First Amendment Question

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
So, I will lay this test out for you guys. I will even copy and paste the First Amendment here.


Amendment I

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.


Source

So, who here thinks this gives you the right to suppress other people's thoughts and opinions because they don't agree with your own? The argument here would be that because you have free speech, you are free to harass others and shut them down if they have different viewpoints. The drawback to this would be that you might not be able to express your own opinions without being harassed.

Who here thinks that this amendment grants free speech? The argument here would be that it is impossible for everyone to have the same opinion and views as you, therefore you should tolerate other viewpoints and have open discussions. The advantage here would be that you could also express your own opinions.

Vote and discuss.

Now on to religion. Who thinks the First Amendment gives the right to establish a religion / philosophy and harass people who have different belief systems than you, even going so far as to deny basic services such as medical care.

Who thinks that the First Amendment gives someone the right to practice their own religion / philosophy and still receive basic services like medical care.

What is the advantage to denying someone else medical care with different opinions than your own? Is the advantage that you don't have to be around such filth? Or is the advantage that you can force them to change their views by denying them access to basic human rights?

Is it more mature to deny someone basic services because they think differently than you, or to be strong enough to interact with people who have different views?
edit on 04amTue, 04 Feb 2014 09:27:10 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


The whole idea of "Freedom of Speech" was to protect "UNPOPULAR" speech!

After all, is there really a need to protect popular speech?

People seem to avoid thinking about the 1st in that manner now a days.....



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
It clearly states that everyone is free to establish and practice religion, regardless of how others view it. For example, Do i believe Westboro Baptist are scum and should be boiled in oil? yes. yes i do. would i ever wish they had rights withheld? No. They are free to practice their brand of religion.
edit on 2/4/2014 by EyesOpenMouthShut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
you have the freedom of speech...but others have the same freedom to not listen to it, goes both ways. you cannot force people to listen to you.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


Pesky thing that free speech. It can be used as a sword or a shield. But I'm all for it, for better or worse.

And to be truthful, I enjoy engaging in dialogue with those I disagree with. It keeps things interesting. And of course, if things get over-heated and the conversation devolves into name calling and can’t be steered back, I can always walk away. But sometimes I don’t, because getting under ones skin can be enjoyable at times as well.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

EyesOpenMouthShut
It clearly states that everyone is free to establish and practice religion, regardless of how others view it. For example, Do i believe Westboro Baptist are scum and should be boiled in oil? yes. yes i do. would i ever wish they had rights withheld? No. They are free to practice their brand of religion.
edit on 2/4/2014 by EyesOpenMouthShut because: (no reason given)


belief and practice are 2 different things. you can "believe" in Satanism, but any "practices" that infringe on others can be outlawed.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Of course, that goes without saying. No where does it say that you're allowed to enact ones religion on others



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   


Who thinks that the First Amendment gives someone the right to practice their own religion / philosophy and still receive basic services like medical care.


What the hell is this about ?

Forcing nuns to buy contraception ?

Last time I checked no one is denied 'basic medical care' .

The argument is all about whether or not people have to pay for it or not.

But there are religions in this country that take a different approach to medicine, and like it or not that is covered by the 1st.
edit on 4-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I think it should be worded to 'fit' the general intelligence of our populace.

So, "Grow a pair."

It's freedom of speech. This country used to be, "I may not agree with your opinion, but to the death, I will fight for your right to voice it.

Now? "Well that's MURKA! You don't like it you can get the **** out!"

Anyway, the way I see freedom of speech is that one piece of dust called another piece of dust an asshole. Get over it!



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

RomeByFire
I think it should be worded to 'fit' the general intelligence of our populace.

So, "Grow a pair."

It's freedom of speech. This country used to be, "I may not agree with your opinion, but to the death, I will fight for your right to voice it.

Now? "Well that's MURKA! You don't like it you can get the **** out!"

Anyway, the way I see freedom of speech is that one piece of dust called another piece of dust an asshole. Get over it!



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


The first amendment protects your right from the government, not other people. It doesnt apply to those you meet out on the street or forums on the internets.
edit on 4-2-2014 by captb13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   

captb13
reply to post by darkbake
 


The first amendment protects your right from the government, not other people. It doesnt apply to those you meet out on the street or forums on the internets.
edit on 4-2-2014 by captb13 because: (no reason given)


The constitution is a protection of the people from government, and the people from themselves.

The first amendment is part of the constitution.

People have the freedom of religion, and people are free to either agree or disagree with it, but that is where it begins and ends.

All right's are create equal, and no one( not even government) has the right to diminish the rights of anyone else.

edit on 4-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
(A) This is regarding law. "Congress shall make no law"...which means that they can neither dictate tolerance by individuals of other people's differing opinions, nor dictate silence of anyone's opinion. It doesn't outlaw anyone telling you to "shut up". It doesn't protect some broadcaster from being fired for saying something stupid on the air...that is an employee, employer issue, not the Gov. nor law.

The first amendment means that anyone can disagree with you and you can have any opinion you like. No one has to listen or tolerate your opinion...it's their right to not listen. It's an employers right to fire an employee if they don't like what some broadcaster said on the air. The government can not demand that the employer continue to employ that employee nor can they demand he be fired.

(B) The first Amendment's protection of religion does not allow people or employers to "Deny people Medical care"...you are discussing who pays for the Medical care? Like it or not, medical insurance is an employee "perk" in the USA. Plenty of employers provide no medical care, that is not the same as "Denying Medical Care?"
edit on 4-2-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


darkbake
So, who here thinks this gives you the right to suppress other people's thoughts and opinions because they don't agree with your own? The argument here would be that because you have free speech, you are free to harass others and shut them down if they have different viewpoints.

