• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Revisiting the first amendment

R

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The first amendment is all about religion, not just a select part of it, the protection of the those who follow it, are part of it, write about it, and talk about it.

To address general freedom of speech, it would need a new separate amendment.

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.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
The first amendment is all about religion, not just a select part of it, the protection of the those who follow it, are part of it, write about it, and talk about it.

To address general freedom of speech, it would need a new separate amendment.

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.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

ricksfolly, I'm not sure what exactly your point is. "general freedom of speech" is addressed in the phrase "or abridging the freedom of speech." Could you please elaborate on your views and be more specific?
 
StillBallin75 said:
ricksfolly, I'm not sure what exactly your point is. "general freedom of speech" is addressed in the phrase "or abridging the freedom of speech." Could you please elaborate on your views and be more specific?
Click to expand...

The point is that certain parts of both amendments have been misinterpreted by the media and Supreme Court. Why and for what motive will probably never be known, and if the intents were publicly reexamined and corrected, nobody would believe it because the mis-representation is now a way of life.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
The point is that certain parts of both amendments have been misinterpreted by the media and Supreme Court. Why and for what motive will probably never be known, and if the intents were publicly reexamined and corrected, nobody would believe it because the mis-representation is now a way of life.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

what do you consider the First amendment to say
 
ricksfolly said:
The point is that certain parts of both amendments have been misinterpreted by the media and Supreme Court. Why and for what motive will probably never be known, and if the intents were publicly reexamined and corrected, nobody would believe it because the mis-representation is now a way of life.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Could you explain exactly HOW it has been misinterpreted and list some examples? I'm still having a hard time at what you're getting at. Anyways, interpretations of the Constitution are always subjective. One person's misrepresentation is another person's golden truth.
 
TurtleDude said:
what do you consider the First amendment to say
Click to expand...

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.

Since it clearly is a religious amendment, it would have been much clearer if freedom of speech was changed to read...

freedom to preach, freedom to write and print religious pamphlets or tracts, and freedom of the congregation to peaceably assemble, under the protection of the law...

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
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.

Since it clearly is a religious amendment, it would have been much clearer if freedom of speech was changed to read...

freedom to preach, freedom to write and print religious pamphlets or tracts, and freedom of the congregation to peaceably assemble, under the protection of the law...

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Personally, I interpret those things to already be included under the phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Of course, sometimes those things do come into conflict with the first phrase, which is the establishment clause that many people identify with "separation of church and state."
 
The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. It was a direct response to the Church of England being the only legal religion. It ain't brain surgery.
 
ricksfolly said:
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.

Since it clearly is a religious amendment, it would have been much clearer if freedom of speech was changed to read...

freedom to preach, freedom to write and print religious pamphlets or tracts, and freedom of the congregation to peaceably assemble, under the protection of the law...

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

that makes no sense to me. then again I have studied the constitution and written about it
 
That would be about right
 
The first amendment is fine as it is.
 
The first amendment is not just about religion. Look at it closely, there are two religion clauses, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. These create two distinct rights.

But there is more. A semicolon separates an entirely different set of rights. The freedom of speech is thus closed off from the two religion clauses, and the context of religion that informed those two clauses does not carry over to the rest of the amendment.

Certainly religious speech is protected, but so too is political speech.

You argument that the entirety of the amendment is religious fails on the face of the amendment. Even though that is a possible reading of the speech clause (still wrong, but possible), it is impossible to read the petition clause as religious in nature. That is incoherent. Petition for redress of grievances necessarily requires a court of law, and does not contain any religious component.
 
ricksfolly said:
The first amendment is all about religion, not just a select part of it, the protection of the those who follow it, are part of it, write about it, and talk about it.

To address general freedom of speech, it would need a new separate amendment.

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.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

It seems pretty clear the way it was written... yes, religious freedom is a key component of free speech, to know that if you are not following a prescribed religion that you will be oppressed for your faith, or lack of it...

It's also important to remember that the constitution is not a 'complete' list of rights and freedoms... but it was important to add a list to illustrate the inclusiveness of ALL forms of speech, be it through your faith, through the press, or through your displeasure with acts of government... that means you can speak your mind when you want, where you want, and how you want... and not to be forced into 'free speech zones' because some foreign diplomats might hear you.

If you restrict a persons right to free speech, then the only recourse left is through the second amendment, and nobody wants that...

Plus, if a persons speech is so atrocious, then it becomes your right and / or DUTY to speak out against it and to use logic to demonstrate the fallacy of their beliefs, NOT to use your right to petition the government to silence them.
 
ricksfolly said:
The first amendment is all about religion, not just a select part of it, the protection of the those who follow it, are part of it, write about it, and talk about it.

To address general freedom of speech, it would need a new separate amendment.

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.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...
Where the hell do you get that idea?

It in no way fits my understanding of the intention, wording, and meaning of th 1st Amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom