Why don't conservatives interpret the First Amendment as strictly as the Second? (interview, health care)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Conservatives claim they love the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment. Yet, they try to chip away at the First Amendment every chance they get, which is the exact thing they criticize the Left for doing to the Second Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
What is so difficult about this for conservatives to understand? This means that whatever your religious beliefs are, they cannot be enforced by law. They try to sidestep it by saying that the founding fathers only meant protection of Christian denominations and not all religion, or that they would have worded it differently if they could have looked down the tunnel of time to see are religiously pluralistic society today. If your only basis for a policy is "because the Bible says so", that doesn't cut it according to the Constitution.
How is that different from what they accuse liberals of doing with the Second Amendment? People on the left tend to argue that the founders couldn't have imagined the type of weapons available today and therefore some weapons shouldn't be covered under the Second Amendment. Believe it or not, I actually agree with conservatives on the Second Amendment. The Constitution says what it says and if we want to change it, we need to amend it instead of re-interpreting it. However, I apply that same standard to the First Amendment. I shouldn't be required by law to abide by the rules of a deity I don't believe in. I want my kids, if I ever have them, to learn science in science class and not magic. Every person has the right to live out their faith or lack of, but their right stops when it infringes on the rights of others to do the same thing. Why doesn't the right understand this?
The left claims they support the first amendment, but when they find out others have a view that goes against theirs, they try to silence them. So loaded with hypocrisy the leftist anti-fascist fascists. The leftists rioted and destroyed and burned things when milo was coming to UC berkley I think it was, the event was canceled. They don't support freedom of speech their.
There has never been a problem with the freedom of religion outlined in the First Amendment, we allowed all Christian denominations, Jews, and people of other faiths to practice what they believed in, even athiests. The problem arises when somebody preaches killing others who do not share their religious values, ie radical Islamists. Muslims have been welcomed here for a long time and we never had any problems with them until recently. When you have individuals who want to cut your throat, kill people at random just because we are American Christians, and force their sharia beliefs down our throats, then that's a problem and we need to make sure those people STAY OUT of our country.
Staying with our traditional Christian values will be one way to ensure the preservation of our Constitution.
Sorry, magmike, but the Native American Church wasn't even legal until around 1918. Many Native Americans even had to hide their sweat lodge ceremonies from the whites.
Your traditional Christian values don't preserve the Constitution when missionaries were lobbying to have the NAC to be illegal.
You might want to think about how Christianity was forced upon the Indigenous People of America.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 21 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,584,479 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
Conservatives claim they love the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment. Yet, they try to chip away at the First Amendment every chance they get, which is the exact thing they criticize the Left for doing to the Second Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
What is so difficult about this for conservatives to understand? This means that whatever your religious beliefs are, they cannot be enforced by law. They try to sidestep it by saying that the founding fathers only meant protection of Christian denominations and not all religion, or that they would have worded it differently if they could have looked down the tunnel of time to see are religiously pluralistic society today. If your only basis for a policy is "because the Bible says so", that doesn't cut it according to the Constitution.
How is that different from what they accuse liberals of doing with the Second Amendment? People on the left tend to argue that the founders couldn't have imagined the type of weapons available today and therefore some weapons shouldn't be covered under the Second Amendment. Believe it or not, I actually agree with conservatives on the Second Amendment. The Constitution says what it says and if we want to change it, we need to amend it instead of re-interpreting it. However, I apply that same standard to the First Amendment. I shouldn't be required by law to abide by the rules of a deity I don't believe in. I want my kids, if I ever have them, to learn science in science class and not magic. Every person has the right to live out their faith or lack of, but their right stops when it infringes on the rights of others to do the same thing. Why doesn't the right understand this?
They (the founding fathers) being direct European descendants wrote the text of the constitution in the English language that was spoken at the time it was written. Outside Britain, establishment is more or less unknown in the English-speaking world.
One must first understand the power The Church of England had over the government and laws that governed in that time. Secondly understand not only did our Founders give to that great thought, but they also made it a priority as the first thing written on that very important document most dear to them.
