Bibles in Cumberland County

Yep. Someone should appoint the two of us to be on the Supreme Court. We would keep it balanced...tee hee.

Grace

 

Hard to do when it's banned from study.

 

No right is absolute. Quick example is the yelling the word "Fire!" in an empty cornfield versus a crowded theatre.

 

As far as I can see, it hasn't been banned from public libraries, peer reviewed scientific journals, etc. I would argue that one is unlikely to find rigorous scientific research and testing in high school or at lower levels.

 

You don't have a "right" to yell "Fire!" in either place. The problem is that people pick out words in the Constitution but fail to pick out entire sentences, or even use the words they choose in the obvious context they are in.

They see the First Amendment:
"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"

Then they pick out the words "freedom of speech" and say that gives them the right to say whatever they want. But of you look at the words "freedom of speech" in context, you will see that it is in reference to complaining about the government.

 

So if the context is obvious, why do the courts hear challenges, and modifications based on the rule of law, and apply such modifications. Are you arguing that the framers got it exactly right the first time? If so, I would argue that the mere census requirements giving full rights to white males, and a 3/5 portion of slaves for determining population was certainly, contextually and obviously in need of change, which is what occurred.

As for the extension of complaints against the government, if I have interpreted you correctly, that the rights of speech only apply if I am complaining against the government, that may have been the one of the first applications of judicial decision, which has since be further applied.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Schenck_v_US

Case Summary for Schenck v. United States The relevant language from Justice Holmes’ opinion for the Court is as follows: "We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205 , 206 S., 25 Sup. Ct. 3. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.

 

Clif, I know you like to debate (ahem... argue) but do you REALLY feel that the Gideons (or any other Religious Group) have more of a right to our young children's indoctrination than we as THEIR PARENTS do?

 

What I'm saying is that the Gideons don't have any more rights under the Constitution than you or I do, but they don't have any less rights either.

 

<sigh>

 

Did you expect anything else? :jester: :lol: 8)

 

Definite pain in the butt when the Constitution covers everybody, idinit?

 

8)

 

That is what makes him such a good/great debater. One never knows which side he personally believes. Sometimes he shows it but not always and sometimes I try to guess, which makes it more fun.

Grace

 

Here's a hint. I never debate in favour of something I don't believe in.

 

Really?

Grace

 

Really.