Replies

It has been a little long since you posted to me, but I want to say I did indeed address your point. I didn't try to "dazzle with big words". The words I used seemed particularly relevant.

You made the point that no rights are absolute--"Fire in the theater, etc." But you are wrong. Free speech is absolute. Yelling fire is not free speech.

The "establishment clause" is also absolute. Congress shall make no law to establish religion; nor shall it prevent the free exercise thereof.

Your theory or hypothesis that anyone of any religion could prevent a law by saying "it is against my religion" is sophistry-a convoluted, roundabout way of making a point for your theory that if evidence of one religion is found in the public domain, one must make way for any trumped up religion;therefore, all must be banned. This is the planned and knowing falsehood of the ACLU, athiests, etc.

People seem to have forgotten that our founding documents were written by men who both believed in and acknowledged
God (Even Franklin and Jefferson, the two possible Deists)acknowledged a Creator. God and the 10 Commandments
underlie English law and our law is based on English comman law and God's law as found in the Bible. Any other religion doesn't count historically or constitutionally, but that still does not keep Zen Buddhists from practicing their religion or Muslims or any other. It simply makes a statement about HOW our laws came into being.If this nation ever becomes a Muslim Theocracy, I guess you would see the Koran; if it becomes China West, you may see and hear the Cummunist Manifesto. For now, we are still nominally a Christian nation, as set forth by the Founding Fathers and upheld for a couple of hundred years by the courts.

vaudine

I applaud your efforts, but you are completely wrong. Saying "Free speech is absolute. Yelling fire is not free speech." is a contradiction. Speech is speech. You are free to hold any opinion; the ways you express the opinions are regulated out of necessity. Yelling fire is speech, yet it is banned. Therefore, all speech is not free and "free speech" is not absolute. "Fighting words" is another example used by the courts. You have no right to engage in conduct (including using speech) that could cause a riot--an actual quote form Justice Antonin Scalia.

The "establishment clause" is also absolute. Congress shall make no law to establish religion; nor shall it prevent the free exercise thereof.

Again, incorrect. All you did was call my argument a ruse byt the ACLU and atheists. You did not adress the argument itself. Unless Congress or the Courts define exactly what a religion is, and define which religions are "recognized" under law, then any action could be taken and defended as an exercise of religion. Those are facts.