Finally understand it isn't about religion at all, but all about a power of an organization whether it be government or church, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and they believed the people should have 'shared' power over both; neither entity should have powers of dictatorship. (yet the people have been giving more direct power to the executive office, like they want to reverse order their freedoms)
With that said, it is because of the first amendment your beliefs are not enforced by law. If they were enforced by law under a centralized established church you would then be paying taxes to that church. Not only that but would be governed like Islam governs the Middle East through its Sharia.
The first amendment makes it possible for an atheist to be an atheist in the area of freedom to choose to be whatever one wants to be and not answer to a court of law for being it. Also the last I checked science is still being taught in the government funded schools. But personally don't (infringe) take away the right for congress to open with prayer, cause that's just wrong. Don't (infringe) take away a child's right to pray at school functions, cause that's just wrong.
They should have the freedom to choose. If we can not get along and govern ourselves giving the respect to one another we would like to have in return, the government will step in and regulate dictatorship in by way of laws that take choice away.
btw, if one opens up the Holy Bible (that was written over 3000 years ago) and read it they would read about people, places and things that are being covered by our current media news today, with bombs going off on the roads to Damascus and more. So it isn't just science, but geography, politics, government, mathematics that is covered in that book of magic along with an incredible love story found in the book of Ruth.
Evolution though, your right about that science, does need to be taught in the schools and teach it enough times so as we can begin to believe, we've evolved.
Conservatives claim they love the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment. Yet, they try to chip away at the First Amendment every chance they get, which is the exact thing they criticize the Left for doing to the Second Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
What is so difficult about this for conservatives to understand? This means that whatever your religious beliefs are, they cannot be enforced by law. They try to sidestep it by saying that the founding fathers only meant protection of Christian denominations and not all religion, or that they would have worded it differently if they could have looked down the tunnel of time to see are religiously pluralistic society today. If your only basis for a policy is "because the Bible says so", that doesn't cut it according to the Constitution.
How is that different from what they accuse liberals of doing with the Second Amendment? People on the left tend to argue that the founders couldn't have imagined the type of weapons available today and therefore some weapons shouldn't be covered under the Second Amendment. Believe it or not, I actually agree with conservatives on the Second Amendment. The Constitution says what it says and if we want to change it, we need to amend it instead of re-interpreting it. However, I apply that same standard to the First Amendment. I shouldn't be required by law to abide by the rules of a deity I don't believe in. I want my kids, if I ever have them, to learn science in science class and not magic. Every person has the right to live out their faith or lack of, but their right stops when it infringes on the rights of others to do the same thing. Why doesn't the right understand this?
You claim a lot of "conservatives claim and so on, yet I DON'T see ANYTHING to back kit up.
Like, "they cannot be enforced by law" What is this supposed to mean?
Do you have anything that supports cons for the gov't supporting 1 religion over another?
How about we apply the EXACT same laws (need to get a license a background check, a waiting period, etc., and pay for them, to the 1st Amendment the left has for the 2nd Amendment?
"The RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms shall NOT be INFRINGED"
I'm not a religious person but at some point after conception and before the birth of a baby we have a moral obligation to protect it's life. You would agree?
Politics and religion do not belong in public schools unless it's history or civic class and in those cases it needs to be taught in an unbiased manner. We've done a fairly good job of keeping out the religion, the politics needs work.
Challenging or questioning science is the very essence of science.
Can care less, it will be legal everywhere in a deacade or two.
Don't belong there unless we are giving equal opportunities to everyone to erect them.
You are brushing Conservatives with some very broad strokes. The religious right is being marginalized and that is not good news for the Democrats.
"
Quote:
-religious monuments on public property
Don't belong there unless we are giving equal opportunities to everyone to erect them."
Considering the people who actually WROTE the constitution disagrees with you, I go by what they ACTUALLY DID, rather then trying to "interpret what they said over 200 plus yeas ago.
Funny how people on the religious right always throw this out there.
Murder is taking another human being's life and is considered evil across religious and cultural lines.
