First Amendment = Christianity Only

[ThomM]

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association said Tuesday that the founding fathers intended the First Amendment to only protect Christianity, not Islam or any other religions.

On his radio program, called Focal Point, Fischer said the word “religion” in the First Amendment referred to Christianity alone. That is why, according to Fischer, Satanists cannot seek equal representation at the Oklahoma statehouse grounds.

“At the time of the founding [of the United States], 99.8 percent of the population of the colonies were Christians. The other 0.2 percent were Jews,” he said.

“But the point is, by ‘religion’ the founders were thinking of Christianity,” Fischer continued. “So the purpose was to protect the free exercise of the Christian faith. It wasn’t about protecting anything else.”

“They weren’t providing any cover or shelter for the free exercise of Islam or even Judaism or even atheism. They weren’t saying you can’t do it — I want to be clear on that — they weren’t prohibiting that, they were just saying that is not what we are talking about here.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/11/ri...hristians/

Sorry - but a large number of the founding fathers were Deists - and they certainly did not intend the first amendment not to apply to their religions

But then - this is just another statement by an Xtian deluded by his own beliefs - so much so - as to ignore history..

---

They were also quite big on slavery.

So why the fuck are their 'intentions' still relevant.

Not to mention, they didn't seem to think women worthy of the right to vote or really do anything other than spit out babies.

....then again, I'm pretty sure Bryan Fischer thinks that, too. :/

But then - that is what the Bible thinks of Women as well -
Read 1 Timothy 2 - women are not to have ANY authority over men - are to be silent and submissive and have children . Even the current pope is not allowing women to be priests again!

[Chad32]

Aww, I thought the current pope was supposed to be the cool and progressive pope.

[Neo-Scholastic]

We are supposed to be a country ruled by laws, not men. The danger of an 'evolved' constitution is that it allows our rulers to slowly undermine its protections by making it mean what they want.

And if the world remained completely static and new things never popped up, you might have a point. Oh, and also if the government wasn't beholden to the people in the form of elections.

But if we lived in a world where things change and people learn things, it'd be more weird to stubbornly stick to a set of old laws that would soon be outpaced by the country they supposedly serve.

We have an amendment process that allows us to make changes to match the evolving needs of modern society. Eventually subverting that process no matter how convenient will backfire.

[Doubting Thomas]

We have an amendment process that allows us to make changes to match the evolving needs of modern society. Eventually subverting that process no matter how convenient will backfire.

I agree, but who's trying to subvert that process?

[ThomM]

Aww, I thought the current pope was supposed to be the cool and progressive pope.

Nope - the current pope is only trying to change the focus of the church - to other things - but he is not in favor of changing the woman's role in the church (He has said that one - nor is he changing the church's stance on gays - or many other things)

---

We have an amendment process that allows us to make changes to match the evolving needs of modern society. Eventually subverting that process no matter how convenient will backfire.

I agree, but who's trying to subvert that process?

People who are trying to "limit" the reading of a phrase to one particular group of religions are.

To claim that they do not apply to other religions is wrong.

[Doubting Thomas]

I agree, but who's trying to subvert that process?

People who are trying to "limit" the reading of a phrase to one particular group of religions are.

To claim that they do not apply to other religions is wrong.

I agree, but I am wondering who ChadWooters thinks is trying to subvert the constitutional amendment process.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The executive branch over the last few administrations with their unaccountable regulatory bodies and overuse of bomb power.

[Esquilax]

We have an amendment process that allows us to make changes to match the evolving needs of modern society. Eventually subverting that process no matter how convenient will backfire.

And... just how is the amendment process different from an evolved constitution? Both describe the same process; gradual change over time to reflect a changing environment.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The amendment process is less arbitrary and more reflective of the will of the people than changes introduced by political expediency and blessed by judicial rulings.

[Brakeman]

The executive branch over the last few administrations with their unaccountable regulatory bodies and overuse of bomb power.

That list is too short.