Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    6
  • comments
    166
  • views
    4,817

The First Amendment of the United States

billchao

6,769 views

This isn't meant to be a partisan discussion, simply a statement of the law. It bugs the shit out of me when people cite the First Amendment incorrectly. Here it is, verbatim:

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.

A good resource can be found here at the Cornell University Law School website:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment



40 Comments


Recommended Comments



8 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I think it’s the opposite. They don’t believe in a god(s) because no rational logic nor evidence points to the existence of one. Theism is all about belief and faith. No scientific evidence supports the existence of a fantastical being beyond considerable doubt. Arguments from Dawson, Harris and many others are logic based, rational thinking. Arguments against them are emotional and faith based. 

You are right.

A person who doesn't believe in ghosts or Bigfoot isn't an "active" disbeliever. They don't believe in these things in the same way they don't believe in fairies or miracles or whatever. In the absence of any evidence there is no reason to believe in something. You don't have to "actively" disbelieve. You can express incredulity that so many people "believe" in something for which there is no rational or scientific basis, but that's just like not believing you can drive the ball 400 yards. 

The fact is, we live in a world where people "believe" in something for which no evidence exists. Not much hope of changing that. :-)

 

Edited by leftybutnotPM

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 minute ago, leftybutnotPM said:

but that's just like not believing you can drive the ball 400 yards. 

405.

Share this comment


Link to comment
4 hours ago, Vinsk said:

405.

You don’t add how many yards left your shot went to how many yards forward it went to arrive at your total driving distance.

Share this comment


Link to comment
18 hours ago, leftybutnotPM said:

A person who doesn't believe in ghosts or Bigfoot isn't an "active" disbeliever. They don't believe in these things in the same way they don't believe in fairies or miracles or whatever. In the absence of any evidence there is no reason to believe in something. You don't have to "actively" disbelieve. You can express incredulity that so many people "believe" in something for which there is no rational or scientific basis, but that's just like not believing you can drive the ball 400 yards. 

I think there's a range of "beliefs".  There are those who simply "don't believe" in the existence of deities, and others who absolutely deny the possibility of deities.  To me, the term "agnostic" applies more to the first group, while "athiest" applies to the second group.  The second group is based just as strongly on unsubstantiated belief as those who DO believe in deities.  There is simply no way to prove that there are no deities, just as there is no way to absolutely prove their existence.  

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

I don't know if you can believe in a lack of something like this. The definition I get is "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." It is not "a person who believes there are no gods."

Share this comment


Link to comment
5 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

  The second group is based just as strongly on unsubstantiated belief as those who DO believe in deities.  There is simply no way to prove that there are no deities, just as there is no way to absolutely prove their existence.  

 

That is plainly wrong by any scientific method. If you claim to believe in the existence of something without any evidence at all, that does not put you on equal footing with those who seek evidence for the existence of that thing. The expectation that believers provide evidence of the existence in deities is not an "unsubstantiated belief".

I have no problem with people "belivieng' in deities. That is fine. But if they want to convince people that what they believe in is an actual thing, they need to be prepared to say why. No evidence has ever existed to suggest that "god" exists that would past the most rudimentary scrutiny. Seems like a pretty decent start for a person to be an atheist.

The onus is on those making a claim of something existing to prove their point, not the reverse. 

 

 

Edited by leftybutnotPM

Share this comment


Link to comment

They are all rights of the individual, conferred by God.  2A is an individual right and those who think otherwise deserve a solid dose of the 1st amendment.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Just now, Rippy_72 said:

Do you speak English?

Bill of Rights.

Did you go to school?

I want you to explain what you mean when you say "conferred by God".

Share this comment


Link to comment

Read the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."

Unalienable......unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

Endowed.....to provide with something freely or naturally

In other words, these are natural rights.  They cannot be taken away 

Share this comment


Link to comment

you

1 minute ago, Rippy_72 said:

Read the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."

You are using that as proof of the existence of something for which there is no evidence? Are you saying that you actually believe in God?

The formation of the United States is a separate thing

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
Just now, leftybutnotPM said:

you

You are using that as proof of the existence of something for which there is no evidence? Are you saying that you actually believe in God?

The formation of the United States is a separate thing

 

Of course, I believe in God.

Our country was formed thusly.

I don't want to engage you.  I don't like you

Share this comment


Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Rippy_72 said:

Of course, I believe in God.

Our country was formed thusly.

I don't want to engage you.  I don't like you

$100,000 to the charity of your choice if you can provide a SINGLE shred of evidence that would suggest that "god" exists.

Inconvenient, I know. I'm not sure why this question is so difficult to "engage" with.

It's an academic discussion, not a personal attack. I genuinely am interested in knowing what motivates such beliefs once one reaches a certain age and is capable of independent thought. It can't be based on observation.

Edited by leftybutnotPM

Share this comment


Link to comment

Discussing the actual definition of a word is one thing, because even if that word is religious in nature, the conversation is not religious.

This has veered into discussing religion, which is forbidden. It ends now.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Blog Entries

  • Posts

    • Day 320 Superspeed workout, then some mirror work on takeaway/backswing, and finally hit some balls with 7-iron. Hit the ball well today. Still searching for a good feel/thought to take on course for backswing piece. Current one is okay, but I think I can come up with something better. 
    • Update - I sent an email to Arccos support about my Caddie Link order, again, and received this prompt reply (in part): "... We did begin fulfilling pre-orders at the end of September and then the first week of October our manufacturer informed us that due to COVID they are unable to acquire the needed materials to complete further devices for the next couple of weeks so shipments have halted for the time being. Shipments of the devices will commence the first week of November. We greatly apologize for this delay and issue and once they send yours out we will be sure to send you tracking and status updates."  
    • Hi all, I was fit into both the Mizuno JPX 921 SEL irons (which is a combo set of 6-GW Mizuno JPX 921 tours and then 4-5 JPX 921 Forged) and the Taylormade P770 irons.  I hit both pretty well, and thought the Mizunos had a slightly better feel but the Taylormades went slightly further.  Both had good spin rates and descent angles, although the Miznuo was slightly better on those factors for me.  I feel pretty torn between the two, I like them both a lot looks wise.  My fitter said it was a really close and tough call but that at the end of the day he would probably suggest the Mizunos for me because they're cheaper to get customer shafts and grips with, the lie can be bent more, the higher center of gravity helps a small amount with my miss (a hook), and they will last me longer as I continue bringing my handicap down.  On the other hand, the P770s are a touch more forgiving and go a little further, so it's a tough call for me. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts between the two or advice or perhaps would just like to share which they would pick in my shoes. Thank you.
    • No clue. Here is some images of the drawers.  
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Axel Gebwut
      Axel Gebwut
      (62 years old)
    2. chspeed
      chspeed
      (53 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...