Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The President & the Executive Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The President & the Executive Branch Discuss High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by saltwn I got a crazy idea. How about we push freedom of religion more than freedom to ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2012, 12:06 PM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,833
Thanks: 3,272
Thanked 10,473 Times in 6,022 Posts
Default Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
I got a crazy idea. How about we push freedom of religion more than freedom to hate religion?
They are the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post

What the question SHOULD have involved is this:
"never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes criticism against any religion?"
And my answer would be "yes. I would never entertain or advance such a proposal".

As to the question Perez actually got, I already explained a scenario where that SHOULD BE "no", but of course you don't want to address it.
"never" and "any" are too broad to just reference "speech".


Let's try a different tactic.
Wouldn't "criticism" be a better word to use here?
Do you disagree that the word "speech" is too broad? There are a variety of forms of currently illegal speech.
Actually, it was "speech against", not just 'speech', which is pretty ****ing similar to "criticism".
__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2012, 12:28 PM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 18,903
Thanks: 12,396
Thanked 13,369 Times in 7,790 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
It does grant "special status".
But NOT to violate the law.

And actually, your comment is a thorough non-sequitur to the actual "question" on the table.



Freedom of religion obviously includes being free from religion.
One cannot claim to have freedom of religion if the government enforces people to follow religious mandates. It's as simple as that.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The non-sequitur is the demand to show show where the Constitution authorizes corporate personhood when the rights in the Constitution are as Obama said negative, what the government may not do to you.

Obviously the free exercise of religion means people can choose to reject religion. This right to reject religion doesn't extend to supressing the rights of others to exercise theirs. Exposure to a crosss in the public square may offend the atheist but it doesn't violate the Constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2012, 01:22 PM
Comet's Avatar
My God it's full of stars
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Earth
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,670
Thanks: 3,370
Thanked 5,313 Times in 3,416 Posts
Send a message via AIM to Comet
Default Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights

Quote:
In yesterday's hearing, Chairman Franks asked Perez to affirm that the Administration would "never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?" Perez refused.
This should make everyone, regardless of political affiliation, nervous.
__________________

"The oldest picture book in our possession is the midnight sky" - E. W. Maunder
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2012, 01:25 PM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,833
Thanks: 3,272
Thanked 10,473 Times in 6,022 Posts
Default Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Exposure to a crosss in the public square may offend the atheist but it doesn't violate the Constitution.
This is where we part ways. I disagree. If by 'public square' you mean govt property, I think it does violate the constitution since the presence of it portrays a government establishment of religion or religious views/preference.

That said, it doesn't offend me since that's next to impossible anyway, but it shouldn't be there.
__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel

Last edited by rivrrat; 09-18-2012 at 01:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2012, 02:26 PM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 18,903
Thanks: 12,396
Thanked 13,369 Times in 7,790 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
This is where we part ways. I disagree. If by 'public square' you mean govt property, I think it does violate the constitution since the presence of it portrays a government establishment of religion or religious views/preference.

That said, it doesn't offend me since that's next to impossible anyway, but it shouldn't be there.
How about instead of pandering to atheist sensibilities we instead opt for freedom by allowing the display of religious symbols on public property? Want a star of David, go ahead. Want a symbol of Islam, put it up. As long as it is privately funded the government isn't endorsing one religion over another.

Religious expression in our government is nothing new. The degradation of our Constitutional religious rights largely by judicial decree is a modern development.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2012, 02:33 PM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,833
Thanks: 3,272
Thanked 10,473 Times in 6,022 Posts
Default Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
How about instead of pandering to atheist sensibilities we instead opt for freedom by allowing the display of religious symbols on public property? Want a star of David, go ahead. Want a symbol of Islam, put it up. As long as it is privately funded the government isn't endorsing one religion over another.

Religious expression in our government is nothing new. The degradation of our Constitutional religious rights largely by judicial decree is a modern development.
No, that would just make our government property look stupid by allowing ****ing anyone to put up whatever they want.
__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2012, 02:30 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,314 Times in 9,285 Posts
Default Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
Actually, it was "speech against", not just 'speech', which is pretty ****ing similar to "criticism".
"Similar"? Sure.
But "speech against" is too broad, encompassing MORE than just "criticism" which is the problem.

I can see some lawyer jerk-off trying to argue that illegal threats or terroristic speech (e.g. bomb threat) could be classified as "speech against".
I see a VERY significant distinction here.

And another perspective, if the words are so similar why not just use "criticism" instead.
I would totally get behind using the word "criticism" instead.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The non-sequitur is the demand to show show where the Constitution authorizes corporate personhood when the rights in the Constitution are as Obama said negative, what the government may not do to you.
Have you confused this post with another thread?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger
Obviously the free exercise of religion means people can choose to reject religion. This right to reject religion doesn't extend to supressing the rights of others to exercise theirs. Exposure to a crosss in the public square may offend the atheist but it doesn't violate the Constitution.
Your rights end where mine begin.
Remember that phrase.
You have no right to "exercise" your religion when they impose upon my rights.

"Exposure to a cross in the public square" is not exact enough to realistically assess the situation.
It's the governmental endorsement placing that cross there which is often the issue.
The government has no business picking and choosing religious symbols to advertise.
To pretend the government getting involved in that is an example of YOUR "exercise" of religion demonstrates how you don't appreciate where YOUR rights end and our government begins.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger
How about instead of pandering to atheist sensibilities we instead opt for freedom by allowing the display of religious symbols on public property?
I don't understand the mentality that an absence of a Christian symbol somehow equates to "pandering to atheists".

Furthermore, your own bible had something to say about this type of gawdy, self-indulgent showmanship...
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
1st, affirm, amendment, doj, high, official, ranking, refuses, rights

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0