We won the Cold War economically and militarily, but did we win the war of ideologies?
Posted on 07/16/2003 1:39:06 PM PDT by beaversmom
We won the Cold War economically and militarily, but did we win the war of ideologies?
Unless "protecting" the "right" of some ex-con in Florida to veil her drivers license photo.
I believe it will take a Christian standing up in the back of the bus and demanding to sit where he or she wants.
Remember the Soviet Constitution? It granted all manner of rights: employment, education, freedom of religion (yep, that too!), but as the old saw says:
What the bold print giveth, the fine print taketh away.
This statement is quite open to dispute. After all, the dead are no longer subject to this government, and the fictitious voters never were.
It's actually comical to see the moaning about how "the popular vote means that Al Gore is REALLY president" -- on that supposition, Slick Willie would never have survived '92. If the president were to be elected by simple majority of the popular vote, '92 would have spawned a runoff. How do you suppose that would have gone? Could Bubba have gathered in all those Perotistas? I trow not. Savor the irony.
The elitists who speak through the courts, these self-anointed Philosopher Kings, wouldn't make so much as a spit in the ocean by comparison with those whom they seek to rule. They often find themselves using the power of the courts to overrule the people's actions, whether taken by legislature or referendum.
But their votes count just like any other votes. Nixon lost to Kennedy by dead and fictitious votes.
Since "newspeak" became the new holy book.
One complaint by a nut and the other 999,999 normal people are out of luck.
Odd definition of "sensitivity".
That is what I don't get. Preventing someone from putting a Nativity scene up on a town green is not a right.
Freely expressing one's religious beliefs is.
No such right exists in our constitution.
The Bill of Rights is a restriction on government, not a positive granting of rights. Rights are inherent. You have no inherent right not to be exposed to the free exercise of religion.
The Framers feared someday their work might be turned on its head and used to censor religion.
Annals of Congress. August 15, 1789You do have means to prevent Americans from annoying you with their religious speech. Repeal the first amendment. Pass laws censoring religious expression. Be honest about it. Do it within the framework of our constitution. Don't pretend the Bill of Rights says what it does not.Mr. Huntington said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words (of the first amendment) might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understoon the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia: but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it. The ministers of their congregations in the Eastward were maintained by the contributions of those who belonged to their society; the expense of building meeting-houses was contributed in the same manner. These things were regulated by by-laws. If an action was brought before a Federal Court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers, or bulding of places of worship might be construed into a religious establishement.
By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law; he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, thereffore , the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.
Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establsh a religion to which they would comple others to conform. He thought if the word national was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.
Continue down this path and courts will, no doubt about it, create new interpretations of many things you do not like. And when they do, you will have no recourse because you have allowed unelected judges, not elected representatives to determine the laws of this county.
The free exercise of religion: YES! On public buildings that I helped pay for, etc.: NO.
Ever read the constitutions of the various states? Many of the men who ratified the first amendment lived in states which had tax supported religions.
When I was in elementary school, there was still prayer in the public schools. Every morning we had assembly. The Protestant teacher would lead us in the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer. When she got to the part about "For the kingdom, the power, and the glory . . . ," there would be almost complete silence, since almost 100 percent of the kids were Catholic. That is my experience of state-sponsored religion.
So tell me about the state constitutions again?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.