On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 17:14:40 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/26/17 4:48 PM, wrote:

You are splitting hairs until you tell what "Law" "Congress" made.
If the first few words of the 2d amendment define the rest, so do the
first few words in the 1st, no matter what Blackmon wrote in 1962.

Bear in mind the SCOTUS has a long rich history of being wrong.
They are the ones who said black people could never be US citizens and
that protesting the draft was a clear and present danger to the US
akin to crying fire in a crowded theater.
Both of those decisions were reversed, the latter in about 50 years
and the former in less than 10.
Who knows how a court more conservative than Warren's would rule on
the narrow case of simply having symbols on public property without
any official opinion of them at all. (simply a free speech zone).
It has always seemed strange to me that you can advocate for criminals
nazis and communists on public property but a private person
advocating for god (any god) is forbidden.



Your hair splitting is absurd, and so is your logic.

And I don't "advocate" for criminals, nazis, and communists" on public
property, but I'm pretty sure the 1st Amendment allows them to speak.
Doing so does not violate the Establishment Clause. Where do you get
your notions about me...from magic mushrooms you ingest?


Nobody said YOU personally advocate anything but you could and we are
not saying the city advocates religion when they allow a display on
their property but it is clear they will allow such a display for
those other things I mentioned.
Why isn't a religious display as much free speech as a swastika?