Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 07/02/2005 5:57:22 AM PDT by NYer
Don't we already have an Amendment for this? "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise ..."
I hesitate to criticise dear Rep. Istook and his supporters, but what's the use of another Amendment, when SCOTUS will simply rule that it doesn't mean what it says? Like, how much more clear could "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged," be?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The empty suits in the Senate will shoot it down when it gets to them.
I don't know preceisely what this is getting at. Is this a proposal to end first amendment rights of people to criticize a religion? I don't agree with that. One should be free to criticize any religion in public as a private person. Just look at the law in Australia punishing a Christian pastor for criticizing Islam, and the proposed law in UK that would punish the same thing.
The amendment reads: "To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage and traditions on public property, including schools. The United States and the States shall not establish any official religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity."
A fitting Amendment that shouldnt be necessary, but sadly is, due to the Supreme Court re-writing of the constitution.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged,"
I expect this to be re-interpreted to mean the right to wear tank tops!
Oh, you mean like liberals who constantly attack Conservative Christians day in and day out? You mean like liberals who hate organized religion and anybody that dares make it part of their life?
"Is this a proposal to end first amendment rights of people to criticize a religion?"
Read the text of the amendment and ignore the misleading headline... it does nothing of the kind. It simply preserves (returns) the right to engage in voluntary, noncoercive religious expression in public places.
You can take it to the bank that should this amendment pass the first group of people to embrace it will be the moslems.
Doesn't our Republican controlled congress have something better to do with their time? First we are visited yet again by another flag burning amendment and now this. Meanwhile our borders are a free-for-all zone and the USSC just ruled that private property really belongs to the State. They need to quit wasting time with these pointless "feel good" amendments and actually do something about the issues that truly and adversely affect people!
:-).
If that wasn't a possiblity it would be very funny.
Isn't that just a rewrite of what the first amendment already says, just wordier?
I appreciate the sentiment but a "loser pays" law would be more effective and you wouldn't need a Constitutional Amendment.
It does seem that such an amendment shouldn't be necessary, but it may be. The act of at least trying to pass such an amendment may call attention to the fact that it appears that Christianity, the Ten Commandments, or anything that relates to the Judeo-Christian God are the only things that seems to be unprotected from political correctness, "hate-speech", etc. If other religious are attacked or questioned, whoever made the statement is viewed as "intolerant".
And look at all the trash Hollywood and "artists" have generated that has been anti-God. Maybe such an amendment, or the attempt to pass such legislation, will stop at least some of that bile.
Do you think that this would make muslimes stop wanting
to kill christians and jews?
Excellent points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.