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.

[micatala]

I don't mean to be too persnickety, but this seems to me to be at least getting close to a personal attack:

And the orthodox Jewish community is very strict about clothing rules. I bet you don't keep kosher, either. My what a hypocrit you appear to be.

Just a friendly reminder from a moderator to keep things as civil as possible.

I think the general point you are making can be made without the personal reference.

[juliod]

I think the general point you are making can be made without the personal reference.

Fair enough.

I used the phrase "appear to be" in an attempt to non-personalize it. I didn't call him a hypocrit, only suggesting the appearance of it, accusing homosexuals of unrepentant sin while also not repenting of his own intentional sins.

And I was trying to use "hypocrit" in the technical sense, not in the perjurative. It's important in these moral discussion, since condemning a person for sinning is wrongheaded if you alo violate the same rules yourself.

BTW, I've recently been accused of thinking like a bobblehead without any notice being taken. (Also of being a "backward hick" btu noj was rebuked for that...)

DanZ

[AlAyeti]

Let me ask, are you jealous of what you percieve as a freedom enjoyed by "out" homosexuals? Is there something you think they can do but you can't because of your religious indocrination? Have you ever read Fred Wanted to Ski?

"Go and sin no more."

I could defecate in city hall while completely naked. Is that "behavior" considered "out" behavior? Should I seek to create a protected class of minority status for bodily waste orientation?

I am not jealous of people that are obscene nor do I seek to promote obscenity.

I want Christians to know that they have evil coming in through the front door and there is something thsy can do about it.

You freethinkers are anything but. Bobbleheadism is not an insult because the neolgism is very accurate. I proved that. This website has been much blessingf to me and others because the bully nature of the garden-variety secularist is easy to swat away.

Now c'mon now, I have only challenged rudeness towards me on two occasions. Calling me a hypocrite is not an insult. I definately do not want to do good to my enemies. Homosexuals are the enemy of God's Churches and the persecuation has just begun.

I hope and pray that I can become the Christian so many of you antagonists know I should be.

[juliod]

Homosexuals are the enemy of God's Churches and the persecuation has just begun.

But this is true also of people who wear mixed-fiber clothing, right? There are many more mixed-fiber-wearers in your church than homosexuals. And they are more unrepentant. And they think that wearing mixed fibers is morally OK. And they want to wear mixed fibers in public.

Why are you less concerned about mixed-fibers than homosexuality?

Have you decided not to wear mixed fibers anymore?

DanZ

[AlAyeti]

Yes, you have shown me the truth.

Now judge homosexuals the same way with the same book.

Wait a minute, you already have.

Well done. Your mind is indeed opening.

[McCulloch]

Bobbleheadism is not an insult because the neolgism is very accurate. I proved that.

Sorry, I missed the proof. Can you link to the post. Thanks.

[micatala]

Are we getting off topic?

We have several other threads to debate homosexuality, whether it is a sin, etc. etc.

The topic here is the first amendment and its applicability to other aspects of life besides religion.

[AlAyeti]

I am the proud creator of that neologism.

Empiricism was my guide to amateur lexicography.

You all will not even think outside of the little box of progressive-liberal-secular-humanistic-freethinker etc., etc., etc. . . .

You know, bobbleheadism.

C'mon enjoy the slight. It isn't that vulger. But is is accurate.

[AlAyeti]

Micatala,

Are we getting off topic?

We have several other threads to debate homosexuality, whether it is a sin, etc. etc.

The topic here is the first amendment and its applicability to other aspects of life besides religion.

I am satisfied that you helped me find accurate defintion and establish what I and other Christians will need to help us in the upcoming constitutional attack from those that hate us.