About Us

F.O.A.D.

On 4/23/13 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:44:56 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/23/13 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:51:53 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

If you can extend "Congress" (meaning the US congress) shall make no
federal law" to mean a city council can't allow a display on city
property, I can't understand why "shall not be infringed" is not an
absolute prohibition of any firearm law by any government entity.

Infringe means destroy, shatter, crush. The current set of firearm
regulations do not destroy, shatter or crush the ability to own firearms.

inÂ·fringe (n-frnj)
v. inÂ·fringed, inÂ·fringÂ·ing, inÂ·fringÂ·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a
contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an
increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

In this context, the obsolete definition is most likely what the
framers were talking about.

Demonstrations are not the same as displays.

Why not?

Because the people have a Bill of Rights right to peaceably assemble.
There is no Bill of Rights right to set up a religious display on public
property; in fact, the state is not allowed to help promote religion,
and a creche promotes religion.

Isn't stopping it "prohibiting the free exercise of"?

The government is no more establishing religion with this display than
they are establishing nazism when they let the marchers walk in Skokie

Every year, for example, we
get thousands of religious simpies up here protesting Roe v. Wade, and
they camp out on the steps of the Supreme Court and march down the
public's streets and sidewalks. So long as they have a permit, such
behavior is allowed.

Isn't the government that grants that permit "establishing" that
religious belief?

No, they are granting a parade permit.

So why not a nativity display permit?

Demonstrating against corporate excess is not the same as promoting the
religious crib scenes of a Jewish baby.

Why not? Both represent deeply held personal beliefs.

Because the religious crib scenes on public property promote religion,
and such is not allowed.

Says you.

The answers you seek are in and around the Establishment clause, taking
into account the right-wing supremes have weakened it a bit.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Palin's movie is bombing	X-Man[_2_]	General	8	July 29th 11 09:09 PM
r_Hunt_19_HMS Active in Boston Harbor, 19 July 1773, The Boston Tea Party is five months in the future_sqs	squeegees	Tall Ship Photos	0	October 14th 10 02:15 PM
HMS Active in Boston Harbor, 19 July 1773, The Boston Tea Party is five months in the future_Geoff Hunt, 1990_sqs	squeegees	Tall Ship Photos	0	August 10th 09 01:45 AM
J Ganz carpet bombing	Bobspirt	ASA	10	July 29th 04 05:47 AM

Menu

About Us