First Amendment

[Diane Likens]

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

"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."

The wording is clear and concise. It was specifically written so that people of the time could understand it. I haven't ever heard of any person at the time misunderstanding its meaning. And now here we are. A much more educated nation of people. Now it's confusing some of us. Some of us would interpret it as:

"Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity; or abridging the freedom of Christian speech, or of the Christian press; or the right of the Christian people peaceably to assemble, and to have control of the Government."

[John Reilly]

Yes. Correct. And so we have a "religious" nation not a secular nation but a nation of a pluralistic variety of religions including Muslim. Further we have no "state" religion as in Enlgand for example, although there might be a large church or denomination that feels like it has some "state" power or influence locally or even nationally.

[Mike Smiley]

Yes the wording is very clear and so is the meaning. But we live in a society that struggles to define the meaning of "is". So according to todays' standard it means whatever the reader says it means or whatever our so called leaders tell us it means.

[Dwayne Petry]

"Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity; or abridging the freedom of Christian speech, or of the Christian press; or the right of the Christian people peaceably to assemble, and to have control of the Government."

First time I have heard the Frist Amendment expressed as such. Non of my Christian/non-Christian friends have heard or thought of such a rendering. I like the original version best! I do admit that the influence of Christianity on the US is undeniable.

[Hans Deventer]

Yes the wording is very clear and so is the meaning. But we live in a society that struggles to define the meaning of "is". So according to todays' standard it means whatever the reader says it means or whatever our so called leaders tell us it means.

I thought it means what 5 of the 9 judges on the Supreme Court say it means. Not sure if you refer to them as "so called leaders" as well?

[Diane Likens]

I thought it means what 5 of the 9 judges on the Supreme Court say it means. Not sure if you refer to them as "so called leaders" as well?

Hans! I think you understand our system better than many Americans do. It's sad that many, many Americans cannot (or will not) leave emotion out of government.

[Glenn Messer]

It's funny how we and get emotional about things like abortion, health care, personal property rights, voting rights, definition of marriage, religious freedom, invasion of privacy, etc. It's true. I know a lot of people who get emotional over that kind of stuff.

[Diane Likens]

It's funny how we and get emotional about things like abortion, health care, personal property rights, voting rights, definition of marriage, religious freedom, invasion of privacy, etc. It's true. I know a lot of people who get emotional over that kind of stuff.

"Emotional" probably WAS a bad choice of words. Perhaps I should have used "hysterical", which we all can be at times.

[Mike Smiley]

They are not leaders chosen by the people. They are appointed by political winners as vacancies occur. Remember just because SCOTUS says something does not always mean it is correct and constitutional. At one time SCOTUS ruled that slavery was ok, that seperate but equal was ok. Their judgements are not always correct. The intent of SCOTUS was to interpet existing law and not make new law. That is what the legislature is for. SCOTUS should always point to the constitution when making a ruling on laws, something they never do. Not being emotional either about this. I want them to show me the basis in law for the rulings.

[Benjamin Burch]

They are not leaders chosen by the people. They are appointed by political winners as vacancies occur. Remember just because SCOTUS says something does not always mean it is correct and constitutional. At one time SCOTUS ruled that slavery was ok, that seperate but equal was ok. Their judgements are not always correct. The intent of SCOTUS was to interpet existing law and not make new law. That is what the legislature is for. SCOTUS should always point to the constitution when making a ruling on laws, something they never do. Not being emotional either about this. I want them to show me the basis in law for the rulings.

We've had this discussion on NN before. The ruling of the SCOTUS is always technically correct, even if some or many may deem it theoretically incorrect. It is how our government is set up. They interpret the constitution and their interpretation is law.