Can you provide an example? How can someone else "suppress" or "shut down" your thoughts, opinions or viewpoints?

One very obvious example comes to mind, but I'd like to know what you think.


darkbake
Now on to religion. Who thinks the First Amendment gives the right to establish a religion / philosophy and harass people who have different belief systems than you, even going so far as to deny basic services such as medical care.

What does medical care have to do with freedom of religion?


darkbake
Who thinks that the First Amendment gives someone the right to practice their own religion / philosophy and still receive basic services like medical care.

What is the advantage to denying someone else medical care with different opinions than your own?

Again, how does freedom of religion prevent someone from receiving medical care?

You're asking us to generalize when you obviously have a specif situation in mind.

Generally speaking, the 1A was not put in place so you can point and laugh at fat people (though thats your right), it was meant to ensure that people could freely criticize and condemn government without having to live in fear of reprisals.

Unfortunately, in the Police State Industrial Complex, began by Bush and continued by Obama, EVERYONE is being categorized, listed and sometimes harassed based on their speech and beliefs. Exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to PREVENT.

edit on 4-2-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Free Speech works both ways and if an argument or statement can't hold its own against an opposing argument, then, fair's fair.

You want Free Speech to show bias in favor of one position over another?

Regardless of whatever positional flag anyone is waving, if their argument can't stand up to another, then, their position requires reassessment, not extra special Freedom of Speech protection.

That's the nature of debate.

As it applies to ATS, well, we hear people talking "Free Speech" on this board all the time, but, fact of the matter is, we're on private property, and guests here at the tolerance of the owners and operators of ATS such that anyone can, has, and will be shut down and even asked to leave for any or no reason at all, entirely at the discrimination of our more than tolerant hosts.

ATS belongs to the owners and operators of ATS, and while tolerant of many diverse and contrasting views, is not a "Free Speech" zone.
It's private property, and we're guests, all for free too, and we can be hushed, or asked to leave the party if we're found too radical.




posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
When ever people bring up the amendments they fail to properly examine the foundation upon which these are built. It is like someone saying a 100 story building is going to fall because a 80th floor glass pane is loose, instead of looking at the foundation to determine the issue.

The ONLY important part of the entire constitution is this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these..." AMONG THESE, read that line again, AMONG THESE, it does not say "the only" or "exclusively."

So why is this important? At the time, those who developed this document KNEW, not thought, or believed, but KNEW that man was a force of FREEWILL. They knew that the FREEWILL expression given to the body was of paramount importance. The problem is they f*&^%d up royally by determining this truth was self-evident. They figured it was so obvious to any numbskull on Earth that it need not be spelled out. Their biggest screw up, in fact it is such a monumental failure, as to make this document garbage because it was not to spell it out. They figured the most important part of the foundation for the creation of the document need not be said because it was so obvious.

Now, 200+ years later there are few in the entire world that sees that TRUTH as self evident.

Read the entire Constitution with these words in place of "self evident," and see what it means to you. "All men are Freewill beings, the right to pursue a fruitful expression on Earth without government interference is paramount and cannot be hindered by government in any way. All laws, all forms of governmental organization must express man's Freewill first and foremost. Each and every being on Earth has the god given right within to express their Freewill as long as it does not impinge on another, and laws or restrictions on that right are not to even be considered. Government may enact "laws" which only enhance man's inherent right to express his true god given nature.

Now, the populace is so brain washed, so brain dead, so poorly educated that what I just said is political heresy. Yet that line, "self evident," means something, something that is now seen by nearly every person on the planet as, "government's inherent right to abuse all" instead of the "people's right express who they are."



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


The first amendment applies to the federal government... Congress shall make no law. It DOES NOT APPLY to private people or entities.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


edit on 4-2-2014 by teamcommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

neo96


Who thinks that the First Amendment gives someone the right to practice their own religion / philosophy and still receive basic services like medical care.


What the hell is this about ?



Idaho Bill Would Deny Services to Gays, Single Mothers

The thread was in response to this article, and some people had used the First Amendment as a support for the law that includes the following:


Under the bill, doctors could deny providing medical treatment to gay people or even unmarried mothers and not lose their medical license.


You guys do realize that by supporting this kind of thing you are looking like you are trying to strong-arm your beliefs onto others, right? And that they don't have merit on their own without this kind of destructive support behind them?
edit on 04pmTue, 04 Feb 2014 17:22:49 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   

crankyoldman
The ONLY important part of the entire constitution is this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these..." AMONG THESE, read that line again, AMONG THESE, it does not say "the only" or "exclusively."




I don't think it is the only important part, but it is important.


crankyoldman

So why is this important? At the time, those who developed this document KNEW, not thought, or believed, but KNEW that man was a force of FREEWILL.

Each and every being on Earth has the god given right within to express their Freewill as long as it does not impinge on another, and laws or restrictions on that right are not to even be considered. Government may enact "laws" which only enhance man's inherent right to express his true god given nature.

Now, the populace is so brain washed, so brain dead, so poorly educated that what I just said is political heresy. Yet that line, "self evident," means something, something that is now seen by nearly every person on the planet as, "government's inherent right to abuse all" instead of the "people's right express who they are."



That is rather basic - but yes, in general, the Bill of Rights are supposed to increase our freedoms, not give license to harass them. And yes, I think the poorly educated plays a part in this, as well.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join