On 12/27/15 4:41 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:34:25 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 12/27/15 1:42 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote:

I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10
commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and
tell us how it is infringing on your rights.


Such a display infringes on everyone's rights.

Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art
gallery with religious symbols in ****?

You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same
article you cite says that right does not exist.



And once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues...

And once again, you demonstrate what happens when you're backed into a corner.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!



Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here
do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with
the clause?

6:19 PMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text -
Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here
do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with
the clause?
........

I don't belive you understand it at all. You understand what you want it to mean. Otherwise...

On 12/27/15 9:48 PM, Tim wrote:
6:19 PMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text -
Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here
do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with
the clause?
.......

I don't belive you understand it at all. You understand what you want it to mean. Otherwise...



Sounds likes the interpretations of scripture, eh?

The establishment clause is supposed to keep the government out of
promoting religion.

8:54 PMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text -
Sounds likes the interpretations of scripture, eh?

The establishment clause is supposed to keep the government out of
promoting religion.
------

And who says it does? You?

On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 21:54:32 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/27/15 9:48 PM, Tim wrote:
6:19 PMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text -
Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here
do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with
the clause?
.......

I don't belive you understand it at all. You understand what you want it to mean. Otherwise...



Sounds likes the interpretations of scripture, eh?

The establishment clause is supposed to keep the government out of
promoting religion.


It is just as easy to argue that they are allowing the "free exercise"
of said religion. (words that are actually in the article)
The word "promote" is not there.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:19:45 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/27/15 4:41 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:34:25 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 12/27/15 1:42 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote:

I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10
commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and
tell us how it is infringing on your rights.


Such a display infringes on everyone's rights.

Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art
gallery with religious symbols in ****?

You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same
article you cite says that right does not exist.



And once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues...

And once again, you demonstrate what happens when you're backed into a corner.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!



Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here
do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with
the clause?

You refuse to actually read the words. How can you say the state of
Mississippi did anything the "establish" christianity? As I recall it
was thriving for at least 1500 years before the white man ever
ventured there?
That article also says "Congress shall make no law". Congress was not
involved at all.
I find it ridiculous that people will parse words and invent ways to
restrict the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed" in the second amendment but apply the
most generous interpretations to the words in the first, actually
making up things that it doesn't say.

wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:19:45 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/27/15 4:41 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:34:25 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 12/27/15 1:42 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote:

I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10
commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and
tell us how it is infringing on your rights.


Such a display infringes on everyone's rights.

Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art
gallery with religious symbols in ****?

You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same
article you cite says that right does not exist.



And once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues...

And once again, you demonstrate what happens when you're backed into a corner.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!



Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here
do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with
the clause?

You refuse to actually read the words. How can you say the state of
Mississippi did anything the "establish" christianity? As I recall it
was thriving for at least 1500 years before the white man ever
ventured there?
That article also says "Congress shall make no law". Congress was not
involved at all.
I find it ridiculous that people will parse words and invent ways to
restrict the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed" in the second amendment but apply the
most generous interpretations to the words in the first, actually
making up things that it doesn't say.



You don't understand the establishment clause

--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:33:59 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:19:45 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/27/15 4:41 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:34:25 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 12/27/15 1:42 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote:

I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10
commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and
tell us how it is infringing on your rights.


Such a display infringes on everyone's rights.

Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art
gallery with religious symbols in ****?

You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same
article you cite says that right does not exist.



And once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues...

And once again, you demonstrate what happens when you're backed into a corner.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!



Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here
do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with
the clause?

You refuse to actually read the words. How can you say the state of
Mississippi did anything the "establish" christianity? As I recall it
was thriving for at least 1500 years before the white man ever
ventured there?
That article also says "Congress shall make no law". Congress was not
involved at all.
I find it ridiculous that people will parse words and invent ways to
restrict the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed" in the second amendment but apply the
most generous interpretations to the words in the first, actually
making up things that it doesn't say.



You don't understand the establishment clause

That is something that was invented in my life time. It is not spelled
out in the 1st amendment.
I don't understand how the courts of the 60s and 70s were interpreting
it but I do understand that is different than the way it was
interpreted for the first 90-100 years.
Bear in mind that is the same court that reversed SCHENCK v. U.S and
made it legal to "cry fire in a crowded theater", invalidated the
espionage act in the Ellsberg case and also made arbitrary "stop and
frisk" legal in TERRY (among several decisions that eliminated 4th
amendment protections) so I am not really sure how they were
protecting our rights.
Warren and Burger certainly were a one, two punch to constitutional
reality. They just made up words that were not written there and
ignored the ones that were.
Justices like Scalia agree with me.
I said earlier, this court might rule a different way if the right
case was brought to them.