Replies

But what on earth has that got to do with what we were talking about???

Apparently you were not giving full attention to what was being said, or implied. You were busy "laughing." Here's the thread, with a statement of what the First Amendment says, as mentioned by Oliviaforever in Post 12:

=========

From Wikipedia:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th and 21st-century court decisions which protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech; these rulings also defined a series of exceptions to First Amendment protections.

*****

Your thesis was:

The First Amendment protects us against speech control BY THE GOVERNMENT.

******

My correction to that was as follows:

114 by imardmd1
To: Shimmer1

It’s not their Constitutional right to approach strangers’ children.

It is. And it is your Constitutional right to resist it, as well as to advance your own position to your children, even if it is criminally immoral and arm-bending. As it often is, nowadays. Amendment I has no stipulations regarding the age of the audience. Neither do billboards.

148 by Shimmer1
To: imardmd1

Really. And where is that in the Constitution? The First Amendment protects us against speech control BY THE GOVERNMENT. We do NOT have the unlimited right to approach a stranger’s child. Besides, if someone did this to my child, and I am a Christian and my children are Christians, I’d be suspicious and offended.

If we have the "right" to do this, then Satanists and witches have the right to do this. NO.

154 by imardmd1
To: Shimmer1

The First Amendment protects us against speech control BY THE GOVERNMENT.

The first authority to keep you from trying to control his speech is the speaker. And you can go as far in suppressing him as your ingenuity and politics carries you. In a free society, that is, Satanism, witches, Muslims, educators, or whatever. They are all here, and they are active.

What is your point?

============

Here is the thread of posts you are referring to, and which any interested party can check:

12 to 1
58 to 12 (In which you tried to assert that CEF had no Constitutional right to approach the playing children)
114 to 58 (In which I corrected you)
148 to 114 (In which you resisted correction)
154 to 148 (In which further examples of clear rights answered your resistance to common sense)
158 to 154 (In which you referred to my comments as "spew")
161 to 158
163 to 161
165 to 163
179 to 165 (your last response/challenge)

===============

Here are the facts:

Freedom of speech is freedom, and has no hindrance.

Freedom of religion is freedom, and has no hindrance.

The First Amendment of the Constitution proclaims that.

Under the 1st Amendment, not only the government, but no one can prevent you from freely speaking your mind toward anyone whom you wish, nor of exercising your religion in any way not unlawful that you wish.

Under that provision, it is not unlawful to approach your children, speak to them, give them literature or other gifts, or communicate to them in any way lawful. It is their Constitutional right to do so. The Constitution does not grant "rights" -- it only affirms those rights that already exist and are recognized .

There is no such legal mechanism as "prior restraint" to exercise of the First Amendment, as you implicitly maintain.

But you say otherwise, and you are lacking in your understanding.

Now, on the other hand, if and when you decide to rebuff the advances of someone who is exercising theirs, by defending yourself and those in your care, by telling the offenders that their speech, literature, and religious tactics are unwelcome, unwanted, and to be taken to a non-threatening distance, you have exercised your Constitutional right to your own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

When you think that any of those rights (including rejecting God) do not exist, or wish to deny them to others (whose conduct may be offending to you, but lawful for them), you will place yourself on the side of those who will rob you of God-given rights, when they label your objections as "hate crimes" and put you in jail for verbally, religiously, and physically resisting.

That will be Obama's cronies whether religiously, politically, or sexually motivated.

I hope this gets through the murk of false assumptions and conclusions, and laughing at things you say you don't understand.

*********

You also ought to take into account that "Child Evangelism Fellowship" isn't just about adults approaching children with the Gospel. It is also about making effective child evangelists out of saved, believing children who go out into the playgrounds and swimming pools and, while enjoying the fun, tell other friends about Jesus and invite other young pals to come with them to their "Good News" Clubs, or to come with their adult escorts to an outdoor Gospel presentation nearby to the recreation area.

You may also want to recognize that your under the First Amendment the Satanist, or Muslim, or atheistic, or homophyllic groups do have the same right to exercise similar tactics for their beliefs, eh?

Laugh at that.

Laugh at me all you want, if it helps you ignore the facts of what real freedom in a society means, and how education in morality can alleviate some of the everpresent freedom to be wicked in it.

Or is it that you don't want a really Constitutiionally free society, which can take a clearly sinful path if desired by the majority?

Read some Thomas Jefferson.