Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (80252)	1/19/2004 6:05:20 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Typical cop out Chris. tsk... The bottom line. The constitution prohibits laws with respect to religion. The atheists, hipocrites, and clerics don't like it any more now than they did when the authors wrote amendment one. The difference now is everything that is public ground or involving govt funding is considered 'the govt'. When your mother moves into that federally subsidized apartment, she better leave her bible behind. No laws means no laws...Unless you think it means no religion in the presence of big brother.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (80252)	1/19/2004 7:18:43 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I have two rights granted by the Constitution regarding religion and they are meant to meld into one thing. Freedom to establish my religion...and congress can make no laws regulating that in any way. Freedom to the exercise there of... and congress can make no laws regulating that in any way. Those two have a context in one another. 'There of' is based on what is established. Freedom to the exercise of the religion that is established. What is established is the religion that I may freely exercize. What do you say "there of" Refers to? Congress is prohibited from any laws with respect to these two, which are actually one thing.