It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Say goodbye 1st Amendment: It's illegal to pray on the grounds of the Supreme Court

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


As far as worship in school, I don't support leading children in prayer or making children participate who would otherwise not want to. I do however support allowing children who wish to worship at school, to be able to do so unabated.

Remember, that our Bill of Rights only says what the government can't do, as opposed to what we can do, so the seperation of church and state should only be limited to government actions, not the actions of the people.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." To me, this is crystal clear that citizens should be able to worship how they want, when they want and where they want.

--airspoon

[edit on 16-7-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
LOL

40 USC 6135 - Sec. 6135. Parades, assemblages, and display of flags in the Supreme Court Building and grounds

vlex.com...


It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.



1st Amendment - United States Constitution


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.



HAHAHAHAHAHA

WTFG supreme court



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
...citizens should be able to worship how they want, when they want and where they want.


Really? I can think of many methods of "worship" that would not be acceptable. Exclude one, exclude them all!

Fair is fair!



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Harm defined:


Physical or psychological injury or damage.



Harm defined:


1 : physical or mental damage : injury
\

Harm defined:


harm (v.) 1.cause or do harm to"These pills won't harm your system" 2.(figurative)inflict damage upon"The snow damaged the roof" "She damaged the car when she hit the tree" harm (n.) 1.the act of damaging something or someone 2.the occurrence of a change for the worse 3.any physical damage to the body caused by violence or accident or fracture etc.


Did you really need someone else make the effort to find definitions of harm for you, or were you under the impression that this word defied definition?



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
You still have the right to practice your religion, but not on public property? I fail to see the problem. Then again, I'm not religious.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Harm defined:


Physical or psychological injury or damage.



Harm defined:


1 : physical or mental damage : injury


Harm defined:


harm (v.) 1.cause or do harm to"These pills won't harm your system" 2.(figurative)inflict damage upon"The snow damaged the roof" "She damaged the car when she hit the tree" harm (n.) 1.the act of damaging something or someone 2.the occurrence of a change for the worse 3.any physical damage to the body caused by violence or accident or fracture etc.


Did you really need someone else make the effort to find definitions of harm for you, or were you under the impression that this word defied definition?
.

No I didn't...but since you fell in the trap (sorry)....who are you to tell me, or anyone else, that I am not "harmed" by being subjected to prayer (in any form)?



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
?????
ATS is not usually so gullible?
The law states "It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or
assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds"




And this "law" does not infringe on our freedom?
What happens when you use the restroom there?
Am I going to get a *snip*ing ticket?
If my family visits and we hold hands to stay together are we not "moving in procession?" If a tour group meets there, are they not assembling?
This is just another nail in the coffin of the sheeple!
You might as well posted, "Baaaha bhaaa bhaaa."


Edit for SNF!


[edit on 16-7-2010 by Violater1]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by CapitalistOverlord
You still have the right to practice your religion, but not on public property? I fail to see the problem. Then again, I'm not religious.


Are you asking if people are prohibited from praying on public property, or are you asserting that this is so? Congress has no legal authority to prevent people from praying on public property.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 





No I didn't...but since you fell in the trap (sorry)....who are you to tell me, or anyone else, that I am not "harmed" by being subjected to prayer (in any form)?


No one can tell you that you have been harmed or not, this is your decision to make. However, if you wish to prevent people from exercising their fundamental right to worship, and hope to do so by establishing that harm was caused, then the burden of proof lies with you, not I. So, if you can prove in a court of law that you have been harmed by others publicly worshiping then prove it in a court of law. In the meantime, people have the right to worship, and again, let me make this perfectly clear, I never at any point said you weren't harmed by public prayer, this was your erroneous assumption. Of course, I have not claimed you were harmed either, this decision is yours to decide, and yours to prove.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
So, if you can prove in a court of law that you have been harmed by others publicly worshiping then prove it in a court of law. In the meantime, people have the right to worship, and again, let me make this perfectly clear, I never at any point said you weren't harmed by public prayer, this was your erroneous assumption.


My assertion should be grounds enough....per the constitution....N-E-X-T!



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CapitalistOverlord
 


I'm not religious either, however I do believe in the Constitution and this seldom understood ideal called liberty. Why shouldn't people be able to worship on public property, especially when they are forced to be on that property, such as school or court?

