It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.
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.
Originally posted by airspoon
...citizens should be able to worship how they want, when they want and where they want.
Physical or psychological injury or damage.
\
1 : physical or mental damage : injury
harm (v.) 1.cause or do harm to"These pills won't harm your system" 2.(figurative)inflict damage upon"The snow damaged the roof" "She damaged the car when she hit the tree" harm (n.) 1.the act of damaging something or someone 2.the occurrence of a change for the worse 3.any physical damage to the body caused by violence or accident or fracture etc.
.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Aggie Man
Harm defined:
Physical or psychological injury or damage.
Harm defined:
1 : physical or mental damage : injury
Harm defined:
harm (v.) 1.cause or do harm to"These pills won't harm your system" 2.(figurative)inflict damage upon"The snow damaged the roof" "She damaged the car when she hit the tree" harm (n.) 1.the act of damaging something or someone 2.the occurrence of a change for the worse 3.any physical damage to the body caused by violence or accident or fracture etc.
Did you really need someone else make the effort to find definitions of harm for you, or were you under the impression that this word defied definition?
Originally posted by getreadyalready
?????
ATS is not usually so gullible?
The law states "It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or
assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds"
Originally posted by CapitalistOverlord
You still have the right to practice your religion, but not on public property? I fail to see the problem. Then again, I'm not religious.
No I didn't...but since you fell in the trap (sorry)....who are you to tell me, or anyone else, that I am not "harmed" by being subjected to prayer (in any form)?
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
So, if you can prove in a court of law that you have been harmed by others publicly worshiping then prove it in a court of law. In the meantime, people have the right to worship, and again, let me make this perfectly clear, I never at any point said you weren't harmed by public prayer, this was your erroneous assumption.
Originally posted by Aggie Man
Originally posted by airspoon
...citizens should be able to worship how they want, when they want and where they want.
Really? I can think of many methods of "worship" that would not be acceptable. Exclude one, exclude them all!
Fair is fair!
Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
Not having a religious or social agenda, I for one am not affected by a need to put myself on public display in any dirt patch of the planet to show off my beliefs.
However, if I had such religious or social agenda and wanted to freely share it, I would feel that is my right and my freedom of speech.
So it is hard to say how I feel about this because I'll never have any need to defend religious freedom short of the fact that I respect people's freedom as long as they are not free to hurt others.
Social dynamics and law are so confusing at times.
Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
Not having a religious or social agenda, I for one am not affected by a need to put myself on public display in any dirt patch of the planet to show off my beliefs.
However, if I had such religious or social agenda and wanted to freely share it, I would feel that is my right and my freedom of speech.
So it is hard to say how I feel about this because I'll never have any need to defend religious freedom short of the fact that I respect people's freedom as long as they are not free to hurt others.
Social dynamics and law are so confusing at times.
My assertion should be grounds enough....per the constitution....N-E-X-T!
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Rights that are given to you can be taken away. While inalienable rights can be abrogated and derogated, they can never be taken away. Protecting those rights takes far more than a piece of paper saying they are protected. It is important to understand the difference between inalienable rights, (non transferable) and civil rights, (legal rights granted by government), if you want to protect your rights. Given rights, unless given by God, are rights that are given upon whim and easily taken away upon whim.
Originally posted by airspoon
we should never initiate force against someone else, key word being "initiate".
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
...as a point of law, The Constitution has not granted you any authority to abrogate and derogate the rights of others. If you have been harmed then this is demonstrable and that is how you prove it. Simply asserting it is not enough. That is the law. N-E-X-T!