thomas or Ben have said about this?" Our government's master plan needs a little breathing room to keep it relevant over the centuries. We should have vigorous debates about, and rigorous legal scrutiny of each proposal for an "enlarged" interpretation. But IMO our democracy would have fallen into serious disrepair (or even disappeared in spasms of violent uprisings) years ago if all along we hadn't been interpreting it to accommodate continual changes to its limited 18th Century contexts. Whew! Your turn. Assuming we're done then, I'm going to go mix religion and numismatics by checking out the thread on Vatican Euros. - mazorj the Not So Strict Constitutional Constructionist |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Stop the Ground Zero Mosque -- Join us on FACEBOOK
On Sep 4, 9:16*pm, "Bremick" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message ... On Sep 3, 12:03 am, "mazorj" wrote: "Jerry Dennis" wrote in message .... On Sep 2, 11:40 am, "mazorj" wrote: READER ALERT: We've veered way OT here and what follows is a lengthy response to Jud's feeble attempt to defend Beck. snipped for brevity only Excellent response. Civil, to the point, and no flamage. For the most part, I happen to agree with you, but I still (and always will) challenge the "perception" of Freedom of Speech. Everyone, including Supreme Courts past, seems to believe that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, and there's nothing the recipient can do about it. The truth of the matter is that the Founding Fathers put Freedom of Speech in the Bill of Rights to allow the people to criticize the government without fear of retaliation by that government. Any true Constitutional scholar will tell you that. It's only because of groups like the ACLU and "open-minded" judges that Crucifixes in urine, burning the flag, Al Sharpton's racial rhetoric, KKK and neo-Nazi rallies, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, the Westboro Baptist Church protests, the National Enquirer, and everything else is now considered "freedom of expression" (I defy ANYONE to find that phrase anywhere in the Constitution). We could go on for hours, but I will close with a saying we used when I was on active duty, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Jerry Enjoying a good debate. ====================== Thanks for the civil reply. this section snipped as not related to my response below The FA also prohibits government establishment of religion. Some of the noted cases brought by ACLU were when someone tried to stop government suppression of religion, but sometimes the suits were against government practices such as Christmas crèches on government property. The religious establishment clause prevents it. Even if the display is privately funded, playing the "free speech" card won't win that case. Again, as far as Free Speech goes, I see your points and agree with them, but in my own opinion (layman that I am) the courts have been extremely liberal (meaning generous) with their interpretation. I do want to comment about your religious comment above. *You state correctly that the First Amendment prohibits the government to ESTABLISH a religion. *This was intended to stop any actions like those that Henry VIII did to England. *Putting up a Nativity Scene, Menorah, Buddha, Mohammed, or any other religious icon of any sort does not "establish" any religion, though at a stretch, it may be construed as an "endorsement." *Again, we could argue for hours, but it's nice to be able to discuss potentially "hot topics" without resorting to name-calling and insults. *And for that, I thank you. ___________ Wouldn't "tolerance" be more appropriate than "endorsement"?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Bruce, it would depend on who's interpreting the icon. In my own view "tolerance" is the better term, but some, both on the left or right, would view it as an "endorsement." Good catch. Jerry |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Stop the Ground Zero Mosque -- Join us on FACEBOOK
On Sep 5, 2:40*pm, "mazorj" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message ... ... I do want to comment about your religious comment above. *You state correctly that the First Amendment prohibits the government to ESTABLISH a religion. *This was intended to stop any actions like those that Henry VIII did to England. *Putting up a Nativity Scene, Menorah, Buddha, Mohammed, or any other religious icon of any sort does not "establish" any religion, though at a stretch, it may be construed as an "endorsement." *Again, we could argue for hours, but it's nice to be able to discuss potentially "hot topics" without resorting to name-calling and insults. *And for that, I thank you. Jerry =================== It's been said "Never argue religion or politics." *I'll debate either at the drop of a hat. *But we're now on the verge of mixing *the two. *This may be a good time to defer to the wisdom of "Let's agree to disagree." However, as a partial answer, allow me one last essay in which I discuss another amendment, after which the floor is all yours for what should be the last round of this hopefully informative exchange. remainder snipped for brevity Mazorj, my hat is off to you. You present a well-thought out response. We happen to agree more than some may realize. I, too, will echo your "Let's agree to disagree" sentiment. It has been an informative discussion. Now, let's move on to the reason we're really here; to discuss coins. Jerry |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Stop the Ground Zero Mosque -- Join us on FACEBOOK
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message ... .... Mazorj, my hat is off to you. You present a well-thought out response. We happen to agree more than some may realize. I, too, will echo your "Let's agree to disagree" sentiment. It has been an informative discussion. Now, let's move on to the reason we're really here; to discuss coins. Jerry ===================== Likewise. It's been a pleasure. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Stop the Ground Zero Mosque -- Join us on FACEBOOK
You are wrong Jerry. The U.S. Constitution says ESTABLISH religion. Not ESTABLISH a religion. JAM |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Stop the Ground Zero Mosque -- Join us on FACEBOOK
On Sep 7, 3:00*pm, Frank Galikanokus
wrote: You are wrong Jerry. The U.S. Constitution says ESTABLISH religion. Not ESTABLISH a religion. JAM You got me, there, Frank. For anyone interested, I've copied and pasted the First Amendment from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1 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. I hope we're all on the same page, now. And I hope we can all be good neighbors online. Jerry Bruce, wasn't that your old tag line? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Q: Peking Mosque | TL | General Discussion | 4 | September 21st 07 02:21 PM |
Athens Muslims step up calls for a mosque | gogu | Coins | 0 | April 29th 06 12:26 PM |
Athens Muslims step up calls for a mosque | gogu | Coins | 0 | April 28th 06 02:08 AM |
Athens Muslims step up calls for a mosque | [email protected] | Coins | 0 | April 27th 06 12:04 AM |
VENUE ?: THE MOSQUE (Now LANDMARK) in Richmond, VA - Anyone??? | pe2 | Autographs | 0 | September 11th 05 08:20 PM |