Sorry, I don't understand your post. We're not talking about rights being taken away. We're talking about what the words of the First Amendment mean. It says "Congress shall make no law ... " It doesn't say, "A small town mayor shall make no law ..." Nor does it say "The Government shall make no law ..." Nor does it say "Any branch of government, federal or state, shall make no law ... " It says "Congress shall make no law ..."
Now I can give you the arguments around that phrasing, but I merely trying to drive the point home about the fallacy of this sentence: "That part that reads "no law" doesn't leave any wiggle room." Because if you want to parse words in the First Amendment, you've got to first deal with "Congress." H. -----Original Message----- From: Gary McNeel, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 8:58 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Enron executive commits suicide No, the Constitution guarantees you the right, no small town mayor "should" be able to take that right away from you. Period. Of course, the system is just corrupt enough to allow it to happen. -Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 8:55 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Enron executive commits suicide > > > If you want to quibble over words, it says, "Congress shall make > no law ..." > it doesn't say anything about small town mayors. > > You can also argue endlessly over the phrase "respecting the establishment > of religion." It can have many different meanings. > > > H. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 1:14 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Enron executive commits suicide > > > US Constitution: First 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. > > That part that reads "no law" doesn't leave any wiggle room. If > you disagree > with how the seperation of church and state has been interpreted by the > Supreme Court, well that's your right. It's my right to worship Satan too, > without stupid small town mayors breaking federal law and declaring my > religion illegal. > > jon > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 3:53 PM > Subject: RE: Enron executive commits suicide > > > > I just really think the whole separation of church and state has been so > > misconstrued it's not even funny. Not that this is all encompassing, but > > the book, "Birth of the Nation", gave some good insight. Way back in the > > day, churches were funded by the local government. It just so happened > > that Protestants were the dominating religion of the day. Therefore the > > Catholics and the Jews got screwed and had a hard time practicing their > > faith. It was determined that it wasn't fair to fund just the > > Protestants, so funding was taken away and everybody was free to > > practice their religion of choice. Thus, the separation of church and > > state - nothing more, nothing less. > > > > For some reason, separation of church and state has morphed into, you > > can't pray in school, you can hardly mention God (and I guess you can't > > mention Satan now either), without the ACLU breathing down your neck. > > The ACLU needs to find better things to do with their time. > > > > Mark > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
