Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowlord]

You should probably actually read the first amendment, Urist.

read the first amendment, Urist.

first amendment

amendment

Hmmm, almost like it amended something--adding or changing a previously different interpretation of the base Constitution. But we can't do that now, can we? The Constitution DEFINITELY ISN'T a living document to be changed based partly on the will of the people.

EDIT: You should probably actually understand how both amendments in general and the process by which they can be applied to the constitution work.

Siiiiiiiiïiìiiiîiiiiiíiiiiiiigh.

[smjjames]

Yes.

You need to read up on history then

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Ya, I get it people, it's entirely theoretical--but are you going to argue this modern christian-centric American society is what the founders REALLY had in mind?

Yes.

You need to read up on history then

You're being an asshole.

Or take a civics class. Or actually have any sort of fundamental understanding of how the hell the US government works.

You're also being an asshole. You realize that there are several ways by which an amendment may be forcibly made to the Constitution? Also overriding previous amendments? I'm not saying it is realistic--but it is technically possible.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

The moon crashing into the earth tomorrow is also theoretical. Probably has a higher chance, too.

Cool, so you choose to dismiss an idea because it doesn't have popular support. Offer some actual reasons as to why what I have suggested would be a bad thing?

[smjjames]

And you can excersize the right to free speech by complaining about the obnoxious billboard to, well, whoever it is that you complain about billboards to. Your local city council maybe.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Hey, if you don't like billboards move to Vermont. They're illegal there.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I did earlier. You're severely hamstringing the rights of various religions, some of which consider proselytizing as a fundamental aspect of their religion, for the sake of avoiding having to read obnoxious billboards.

Ok. I guess we should allow the Catholic Church to reform the Inquisition then, maybe allow religions to have cabinet-level advisors to POTUS as well. Proselytizing is something that affects everybody--and is a much bigger issue than having to read the odd, uncomfortable billboard. I'm not suggesting you are not allowed to discuss religion and educate individuals who are legitimately interested, but there should be limits on how you can use mass media to entice people to join your religion.

EDIT: You guys seem oddly fixated on billboards specifically???

Isn't it pretty fucked up that the US was founded on religious freedoms, but most residents are subjected to pressure to be Christian--specifically Protestant??? That there's a massive onus to reject Islam, Judaism, and pretty much any other in religion in the world in some parts of the US??? The fact that religious education--my experience is specifically with Roman-Catholicism--is fucking off the charts brainwashing with little to no opportunity to learn about other systems of belief or philosophies???

You should be free to practice you religion in peace--but without affecting others who want to practice theirs in peace.

I shouldn't even say BAN, I should say regulated. Banning things is generally bad, and works out pretty badly, but there should be limits to this.

[Egan_BW]

Controlling the thoughts of others is a noble pursuit indeed, but not the place of legislation.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Controlling the thoughts of others is a noble pursuit indeed, but not the place of legislation.

*le sigh*

It's supposed to PREVENT people from controlling the thoughts of others.

EDIT: Also, that is one of THE most annoying responses ever. At what point is my suggestion "controlling the thoughts of others"? You're not allowed to fucking incite mass riots either.

[Reelya]

There's the fundamental paradox of controlling speech in order to free speech.

Because there's basically no way to isolate exactly what you mean as ideas that you can't try and spread.

So what are we going to ban exactly? Just the going to your door thing, or being accosted in the street and told invasive "ideas" in general? Laws need to be written in black and white, so you do need to be specific, then people are free to critique all the unintended things your law proposal accidental sweeps up as well. That's how it works.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

There's the fundamental paradox of controlling speech in order to free speech.

Again, historically, the US has placed restrictions on free speech multiple times. So... it's really not an un-heard-of precedent.

[Reelya]

Be more specific in terms of things you'll ban, and circumstances in which they'll be banned

Saying something like "religious beliefs" is even too vague, because people who have beliefs call them truth so they're going to get upset that you're banning from from saying true statements.

[Shadowlord]

The moon crashing into the earth tomorrow is also theoretical. Probably has a higher chance, too.

Cool, so you choose to dismiss an idea because it doesn't have popular support. Offer some actual reasons as to why what I have suggested would be a bad thing?

