How do you interpret the First Amendment?

reply to post by Misoir

Good answer
I see it similarly myself.
I believe Jefferson would as well, although I do not know that for sure.
When he penned his famous letter containing the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor he was an active member of a Church and the Church he attended was in the Capitol Building. See link- www.wallbuilders.com...
I would post my interpretation of the first amendment but you have already done that for me in your first post.
Anyone else care to chime in? I would really like to here more interpretations and why you feel that way.

What difference does it make? The amendments, bill of rights...the whole constitution...the government is wiping their arse with it right now and the american people do nothing about it. Oh well, I guess the government is just trying to do it's job to protect us from all the terrorists. Like the 15 idiots with box cutters that took over 4 planes and slammed them into the WTC 1&2, the Pentagon and a field in PA. I think the government is doing a really great job, don't you?

Originally posted by Misoir

Originally posted by Quadrivium
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This means that government shall never make an official religion in the nation which the government endorses, helps or finances in any way. But the government also will not be allowed to stop people from excesrising their religion however they see fit and whever they see fit.

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

This means that government is not allowed to tell people what they can or can not say in public or private. As for the press it means that the press should be allowed to know anything they want without government blocking them or stopping them from reporting, silencing them or demonizing them.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

All people have the right to gather in protest or assembly without asking for permission from the government or the government stopping them from excersising this right to organize anywhere in public. Also this gives people the right to petition their elected officials on any issue they want.

edit on 10/3/2010 by Misoir because: (no reason given)

Very important stuff.

Bump.

reply to post by soficrow


How can one reconcile the fact, then, that our very government has sued a school district in Chicago for denying the request of a teacher (who had been in employ for one year) for three weeks off during the school year for a pilgrimage to Mecca?

She resigned as soon as it was denied.

They are stating her right to exercise her religion "freely" was violated, though the school stated it had nothing to do with religion, it had to do with the fact her contract with the school district did not allow for this kind of time off, even if unpaid, during the school year.

Is it the government's place for this?

So, in essence, the tax payers are paying for this lawsuit and any awards to the former teacher, including back pay and compensation.

www.aolnews.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by thegoodearth


And Wikileaks isn't releasing anything significant or important BUT its existence is a danger to the nation.

There are million reasons to dismantle the Constitution.

And 35+ million reasons to keep it intact.

I interpret the first amendment as follows: You have a right to say whatever the fcuk you wanna say as long it does not infringe upon anyone elses right to life and liberty (i exclude happiness because sometimes words hurt its emotional not physical so suck it up)