s****hawk <s****hawk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 8, 3:20 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> s****hawk<s****h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >On May 8, 7:42 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>s****hawk<s****h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >> Congress has no authority (under the Establishment Clause) to
>> >> AUTHORIZE anyone to engage in religious exercises, including
Congress
>> >> itself.
>>
>> >Congress also has no authority (under the Free Exercise Clause) to
>> >PROHIBIT anyone to engage in religious exercises, including Congress
>> >itself.
>>
>> Then Congress cannot stop the pastafarian from wandering onto the
>> Senate floor (or for that matter into George Bush's bedroom in the
>> White House) and singing hymns at any time of the day or night.
>>
>> Your interpretation of the clause is thus shown to be ridiculous.
>
>If your interpretation is valid, then it must also apply to freedom of
>speech. Certainly you don't question the right to free speech. So
>you must feel that you have a constitutional right to enter George
>Bush's bedroom and start speaking. Right? Whose interpretation is
>ridiculous?
Therefore we must conclude that it is permissible to regulate both
speech and religious expression under some conditions.
The words used say that Congress cannot "abridge" freedom of speech,
and cannot "prohibit" free exercise of religion. Yet it can forbid
you to do either in George Bush's bedroom. Thus those two words
(which are different, so the rights involved may be different) must be
interpreted in a way that makes sense in real life.
>> >Besides, there are no congressional rules prohibiting either
>> >spontaneous or organized prayer--there can't be: it would be
>> >unconstitutional
>>
>> But there are, since the pastafarian cannot go into the halls of
>> Congress singing hymns.
>
>Sure they can--if Congress authorizes it.
Congress has no authority to authorize it.
>But no religion has a constitutional
>right to authorization, just as no individual has the right to object
Under free speech, I have the right to object to anything I want.
Furthermore I have the right to petition the government for redress of
my grievance.
>> Those rules cannot include any religious tests. If they allow one
>> religious expression, then they must allow all, without constraint.
>
>The constitution contains no such constraints.
Article VI, as quoted.
>> >The Constitution does not grant individuals or groups of individuals
>> >the right to be free of the sound of prayer in their presence.
>>
>> But it does. I am free to walk away from you, or if I prefer, to
>> offer my own prayer at equal volume. The government cannot forbid me
>> from offering my own prayer at equal volume or it is engaging in the
>> regulation of free religious expression as well as applying a
>> religious test.
>
>Utter and complete nonsense--the standard nonsense of the anarchists,
>the disrupters of society. A constitutional right does not include
>the right to interfere with another's exercise of a constitutional
>right.
Therefore you can have no constitutional right to stop the pastafarian
from praying in YOUR bedroom.
>The constitutional right to freedom of speech does not grant a
>right to shout down another speaker,
It doesn't? Is there a volume clause in the first amendment?
>to harass the audience of the speaker, to block the free flow of traffic,
to crowd city streets, to
>violate rules of order.
A rule of order that abridges free speech is out of order.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lojban language www.lojban.org
|