I don't understand how the religious right comes to the conclusion that laws marginalizing people for who they love or preventing people from smoking a joint or sanctioning Christianity in public schools are equivalent to laws against murder and rape...actual crimes that hurt people.
"Murder is taking another human being's life and is considered evil across religious and cultural lines."
Which conservative gives you the idea that we don't read them the same?
Which weapon, except for nukes and missiles, didn't exist during the time of the revolution?
If the founders couldn't imagine the technology advancement in weaponry, why could they imagine anything related to the media like TV, movies, and the Internet?
"Which weapon, except for nukes and missiles, didn't exist during the time of the revolution?"
"Thomas Jefferson Purchased The First 'Assault Rifle' In 1780"
Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, was the first person to bring an “assault rifle” to the shores of the country in 1780. Jefferson purchased two Girardoni air rifles, which had a 22-shot capacity, were magazine-fed, and nearly silent--in other words a textbook "assault rifle" by many gun-control enthusiasts. The .46 caliber-repeating rifle was adopted by the Austrian Army in 1780"
"Many gun owners have heard anti-gun activists say if the founding fathers knew of the military style assault weapons the country would be using in the future; they would have included those into the 2nd Amendment. As Jefferson's purchase demonstrates, clearly, they knew about the progress the gun world was making and specifically did not exclude certain weapons because they knew what the future of guns would hold."
You're grossly over simplifying this issue. Obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere or business owners could deny anyone for anything that "offends them." I.e. race, gender.
What you should be taking about is the difference between providing a generic product to the public versus being forced to do something "expressive" that is against your beliefs.
"or business owners could deny anyone for anything that "offends them." I.e. race, gender."
Being a privately owned business, they SHOULD have that right.
How many businesses have actually turned down a gay couple and for those who have, how many have actually been sued for it? This entire "controversy" was manufactured by Fox News, just like the "War on Christmas". The religious right lost the gay marriage debate. Opposition to anything LGBT is a hugely successful platform for Republicans running for office and they needed something to keep the anti-LGBT rhetoric going. Right to discriminate bills and transgender bathroom bills are what they decided to go with. Both are "solutions" to solve something that was never a problem to begin with.
"was manufactured by Fox News, just like the "War on Christmas"."
You don't get out of your mother's basement during "CHRISTmas" time, do you.
"The religious right lost the gay marriage debate."
No, even Ca. voted AGAINST it, so they went to liberal federal court. and over ruled the PEOPLES VOTE.
-LGBT rights
-abortion
-creationism in science classes
-environmentalism/climate change denial
-marijuana prohibition
-religious monuments on public property
That is just scratching the surface. In red-state America, many times politicians sound like pastors more than public officials. They run on their qualifications of being strong, born-again Christians who will do whatever they can to oppose the gay agenda, oppose secularism in schools, and keep marijuana illegal, and they coast into office.
1) What LGBT rights? Most conservatives aren't opposed to LGBT people having rights, like freedom of speech, right to self defense, (prior to 2001) privacy. If you're talking about things like employment discrimination and marriage, you need to understand that you're not using the same language as conservatives on this. The right to not be fired for superficial reasons is not a government protected right, neither is marriage, according to conservatives. If you disagree, that's fine, but you need to speak their language, or at least understand it, if you plan on having a debate on this. And for what it's worth, most conservatives aren't as interested in the LGBT issues as they used to be.
2) I don't think abortion is a terribly religious issue. To save time, neither is marijuana. Most of these are moralistic arguments, that for many may attach themselves to religion, but to say it's an issue of the first amendment isn't necessarily accurate. And for what it's worth again, conservatives are opening up on marijuana.
3) Creationism is science class is typically an issue at the state level, as with religious monuments on public property. To be fair, the first amendment is a federal law referring to the power the Congress of the United States. I don't know every state's constitution or bill of rights but it is entirely possible that religious monuments or poor science education are not necessarily unconstitutional at the state level.
4) Environmentalism isn't really religious. Any connections made their are more just for show. The main issue is money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
