the A.C.L.U.---protecting our CONSTITUTIONAL values

[bunnymt]

This bill is just another example of a necessary restriction on first amendment rights in furtherance of the public good.

The public good? It's a shame that the government and other factions have so much say as to what does the public good!

bunny

 

[p0ink]

LOL. Good to hear your concern for first amendment rights, particulary when those rights are being used to destruct our political process. The first Amendment is subject to regulation, always has been, and will continue to be. None of our rights are absolute. For example, the states are not completely sovereign since the government restricts states rights where necessary.
Also, First amendment rights are not absolute in school settings either. The Supreme Court has limited constitutional rights time and time again where necessary to protect the welfare of our society.

This bill is just another example of a necessary restriction on first amendment rights in furtherance of the public good.

you think making it illegal for the people to voice an opinion about a person running for office is a good thing? are you fucking kidding me? you think it's a good idea to have a 60 day blackout period before an election where no group or people can voice an opinion about a candidate? do you really hate america that much? or do you just try to piss people off?

 

[Code]

Reading Ryan's posts is like watching a 5 year old desperately trying to get attention.

 

[Warik]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

1) FRANKLINTON, La. is not Congress.

2) No law was made.

A protection of our Constitutional values? More like a direct assault on one's freedom to express his religious beliefs.

People need to actually read the Constitution before "'defending" it.

Besides, Ryan, since when do you have any respect for the Constitution or what it represents?

-Warik

 

[bunnymt]

1) FRANKLINTON, La. is not Congress.

2) No law was made.

A protection of our Constitutional values? More like a direct assault on one's freedom to express his religious beliefs.

People need to actually read the Constitution before "'defending" it.

Besides, Ryan, since when do you have any respect for the Constitution or what it represents?

-Warik

Sure no law was made. However, that is not the issue that I was addressing. Mainly paraphrasing from the Bill of Rights itself. (I have read the constitution). Agreed that it is an assault on one's freedom to express religious beliefs.

 

[danielson]

A protection of our Constitutional values? More like a direct assault on one's freedom to express his religious beliefs.

is it not an assault on one's religious beliefs to allow a sign that does not agree with his religious beliefs to be placed on all public property within that town? creating the impression that all the public within that town agree with that belief? should someone who potentially find that sign offensive be forced to live within eyesight of it?

 

[RyanH]

is it not an assault on one's religious beliefs to allow a sign that does not agree with his religious beliefs to be placed on all public property within that town? creating the impression that all the public within that town agree with that belief? should someone who potentially find that sign offensive be forced to live within eyesight of it?

Danielson is absolutely right, Warik. Who is to say that a Muslim passing through this small town would not feel excluded by the government endorsement of religion.

And Warik, of course, no law was made, but religion was endorsed by the government by allowing signs to be placed on government property. The establishment clause specifically forbids that sort of activity.

 

[RyanH]

Reading Ryan's posts is like watching a 5 year old desperately trying to get attention.

then please, scroll on by my threads. I would actually prefer that you do that.

 

[RyanH]

you think making it illegal for the people to voice an opinion about a person running for office is a good thing? are you fucking kidding me? you think it's a good idea to have a 60 day blackout period before an election where no group or people can voice an opinion about a candidate? do you really hate america that much? or do you just try to piss people off?

hard money is still acceptable under the bill. Only soft money will be limited which is money used as nothing more than for bribes by special interests groups. Individuals will still have their voice heard loud and clear, and the limits on hard money will also be raised under the bill, thus allowing for individual speech to have a greater impact.

Finally, you only question my love for our great nation because you hear a voice of dissent---something our nation was founded on.

 

[Warik]

is it not an assault on one's religious beliefs to allow a sign that does not agree with his religious beliefs to be placed on all public property within that town? creating the impression that all the public within that town agree with that belief? should someone who potentially find that sign offensive be forced to live within eyesight of it?

I see all sorts of Jewish paraphernalia all over the place around Hanukkah and I don't throw a hissy fit. Why? Two reasons.

1) I respect other's rights to place these items where they please. A business owner has the right to put whatever he wants in his store. If someone doesn't like it, that someone shouldn't shop there. Plain and simple.

2) I'm an adult. If it doesn't infringe on my rights or anyone else's rights, I don't care about it. If someone believes that the harmless displays of praise to Jesus is an infringement of their rights, then that person, quite frankly, is not an adult.

The fact of the matter is that no law was broken, yet legal action was taken. That, my friends, is wrong.

-Warik