--airspoon



 
 
 



reply to post by Aggie Man
 



Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by airspoon
...citizens should be able to worship how they want, when they want and where they want.


Really? I can think of many methods of "worship" that would not be acceptable. Exclude one, exclude them all!

Fair is fair!


People should be able to practice whatever they want, as long as it doesn't impede someone else's ability to do the same. Would human sacrifice be unacceptable? Sure, if the person being sacrificed doesn't agree to be sacrificed. So again, this goes back to the principal of liberty, especially when you boil the concept down to its lowest common denominator, which is the initiation of force. It's quite simple, we should never initiate force against someone else, key word being "initiate". This doesn't mean that you can't respond to force with force, only that you shouldn't initiate it. That is, for people who actually believe in liberty.

--airspoon


[edit on 16-7-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
Not having a religious or social agenda, I for one am not affected by a need to put myself on public display in any dirt patch of the planet to show off my beliefs.

However, if I had such religious or social agenda and wanted to freely share it, I would feel that is my right and my freedom of speech.

So it is hard to say how I feel about this because I'll never have any need to defend religious freedom short of the fact that I respect people's freedom as long as they are not free to hurt others.

Social dynamics and law are so confusing at times.


Sorry man, but it isn't confusing at all. Either you support the rights of others or you don't. I'm not a Christian, I consider myself more spiritual than the man-made and man-corrupted (IMO) religions, but I definitely support their right.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
Not having a religious or social agenda, I for one am not affected by a need to put myself on public display in any dirt patch of the planet to show off my beliefs.

However, if I had such religious or social agenda and wanted to freely share it, I would feel that is my right and my freedom of speech.

So it is hard to say how I feel about this because I'll never have any need to defend religious freedom short of the fact that I respect people's freedom as long as they are not free to hurt others.

Social dynamics and law are so confusing at times.


Sorry man, but it isn't confusing at all. Either you support the rights of others or you don't. I'm not a Christian, I consider myself more spiritual than the man-made and man-corrupted (IMO) religions, but I definitely support their right.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 





My assertion should be grounds enough....per the constitution....N-E-X-T!


You are mistaken, and as a point of law, The Constitution has not granted you any authority to abrogate and derogate the rights of others. If you have been harmed then this is demonstrable and that is how you prove it. Simply asserting it is not enough. That is the law. N-E-X-T!



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I'm glad someone said it. Plus, if they were praying out loud that's like assembling without a permit too, no? Hard to tell how many there were and the whole situation. If, and that's a big if, the cop said "you can't pray here" that was probably just in the course of conversation, not the legal reason. Anything to rile up the masses!



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Rights that are given to you can be taken away. While inalienable rights can be abrogated and derogated, they can never be taken away. Protecting those rights takes far more than a piece of paper saying they are protected. It is important to understand the difference between inalienable rights, (non transferable) and civil rights, (legal rights granted by government), if you want to protect your rights. Given rights, unless given by God, are rights that are given upon whim and easily taken away upon whim.


If government can effectively deny that there is a God, they can effectively deny that God given rights exist. At this point all rights are given by the state and as such can be removed by the state. So then the state becomes god in they they have the power to give or refuse rights.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
we should never initiate force against someone else, key word being "initiate".


Per the U.S. Constitution, please define "initiate".

To me: hearing the verbal rambling of prayer constitutes "Initiation".

Therefore, since "Initiate" is subjective; then I am in the right.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by Aggie Man]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

...as a point of law, The Constitution has not granted you any authority to abrogate and derogate the rights of others. If you have been harmed then this is demonstrable and that is how you prove it. Simply asserting it is not enough. That is the law. N-E-X-T!


Assertion is not sufficient? After all, it is my right...I asserted it; therefore, it must be so! Prove me wrong.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Everyone should have the right to practice their own religion(neurological disorder). I'm not saying to end freedom of religion, but it should only be done in private places(home, private business, private churches[without tax exclusion], and any other private place).

But as long as tax dollars are funding that place, why should I being an Atheist pay for a place where you can harm me physically(sick feeling in my stomach) and psychologically(anger, annoyance, irritation)? As long as the place is paid for with tax dollars no religion should be allowed.




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join