I had a post all typed, and then FOUR NEW POSTS and phone browser crash
alas

I'll try retyping it from memory.

The soviet union tried to eradicate religion within their territory. They failed, despite all of the force they could bring to bear (oppression, purges, exile, etc). Banning religious speech would not prevent religion from continuing to be passed down to children. Banning religion entirely wouldn't either. Banning popular things has never eliminated them. Just look at marijuana.

Even if you could somehow get a religion-restricting amendment into the constitution*, repealing that part of the first amendment in the process, or if you could get together a constitutional convention and control who attended so as to make sure all the delegates were onboard with your agenda, do you really think that Christians would just accept it? They'd resist. Probably with force. As it happens, they tend to be more right-wing, and have more of the guns and ammo. If a civil war broke out as a result, you would also have no guarantee that the military would remain unified or support the new constitution. It has also, thus far, been impossible for an atheist to even get elected to congress, much less the presidency. So if the military did stay unified, they'd be obeying someone you'd be trying to oppress. So gg no re.

* You couldn't, of course. It would never be ratified. Not in this lifetime. Not without first disenfranchising all those religious voters. Are you in favor of that? (Spoiler: They wouldn't accept that either)

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Placeholder post as I go back and answer a bunch of stuff at once. Lol, I'll get there, promises!

Be more specific in terms of things you'll ban, and circumstances in which they'll be banned.

That is fair, and I will acquiesce to that request.

If I had to write the amendment myself it would read something like this (roughly, I'm writing off the top of my head and there WILL be errors):

"To further affect the peoples' right to exercise their religion(s) freely, the United States Congress may henceforth make legislation against any religious institution provided the legislation affects all religious institutions equally.

Any religious spokesperson, defined as someone who represents a religious community as a whole, regardless of title or whether self-appointed or appointed by a member of a religion's clergy, may not proselytize in public or make use of mass media to make any assertions about their religion other than factual statements about the tenants of said religion. The use of Mass Media to make available religious teachings or sermons will be specifically allowed, provided it does not directly advertise that religion. (this sentence is dubiously worded, but ya, something)

Furthermore, no such spokesperson has any right to proselytize, discuss, or approach any citizen of the United States of America on their own property about religion unless specifically indicated."

The soviet union tried to eradicate religion within their territory. They failed, despite all of the force they could bring to bear (oppression, purges, exile, etc). Banning religious speech would not prevent religion from continuing to be passed down to children. Banning religion entirely wouldn't either. Banning popular things has never eliminated them. Just look at marijuana.

Even if you could somehow get a religion-restricting amendment into the constitution*, repealing that part of the first amendment in the process, or if you could get together a constitutional convention and control who attended so as to make sure all the delegates were onboard with your agenda, do you really think that Christians would just accept it? They'd resist. Probably with force. As it happens, they tend to be more right-wing, and have more of the guns and ammo. If a civil war broke out as a result, you would also have no guarantee that the military would remain unified or support the new constitution. It has also, thus far, been impossible for an atheist to even get elected to congress, much less the presidency. So if the military did stay unified, they'd be obeying someone you'd be trying to oppress. So gg no re.

* You couldn't, of course. It would never be ratified. Not in this lifetime. Not without first disenfranchising all those religious voters. Are you in favor of that? (Spoiler: They wouldn't accept that either)

I don't want to get rid of religion. The US is a secular state though, and unlike the State Atheism the USSR practiced I want people to be able to practice their religions in peace, but why do they have to intrude into people of other faith's lives?

Urist, rewrite your argument and replace "religion" with atheism, agnosticism, or however you identifying yourself. Now imagine that I am trying to force that on you. Maybe then you will realize just how offensive you are being right now.

Uhhh, as an Atheist I shouldn't be able to force my religious beliefs on others either. Though I may not agree with most religions, Atheism too is a a system of belief, and frankly you shouldn't be able to go around screaming about how what someone else believes doesnt exist.

Also, not to defend Atheism, but the US IS a secular state.

[Egan_BW]

By preventing another from controlling people's thoughts, you control those people's thoughts yourself. You are exerting your own power over the beliefs of others. The first amendment gives you this right, to influence other people without the government locking you up.