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: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I will give you that people have the right to worship as they please, that is in fact the 1st Amendment. I completely agree with that.

However, I doubt that that freedom covers the attempted brainwashing of unsuspecting passers by.




posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by trailertrash
 


The People 100---Government 0


Congress shall make no lawrespecting 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.


Here is the text of 40 U.S.C. 6135


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. Read more: vlex.com...


vlex.com...

Congress has been expressly forbidden from declaring this unlawful. If it is demonstrable that these people were obstructing a right of way, then demonstrate it. Otherwise the actual text of 40 U.S.C. 6135 is unlawful.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Wonder how different the responses in this topic would be if instead of Christians this was Muslims who got told they couldn't pray there.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 



Wonder how different the responses in this topic would be if instead of Christians this was Muslims who got told they couldn't pray there.


Most of the people would be screaming for blood. They would have said it was an obvious terror attack and they would say it was the end of the world, then they would blame Obama for it.



[edit on 7/17/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





I will give you that people have the right to worship as they please, that is in fact the 1st Amendment. I completely agree with that.


It is always nice to find agreement with you Wukky.




However, I doubt that that freedom covers the attempted brainwashing of unsuspecting passers by.


The accusation of "brainwashing of unsuspecting passers by" places the burden of proof upon you. You will have to show how this was the case, otherwise it is just hearsay, much as that letter those Christians wrote is hearsay. I have said it before, and I will say it again, Projectjimmy was spot on. The only way to test your assertion of "brainwashing" would be to actually arrest people for praying in public and let this be argued in the courts, which was the beauty of Projectjimmy's remark, rich in irony as it is.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Wonder how different the responses in this topic would be if instead of Christians this was Muslims who got told they couldn't pray there.


I have asserted several times in this thread that Muslims have every much of a right to pray on those steps as any Christian does, and not one single Christian, including the O.P. has challenged that assertion. If your implication had any validity, you would think that at least one Christian would have challenged my assertions.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 

Yeah, it would probably be similar to the reactions to the mosque at ground zero topics. I wonder strange things in the cold dark hours of the morning, so don't mind me.. Plus, we'll never really know. Only the people discussing this here know for sure deep inside themselves.

[edit on 7/17/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Yes you have. And perhaps they may have challenged it. Or perhaps the thread would have just drawn different people.

I'm still wondering if this was more of an issue with assembly without a permit issue though. Plus I think it's just weird that people feel compelled to pray in public to begin with, on a few levels, one being that it does tend to offend some people and attract attention. I love how the suit/article says "quietly." That's pretty subjective too.



[edit on 7/17/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:03 AM
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"



I beg to differ. ATS is always so gullible. Where have you been?



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Yes you have. And perhaps they may have challenged it. Or perhaps the thread would have just drawn different people.


I think I understand what you mean by that, but I am not clear. Both Forth Anthem and I are Catholic, and both of us are passionately for freedom. It could be that many Christians who are not so passionate about freedom and are more interested in theocracy are aware of this, and have stayed away from this thread because of that, is this what you are suggesting?




I'm still wondering if this was more of an issue with assembly without a permit issue though.


I had actually wanted to respond to that when I first read it, but this thread has moved so quickly, it has been hard to keep up. What is a right is a right and needs no permit. Permits can only work by the acquiescence of those who apply for them, but people do not need to seek permission to do what they have a right to do.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Pretty close to what I was trying to say. If the thread title was worded differently, more people might have come to play. If it had the word "cop" and/or "Christian" in it, maybe. Again, jJust random, sleepy observation.

It depends how many there are I think...with the permits. Plus what RestingInPieces just pointed out...again.

[edit on 7/17/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I will give you that people have the right to worship as they please, that is in fact the 1st Amendment. I completely agree with that.

However, I doubt that that freedom covers the attempted brainwashing of unsuspecting passers by.


I am sorry to people gnawing at your toe, while this is not my conversation Wuk, I am compelled by Jesus.

I don't think you are giving people enough credit man, in my mind this is something most liberals should defend. We are always in about advocating for people, not to do so in this case is inconsistent. Just like I don't want people jerked around for their papers
because they may appear a certain way. Just like I disapprove in state sponsored torture. It may be constitutionally contentious with may friend JPZ, but I think gay folks should be wed if they please and be afforded the same legal regards as a man and women. In that case they aren't hurting me, they are grown up and should be afforded the same rights as a man and women, its the union/act that constitutes consideration IMO. All the same concept for to me, just different hang ups and concerns, in the end we all try to dispel the validity of things we disapprove of, rationalize the why nots.
I guess it is all about a personal threshold and what triggers things in people



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I still think it's a dangerous game to have cult members preforming brainwashing rites on the steps of the SC.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
people do not need to seek permission to do what they have a right to do.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]


Lets spice it up...

Could this group have done or said something in manner that would warrant dispersal, interference in your eyes,

use your imagination???

Is there a point when you subjective self would cancel out your objective nature JPZ?

A building that is officious in nature, intended to perform and function-

Could JPZ the cop be compelled to use "authority"?



