GOP Congressman Seeks to 'Restore Free Speech' in Churches

CNS News ^ | March 03, 2005 | Nathan Burchfiel

[jackbob]

These gutless wonders don't deserve their 15 minutes of ill-gotten fame.

Good! Then in pulling the reply, the moderator ought to at least copy it, paste it, x-out profanity, and re-post it, with an explanation on its unacceptableness. And of course, no mention of the "gutless wonders" screen name, so as not to give any ill-gotten fame. The reader is then respected as an adult, and not sheltered as a child.

[Caleb1411]

Good! Then in pulling the reply, the moderator ought to at least copy it, paste it, x-out profanity, and re-post it, with an explanation on its unacceptableness. And of course, no mention of the "gutless wonders" screen name, so as not to give any ill-gotten fame. The reader is then respected as an adult, and not sheltered as a child.

I'd be OK with that, too. Sounds like it'd be a lot of work for the moderator, but if he/she's got the time, we could all see the off-topic object lesson in incivility.

[aspiring.hillbilly]

No, no, no,,,, you just don't grasp this issue. The "whole concept" of government regs affecting churches or Establishments of religion in any way, be they voluntary or not--is UN-Constutional, by virtue of the "make no law" clause. Make no law means just that, Congress cannot make rules, either for churches to accept or to opt out. The lower courts are not addressing the constitutionality of the rules themselves, only applying the written rules. There should be no options for churches to even deal with, the fact that these exist at all runs afoul of the "make no law" clause...

[jackbob]

What all but about 10 or 15 seconds for most offending posts. I don't think that be long.

[Joe.E.Sixpack]

The "whole concept" of government regs affecting churches or Establishments of religion in any way, be they voluntary or not--is UN-Constutional, by virtue of the "make no law" clause. Make no law means just that, Congress cannot make rules, either for churches to accept or to opt out. The lower courts are not addressing the constitutionality of the rules themselves, only applying the written rules. There should be no options for churches to even deal with, the fact that these exist at all runs afoul of the "make no law" clause...

Exactly! I wonder precisely which part of "make NO law" they do not understand?

[aspiring.hillbilly]

(there are a few dolts on freerepublic just like anywhere else---we need to get their minds right, especially about Constitutional issues, knowledge of which is sadly lacking right up to the lackeys in government.)

[aspiring.hillbilly]

The same bunch a shiiiitheads who don't understand "no law" don't understand "shall not be infringed" either.

[Polybius]

endorsing political candidates in church is only a problem if the church endorses a republican. how many times have we seen prominent democrats at some church using the altar to give stump speeches?