My favorite amendment: free speech - Political Forum

greg · 10-13-2007, 12:12 AM

my name is greg norris , never done this before. never wanted to till now .
i turned fifty years old this year . had made myself a promise when i did , i'd quit smokin and read the constitution of the united states of america (figured the latter would keep me occupied ... it did ) quitin smokin was easy , readin the constitution , thats a different story !
guess i'd call myself a conservative . not at first , not by nature , but from expieriance . lessons learned i guess .

leave you with this , my favorite part of the constitution .i preach it often .

amendment one

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 goverment for a redress of grievances .

look foward to talkin to ya .

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 10-13-2007, 12:19 AM

Hey greg,

It seems you are a bit new to the forum thing. It seems that the difference between this thread and your last one is that in your last one you talked about the second amendment and in this one you talk about the first amendment. How things normally work is that you would find the appropriate forum to post on the first amendment, I guess that would be "civil liberties" since it mentions "freedom of speech" in the description of that forum.

http://www.politicsforumpoliticalwor...vil-liberties/

I'll move this thread over there.

WEB

greg · 10-13-2007, 01:53 AM

sorry w , have to admit this is all a little confusin to me . can't figure it out . have to keep re - regerustan . login many more times people might think i'm takin up residence here .

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 10-13-2007, 02:00 AM

Did you click on the "remember me" button?

There are two things that will remember your username and password:

(1) The forum software

(2) Your internet browser (i.e. internet explorer or mozilla firefox)

You do have to enable one of the two to remember you.

WEB

greg · 10-13-2007, 02:52 AM

well thank ya web . never noticed that little box down there . they ought to make it bigger so a feller can see it . hell it's easy to miss , when your readin something get all excited and wanna write something back !

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 10-13-2007, 02:53 AM

So are you able to access the site without having to type in your username and password everytime?

That Darn Republican · 10-13-2007, 08:56 PM

Freedom of Speech Mr. Dubois, is a civil right. Civil liberties are subjective, they should have a constitutional law section. Civil rights are objective. Now, granted - now... digressing slighty. Liberals tend to perceive based on what they feel rather than understand what has been made evidently clear, that is what makes them liberal; hence mind games such as moral relativism.

The framers only meant one thing when they charted the 1st. Amendment... that you could speak out against your government without fear of reprisal from that government, that's it -- that is all it provided for. There is no provision for pornography, blasphemy, libel or slander, nor sedition... my haven't we become a rather licentious society when we don't prosecute infringements and ignore the laws on the books. Sad it is really, this is the leftist legacy.

Agrippina · 10-14-2007, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Darn Republican

Freedom of Speech Mr. Dubois, is a civil right. Civil liberties are subjective, they should have a constitutional law section. Civil rights are objective. Now, granted - now... digressing slighty. Liberals tend to perceive based on what they feel rather than understand what has been made evidently clear, that is what makes them liberal; hence mind games such as moral relativism.

So you are saying that people who don't agree with the religious, bigoted, judgmental right, base their ideas on what they feel. So is it because I 'feel' it is wrong to discriminate against someone for something over which they have no control that I make the decision not to discriminate, or is it because I observe that something is wrong and make the decision because I don't want to commit that wrong.
There is nothing relative about my morals, at least I don't make my judgments based on some arbitrary text that may or may not have been written 5000 years ago, in a country 5000 years away, in a culture with values that were applicable to a mostly illiterate, unsophisticated, herder/agrarian community of 5000 years ago.

That Darn Republican · 10-14-2007, 11:06 AM

Quote:

"So you are saying that people who don't agree with the religious, bigoted, judgmental right, base their ideas on what they feel. So is it because I 'feel' it is wrong to discriminate against someone for something over which they have no control that I make the decision not to discriminate, or is it because I observe that something is wrong and make the decision because I don't want to commit that wrong."

The question is... how do you know it's wrong?

How would you have a deep conviction your heart unless something in your heart entered your mind and siezed up your behavior that you may not act in a manner unbecoming?

Answer is you wouldn't... your dismissal of Holy Scripture as the template of our laws is a bit trite. God proved what He told us in His Word when He said "He wrote His law on Man's heart" we just become cynical... that is more intellectually honest.

Quote:

"The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], And desperately wicked; Who can know it? " Jer 17:9

So to trust that man is inherently good? [thus is the mantra of humanists] isn't going to do anyone but those who feel over understand anygood at all. As you well know, feelings are governed by perceptions... not reality and understanding. Understanding comes from reality, perceptions are revealed to be flawed because we see the fruit of their 'inherent goodness' in their lewd or unreasonable behavior which is why the immutable characteristics of God's Law were grafted into our legal structure and is rather mathematic in orientation again, as the template for what behavior is acceptable. The law is not for those who obey it, but for those who seek to thwart it. But the framework focuses on constants rather than variables. Its easier for a government who doesn't want to infringe upon personal liberties without impugning moral character to govern more effectively at less cost than an over reaching centralized nanny state protective all manner of illicit nonproductive behavior as normal just to quell ripples from the socially defiant. That is not what we have here, constants are the 'what' such as gender, ethnicity, nationality, or religious affiliation [a fundamental of free moral agency] no variables such as who you become, such as a laywer... teacher, gay, a murderer. See... you could become something of a problem -- why would our constitution protect that?

Truth is, it doesn't and never has made covering for personal behavior unbecoming a productive citizen of this union. 5ooo years ago up till now doesn't make murder, homosexuality, theft and adultery any less lawful, and our personal creation reflect a fundamental understanding of those laws.... it is called out conscience; the evidence of a sovereign Creator on our being [note: I didn't say psyche] we are the only country in the world to have based the Word of God into the tapestry of our national fabric and have been immensely blessed because of it. I just found your reply to echo the sentiment of secular minds who are quick to dismiss anything that convicts their behavior - thus the hot bed of their rebellion. Gods law.... [therefore ours] is inflexible to interpretation, and is not mailable or to be made flexible to how someone wants to live, over what is fundamentally correct for us to coexist.

Agrippina · 10-14-2007, 11:43 AM

[quote=That Darn Republican;92582]The question is... how do you know it's wrong?

Quote:

How would you have a deep conviction your heart unless something in your heart entered your mind and siezed up your behavior that you may not act in a manner unbecoming?

Firstly, I think with my head, my heart pumps blood.
Secondly, being a decent person and not discriminating against someone for something they either can't help or didn't choose to do is a conscious decision - note I use the word 'conscious' the decision is made in my brain, not my heart.
I do believe absolutely that mankind is inherently good and that all children are born good. We become what we do for a lot of other reasons, not because we are 'bad'.
I may judge other peoples' behaviour but not the person. I never say - that is a bad person - unless I talk about Ted Bundy, there was something really badly wired in that man's head. But no I don't judge people, only their behaviour.
I have said this before, and I will repeat it here. In my experience, the most judgmental, hard, cruel, thoughtless, unkind, bigoted behaviour is usually shown by the most pious god-fearing people I meet.