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 





It may be constitutionally contentious with may friend JPZ, but I think gay folks should be wed if they please and be afforded the same legal regards as a man and women.


There is nothing at all Constitutionally contentious about gay people getting married. In fact, my only issue with the current debate over gay marriage is that it is a deflection from the real Constitutional issue, which is what gives any government the authority to impose licensing schemes on marriage regardless of who it is getting married, unless it be siblings.

A license is a permit to do something illegal, and the only people that would require a license for marriage are brothers and sisters, or mother and child. Something real sick like that. Outside of that, there is no justification for licensing schemes regarding marriage. Marriage is a fundamental right, and as such requires no permit.

The gay issue, in my opinion, is not one of the right to marry, it is an argument for gaining the same tax privileges that heterosexuals get regarding income tax, which is yet another dubious area of Constitutionality. Being gay or heterosexual is not what makes a person liable for the income tax, nor is marriage a liability, so why it would bring certain privileges regarding taxation, is beyond me. There is nothing at all preventing gay people to wed outside of licensing schemes, and there is nothing at all preventing heterosexuals from marrying outside of licensing schemes.

If more people rejected those licensing schemes, and in doing so began questioning their churches, and asking them the hard question, which is why they are extorting their parishioners into acquiescing to licensing schemes, and if these people made it clear to their churches that they either begin treating marriage as the sacred institution it is, and not under the purview of legislative fiat, then this whole gay marriage issue would be moot.

I think the big fear many religious people have regarding gay marriage laws is that if they pass, at some point the government will threaten the churches with their 501C3 status if they refuse to marry gay people. How ironic is that? As Lucidity wondered, what would Christians say if this were an issue of Muslims praying on the steps of The Supreme Court, I wonder how it is the "separation of church and state" advocates align that thought with the IRS regulating religion and deciding what is and what is not a "bona fide" religion. That issue rarely gets argued.

Churches do not need a 501C3 status in order to function as a church, and if they don't need a 501C3 status, there only possible justification for having one is the tax break people get on tithing, and if parishioners are so fickle that they would reject a church because they can't deduct tithing from their tax liability, then what kind of parishioners are they, really?

If all churches told the IRS to go straight to hell and declined the privilege of 501C3 status, then no church would have to worry about the government telling them they have to marry gay people. Conversely, gay people could find those churches that are willing to marry them, and the people as a whole can not by democratic means legislate against it. It is a real sticky mess this who matter, and it sticky due to an intrusive government with many tentacles.

Gay people have the absolute right to marry. Churches have the absolute right to act on their religious convictions. If those convictions dictate that homosexuality is a sin, then those churches do not have to marry gay people. If a church holds a more inclusive doctrine they have every right to marry gay people, and outside of religious rituals, if two people want to gather in their yard, and hold a non religious ceremony that declares those two people married, they have the right to do so, and the government has no business telling them they don't.

So, the problem today is that gay people want the same tax breaks, and insurance perks that married people get. That is not a gay marriage issue, that is tax and insurance issue. Separate marriage from taxes and insurance and there is no issue really.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





I still think it's a dangerous game to have cult members preforming brainwashing rites on the steps of the SC.


You are entitled to think as much, just not to act on such thoughts in anyway that would prevent the free exercise of religion. You are exercising your freedom of speech, or more correctly press. This is a good thing, Wukky. You have no authority or right to stop the free exercise of religion, this is also a good thing.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Thanks Janky Red, you got him on his licensing soap box


I agree with you that there is no reason that gay people should not be able to get married. But I also contend that there is no reason they shouldn't be given the same societal perks that heterosexual couples get. (tax breaks)

Now you said

and the only people that would require a license for marriage are brothers and sisters, or mother and child. Something real sick like that.


In Catholicism, doesn't the bible teach that in the early days of humanity there were only two people to start? (Adam & Eve) then they had two sons, (Cain & Able) Now, three men, and one woman, well, two, cause Cain got pissed off at Able for giving God a better offering. Still, you have two men, and one woman, and somehow they propagated an entire planet full of people out of such a limited genetic supply. What does that mean? Well, that means that mommy was getting it from sonny, and the offspring of that, well, you can see how this is starting to get a little backwoods Alabama.

In other words:



The point is, right there, the bible condones incest. (and people wonder why I am not a christian)

So here we have a group from a cult that condones incestuous behavior, preforming a rite on the steps of the SC building.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 





Could this group have done or said something in manner that would warrant dispersal, interference in your eyes,


Yes they could have, and I don't have to use my imagination too much in order to offer examples, and indeed did offer an example to Wukky. Where I argue that the Westboro Baptists have the right to declare "God hates gays", as odious as I find that speech, no person has the right to make death threats. Also, no person has the right to obstruct another persons right of way.




Is there a point when you subjective self would cancel out your objective nature JPZ?


