Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    6
  • comments
    166
  • views
    4,797

The First Amendment of the United States

billchao

6,756 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

    • I know enough to be dangerously wrong, but also wise enough to know when great advice is given, such as @iacas has given above.  When I am in my practice zone, which is my backyard, I am focusing on one area of my swing - is it impact, is it backswing, is the downswing - what do I want to accomplish/see today.  Great thing is some days I see the mountains move, other days I can't hit my way clear out of a very wet paper sack, but I press  on. Often when doing work at the desk, I am turning my body - working through the torso motions.  My stretches in the say are to replicate what happens in a swing.  Flipping my wrists - I can show you video from about 2 yrs ago and some more recent.  I have gotten better at ball striking, not flipping wrists, but using the the KISS principle - Keep It Simple Son. One part at a time - Erik gave a great reference many moons ago when he spoke of how a classically trained violinist learns a piece (you can insert any instrument here).  At first is seems like disconnected, dissonant notes, yet as they accomplish a piece, they move forward little by little. Then at the end of the day, when it is time to play the notes are fluid and flawless.  This process is about learning it note by note - the YouTube guru's all have a fast cure - the only good one is hard work on A SINGULAR KEY POINT till it is automatic.  Muscle memory is a fantastic thing - it makes things automatic.  Please pardon the ramblings of an old man who had a good day on the course!
    • Golf: $600-900 depending on what courses we decide to play.   Stay is free, no cost for any of the nights at the lake house.   Everything else is kind of unknown at this time.  Am I missing anything? I'd provide a good portion of the food and drinks for the meals at the lake, but we may want to go out a couple nights for dinner, and I am no cook. We do have a grill and a full Kitchen at the Lake that we could use.   Btw, I'd recommend anyone who would be flying in to go through Minneapolis. It's only about 2 hours to the lake vs 3 from Milwaukee.    
    • Day 70 spent an hour on the range chipping/putting and getting some video of my full swing. I’ll get it up either tonight or tomorrow. 
    • Played a nearby muni course today.  Last time there - holes 15-17 were underwater (drainage issues) so we were not able to do a full round.  Today the course was back to normal and funny thing, fairways were dry and the ball loved to roll out!  The fronts of the greens were mush, plug the ball sticky.  Made for approach shots at the front of the green tricky because too steep a landing and you were rolling no where.  For a guy who just starting to consistently shoot in the 90's it made attacking the greens more challenging.  Keep thinking about how in LSW, to aim for the big area of the green and not hunt flags.  To be honest, I had a blast with the 50* wedge as I was putting the ball exactly where I saw it landing.  Overall - cannot complain shot a 96 (48/48), gold tees (translates to around 6100yds).  Only one triple, NO SNOW MEN!, but way too many doubles to overcome.  All in all drives were some of my best ever, with them either being on fairway or just off enough the S20 saw them as in the rough.  That's okay.  Not a bad day putting, still had some 3 putts but it was me not the putter or the greens which were reasonably fast.  Would love to play this one again soon, its just over an hour away so not too bad a drive.  Thinking about taking the missus there as she is saying she is ready to go play a round.   
    • Estimated total cost not including travel and food? Can be a wide range
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Aldo Aitken
      Aldo Aitken
      (30 years old)
    2. Also Aitken
      Also Aitken
      (30 years old)
    3. CJK
      CJK
      (62 years old)
    4. Coffin-dodger
      Coffin-dodger
      (70 years old)
    5. Greg55
      Greg55
      (65 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...