I Love Texas

[Tyyr]

Because unless you somehow start to conjure up mind readers you'll never be able to prove conclusively why anyone voted for something or why they donated money to a specific candidate.

[Tsukiyumi]

You couldn't stop people from donating to whomever they choose as individuals, but these groups are clearly making no secret of their agenda and involvement. It would stop pastors and church-affiliated groups from asking their congregations to vote for certain people, and it would certainly derail sh*t like Jerry Falwell's Christian SS legal camp. They also wouldn't be allowed to fund political ads, or put money into legal matters directly.

Sure, they could find ways around the restrictions, but it could, in my opinion, throw a massive wrench into their entirely overt attempt to control the government.

[Tyyr]

As opposed to every other special interest group's attempt to influence the government? Why the ire at religion?

Besides, you didn't address the second portion of your amendment which only would prevent someone from announcing out loud that they're advancing a Christian agenda. Nothing would stop someone from saying, "I'm a Christian and I plan to vote..." and them vote the "Christian" party line.

[Tsukiyumi]

Why the ire at religion?

Probably the stupidity.

Besides, you didn't address the second portion of your amendment which only would prevent someone from announcing out loud that they're advancing a Christian agenda. Nothing would stop someone from saying, "I'm a Christian and I plan to vote..." and them vote the "Christian" party line.

This leads back to the topic, surprisingly.

Obviously, by the inclusion of an Amendment like that, a lot of religious issues would immediately drop from Congress and the courts, as they wouldn't be able to use their positions to further any religious agenda.

If religion (I'm looking at YOU, Christianity) lost the ability to influence politics directly, through ads and fundraisers, maybe they'd go back to doing what they constantly espouse the virtue of: actually helping people.

[stitch626]

But that would actually make most of them better for everyone... and we can't let that happen.

Sorry, latent hostility showing.

[Nutso]

How To Shut Up Pesky Creationists

Some would simply plug their ears and sing loudly.

Lord how I wish I was being funny, too.

At the Dover Evolution/Creationism trial, the pro-Intelligent Design witnesses never showed up to defend their "science." So I guess they sat down on their asses when God and Morality, and goodness and light needed them most.
How to shut up pesky Creationists? Make them have to scientifically defend Creationism.

[Tsukiyumi]

Make them have to scientifically defend Creationism.

[Tyyr]

Probably the stupidity.

And again, as opposed to all those other special interests?

This leads back to the topic, surprisingly.

Obviously, by the inclusion of an Amendment like that, a lot of religious issues would immediately drop from Congress and the courts, as they wouldn't be able to use their positions to further any religious agenda.

What religious issues will suddenly drop? Any issue that you think is "religious" apart from perhaps teaching creationism in schools, can be carried on without ever mentioning god.

If religion (I'm looking at YOU, Christianity) lost the ability to influence politics directly, through ads and fundraisers,

And in our country you can't just muzzle an entire group of people because you don't like what they say.

[Tsukiyumi]

Probably the stupidity.

And again, as opposed to all those other special interests?

Name one as powerful as the Christian right that's equally stupid.

What religious issues will suddenly drop? Any issue that you think is "religious" apart from perhaps teaching creationism in schools, can be carried on without ever mentioning god.

Abortion rights, gay marriage, prayer in schools, mentioning a "Creator" in school textbooks, and stem cell research. Just off the top of my head.

And in our country you can't just muzzle an entire group of people because you don't like what they say.

That's probably why the KKK had so much power in the early 1900's. Freedom of speech isn't always a good thing.

[Tyyr]

Freedom of speech isn't always a good thing.

...wow.

[Tsukiyumi]

Yeah, wow. Didn't you read my example? The KKK was allowed to gain tremendous political influence by way of that right. They got away with thousands of public murders because they gained power through rallies and political manipulation. Any right that allows groups that evil to gain that kind of power should be regulated, in my opinion.

[Tyyr]

Your example is totally immaterial. The whole purpose of having freedom is speech is so that the government CAN'T regulate it. It exists so that the government can't decide to shut up groups that it might not like at the moment. Apparently you completely missed that part.

[Tsukiyumi]

...Apparently you completely missed that part.

No, I didn't.

I don't think hate speech and ignorance should be covered by the First. How is it a good thing, exactly, that any group is free to rally others to violence?

[Nutso]

...Apparently you completely missed that part.

No, I didn't.

I don't think hate speech and ignorance should be covered by the First. How is it a good thing, exactly, that any group is free to rally others to violence?

Never allow a governing body to tell you what you can say. It's great that you can march in the streets and let your Government know how you feel. At a Klan rally, there are people willing to answer them right back with a march letting the Klan know how much they hate their guts.

All speech is protected from Government interference. If not, there would be no damn, dirty hippies to protest against the Vietnam War draft. Their speeches and expression of detestation for the war and the draft could easily be deemed hate speech against the U.S. The term "hate speech" is very, very broad and too open for interpretation.

However, there is this from Brandenburg vs. Ohio.

Finally, Douglas dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." In order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action." In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.

[Tsukiyumi]

"falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

Which is quite similar to what a lot of these Christian extremist groups have been doing for a while. Inciting people to commit violence, in the name of religion, or racism, or whatever, shouldn't be protected by the First. In my opinion.