The First Amendment. ONLY for religious free speech?

[AlAyeti]

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

///

Nowhere do any of these words pertain to anything other than religion, and the rights of religious people to assemble, present their religious views and if not allowed to, to bring a lawsuit to the government.

And freedom to speak doesn't seem to denote any limitations as to when and where or how.

Why are others allowed to apply free speech to anything else?

It seems clearly written.

[juliod]

Try investigating the use and application of the semi-colon.

DanZ

[micatala]

It seems clear to me that exactly the opposite is true.

Unpacking the punctuation seems to lead the following intended meaning (althought I am certainly willing to be corrected by the professional grammarians on the forum).

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press.

Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It is also clear from history that the founders had more in mind than just religious freedom. Their grievances against the King of England listed in the Declaration of Independence involved a lot of things, some economic, some legal, etc. I didn't see that religion was specifically mentioned even once in these grievances. Clearly, the founders wanted U.S. citizens to be able to redress all sorts of grievances, not just religious ones.

[AlAyeti]

The people that left England for America originally did so because of religious persecution. The Church of England and all.

Now, the use of a semicolon: A mark of punctuation used to connect independent clauses and indicating a closer relationship between the clauses than a period does. (thefreedictionary.com)

It seems pretty plain that the first amendment was for strictly religious voice.

I wonder if the porn industry and the ACLU has ever read this thing in proper context?

Religion has never not dominated US opinions on much of anything.

Sure is interesting to see in a different light sometime.

[juliod]

Look up the meaning of "independant clauses".

Really, this thread is not reflecting well on your reading comprehension skills.

DanZ

[AlAyeti]

I'm not worried Dan. I didn't think this up on my own, really.

It is a complex sentence.

Maybe people should indeed think outside of bobbleheadism.

We are force fed what the constitution means by people who are always selling us one thing or another. America has always been a very religious country and the framers were certainly not seperating church ans state the way it has been corrupted.

In fact the concept of seperation of church ans state is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

"The right of the people to peaceably assemble," sure sounds like it could mean Church to me.

And "respecting" in this context could very well mean "regarding." I'm comfortable with the english language.

"or," or of what? The context of this writing is religion.

Government cannot tell religions what they can and cannot do. No laws can be passed against a peaceful religious assembly.

[McCulloch]

Maybe people should indeed think outside of bobbleheadism.
We are force fed what the constitution means by people who are always selling us one thing or another. America has always been a very religious country and the framers were certainly not seperating church ans[and] state the way it has been corrupted.

By "bobbleheads" do you mean the Supreme Court justices, who have studied and practiced constitutional law for most of their careers and have been elevated to their posts after a thorough review? By "force fed" do you mean having to abide by the interpretations and precedents given by that body of jurists set up by the founders of your country as part of the "checks and balances"?

In fact the concept of seperation of church ans[and] state is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

Unless you count the Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution. Do most constitutional lawyers exclude the Bill of Rights from the Constitution?

"The right of the people to peaceably assemble," sure sounds like it could mean Church to me.

And no one has been trying to take that away from anyone since the Southern bigots tried to stop the freedom riders.

Government cannot tell religions what they can and cannot do. No laws can be passed against a peaceful religious assembly.

And this is as it should be. Furthermore, governments should not "establish" any religion. The courts have ruled, have they not, that the governments are not allowed to favour or discriminate against one specific religion vis a vis another specific religion.

[Chimp]

So the part about the free press...is that the church bulletin? Or some more
broad press?

[juliod]

Maybe people should indeed think outside of bobbleheadism.

Yes, maybe you should.

I know you're not the only one who can't read the constitution. The right wing is full of fringe groups with all kinds of nonsense. Next you'll tell us that US currency is illegal, or that paying taxes is voluntary. (The IRS gives an instant fine for making that latter claim.)

So give it up. This thread is frankly making you look foolish.

DanZ

[AlAyeti]

I wanted to show that the first freedom offered to American citizens was to religious Americans.

As liberal funded legislation is closing the noose around Christianty, I just thought that you braod minded freethinkers may want to help Christians some day.

But I'm quessing you won't.

The bobbleheadism I mention is far to prevelant in the homogenized liberal-pregressive-secular-freethinker-atheist crowd.

Goose steppers all the way.