I love this question Janky. My objective self is inextricable from my subjective self. My attempts at objectivity are in a constant battle with my subjectivity. My subjectivity is who I am, and any attempts at objectivity are done so by not being who I am, and being instead outside of that, and "seeing" things from a non-subjective view. I can not objectively see with my eyes, and must necessarily use my mind to "see" objectively. My physical brain is in a battle with my mind, and all to often, the subjective wins out. This is the game, to be more than who I am, and to be as objective as I can be while still remaining my subjective self.




A building that is officious in nature, intended to perform and function-

Could JPZ the cop be compelled to use "authority"?


As a cop I would have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. If in fact, those who were "quietly" praying were obstructing justice, then there is no Constitutional crisis. Obstruction of justice is not a right, and as a cop, I would be compelled to act upon this crime and do what is necessary to enforce the law. I have seen pictures of the steps of The Supreme Court and they are not narrow steps, but wide in their scope. I have not seen pictures of the group that "quietly" prayed on those steps. Were they obstructing justice? I do not know. If they were, and I was the cop who insisted they couldn't, it would be incumbent upon me to prove they were in fact obstructing justice.

If however, they were merely peacefully assembling on the steps, without in anyway obstructing justice, as a cop, I would not have enforced the statute that claims it has authority to prevent this assemblage, because I swore an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution which is senior to that statute. This is as objective as I know how to be at this moment.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I am not interested in debating "tax perks" in this thread. I have all ready had one post removed for being off topic, and I have no need to challenge the moderators any more than I all ready have. I am trusting that the moderators will accept my initial post on the subject as being simply a response to Janky's question of Constitutionality regarding gay marriage.

As to the Bible and my Catholicism, while Fort Anthem is one too, I believe he is more conservative as a Catholic than I am, and I would be more liberal in that regard. I see the Bible as a mythological text and do not necessarily impose historical accuracy on that text. I read that book and take from it in the same way I take all mythology. It is the message that matters not the historical accuracy.

That said, Adam and Eve propagated, but there is also the question of Lilith. Not much is said about Lilith in the Bible, but her link to Adam is made, and it is arguable that these two had children as well. As to Cain and Able, it appears as if Cain killed Able before Able could propagate. Cain was banished to the land of Nod, and there he propagated. There is no clear text that describes the people of Nod, (East of Eden) as being descendants of Adam and Eve. You are making an assumption when it comes to incest, and one that can not be supported by scripture.

You have your reasons for not being Christian, and I have no compunction to convert you to Christianity, but that you are not very knowledgeable about the Bible is made clear by your last post. Your assumptions are not based on knowledge of the Old Testament, and are arguably not objective arguments regarding incest, but are your own subjective thoughts on the matter. Further, both the Judaic and Muslim religions rely on the Old Testament as a part of their faith. Are you not Jewish or Muslim for the same reasons? Just asking.

All mythologies have origin stories, whether it be Adam and Eve, Zeus and Chronos, Anikin Skywalker and his son Luke, or Spirderman or Superman. All mythologies tell tales of the hero's call to adventure, whether it be Hercules, Jesus, Spiderman or Superman. You don't think I believe a radioactive spider will give you super powers do you? Do you think I believe that there is a planet Krypton? Why would you believe I think that Sampson's strength came from the length of his hair, or that Eve was having sex with Cain, especially since Cain was banished to the land of Nod, East of Eden?

The importance of Adam and Eve is not that they were the first two humans, their importance lies in their decision to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. There is a strong message in that tale, and one that my own interpretation differs greatly from the standard interpretations. Where most interpret that tale as The Fall From Grace, I interpret that tale as the expansion of Adam and Eve and their own call to adventure, where they chose to know both good and evil, and in doing so were forced to leave The Garden of Eden, not because they disobeyed God, but because they could not know both good and evil and still stay in the Garden where there was only good. They had to leave in order to know both good and evil, and they had to accept mortality as a part of life in order to know both good and evil.

The Original Sin is not that Adam and Eve disobeyed God, it is that they imposed upon humanity mortality. Their choice has forced humanity to align their spiritual nature, which is immortal, with their physical nature which is mortal. This is the battle between good and evil. Of course, this is my take on that tale, and most religions, including the Catholic Church disagree with that take. I know because I was sent home from parochial school for making this suggestion. I am also left handed, and was often in trouble for writing with my left hand, until my parents discovered this problem and yanked me out of Catholic school and placed me in public school where I advanced a grade because public schools are so bad.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Religion and spirituality is a neurological disorder, if you listen to the idiots and the government.

It seems EVERYONE except the benevolent spiritual can be talked about or displayed. Better start burning books you fascist haters of history! I guess if they wanted to sacrifice a child and permeate necrophiliac practices; these rights would have been protected.

BUT SO HELP ME GOD if someone actually prays to a solemn, benevolent, , righteous and pious GOD!

Time for those on ATS to start worshiping their master SATAN and I will protect your rights to do so. Now when your God SATAN calls for you to kill and subjugate my fellow Americans, is when I send YOU to your master.

How does that sound to you WUK?


Bow to your master for he will come to rip you to shreds when the time is nighe.




top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join