On May 30, 9:10*am, dave wrote:
Telamon wrote:

If the city has a problem with a few people getting together for a bible
study don't you think a party would be more of a nuisance with the loud
noises and inebriated people getting back into their cars in the early
hours of the morning?

The point is that the bible study is a get together not a service and
government has no business regulating it.

The inebriated are "closer to God" than the co-dependent functions you
advocate.

Bibles should be turned into blotter acid; *then we'd have a religion!

"This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion:
Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s
allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their
faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war
against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian
heritage."

--Dr. Ron Paul, a true Libertarian and member of http://www.jbs.org

wrote:
On May 30, 9:57 am, Who Is John Galt "Men Of The Mind"@Talkn-n-
dog...com wrote:
Right to assemble...? Next to go is the first amendment


They must take away the second amendment first - our guns.

"Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment"

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=48718

(from your link-comments after the article)

"Mr. Cover's analysis is shoddy. He glosses over the fact that the 14th
Amendment was NOT implicated in Heller because the DC is not a state.
Indeed, Justice Scalia himself, writing for the 5-4 majority, noted that
"the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government" [fn. 23,
citing Presser & Miller]. Justice Scalia also pointed out (p. 55) that
"Like most [constitutional] rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not absolute". An "important limitation on the right to
carry and bear arms [is, Miller said] that the sorts of weapons
protected [by the Second Amendment] were those 'in common use at the
time'" (p. 56). The Nordyke case, like Heller, involved a ban on
handguns. Maloney, however, had been arrested for possession of a
ninchuk. No one can argue with a straight fact that ninchuks were widely
used in colonial America. It is thus, unremarkable that the 2nd Circuit
considered itself bound by the 1886 case Scalia referenced in Heller."

~ RHF wrote:



VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

[Sec. 1] Where as Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all
attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by
civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and
meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our
religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to
propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to
do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as
well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired
men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their
own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and
as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and
maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and
through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money
for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and
tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of
his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable
liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose
morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most
persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those
temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their
personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and
unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil
rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our
opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any
citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an
incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he
profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him
injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with
his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to
corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by
bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who
will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are
criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those
innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil
magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to
restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of
their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all
religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency
will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the
sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his
own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil
government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into
overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is
great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and
sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the
conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons,
free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is
permitted freely to contradict them:

[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall
be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or
ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or
burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of
his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to
profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of
religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect
their civil capacities.

[Sec. 3] And though we well know that this assembly elected by the
people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to
restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers
equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be
irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare,
and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural
rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to
repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an
infringement of natural right.
-Thomas Jefferson

"dave" wrote in message
m...
The point is that the bible study is a get together not a service and
government has no business regulating it.

Right to assemble...? Next to go is the first amendment.
You have a right to assemble but not a right to do it where ever you
want.

Yeah we do.


No, you don't. No right is absolute.

Try to peaceably assemble in a Wal Mart parking lot some time..

Municipalities have a legitimate right to regulate traffic and parking in
residential areas to protect the rights of all in the neighborhood to peace
and parking spaces. There likely would be no problem if the prayer group
took public transportation or carpooled so that the entire street was not
filled with the group's vehicles.

A friend of mine had five or six cars. He was the only house on that side of
the street for the entire block, so he parked them all along his side of the
block. The city made him garage, divest or move all but three anyway.

In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

"dave" wrote in message
m...
The point is that the bible study is a get together not a service and
government has no business regulating it.

Right to assemble...? Next to go is the first amendment.
You have a right to assemble but not a right to do it where ever you
want.

Yeah we do.


No, you don't. No right is absolute.

Try to peaceably assemble in a Wal Mart parking lot some time..

That's private property.

Municipalities have a legitimate right to regulate traffic and parking in
residential areas to protect the rights of all in the neighborhood to peace
and parking spaces. There likely would be no problem if the prayer group
took public transportation or carpooled so that the entire street was not
filled with the group's vehicles.

Baloney. The parking in the neighborhood is unregulated. Anybody can
park in front of anyone else's house. This is a county street with none
of the usual in town street regulations.

This is a red herring anyway. The problem has nothing to do with
parking. The county wants the preacher to get a use permit to hold bible
study at his house, which is a lot of time and money, and this permit
could be denied in any event.

A friend of mine had five or six cars. He was the only house on that side of
the street for the entire block, so he parked them all along his side of the
block. The city made him garage, divest or move all but three anyway.

Nice story but it has nothing to do with this one. Maybe you could read
about it.

http://www.10news.com/news/19562217/detail.html

I was listening to this story the other morning on KFMB 760.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Eligibility Update.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=265617

Git yourself some of that B HO Toilet Paper.
cuhulin

Telamon wrote:

Nice story but it has nothing to do with this one. Maybe you could read
about it.

http://www.10news.com/news/19562217/detail.html

I was listening to this story the other morning on KFMB 760.


At least now we know where KFMB's signal is aimed. We were wondering...

In article ,
dave wrote:

Telamon wrote:

Nice story but it has nothing to do with this one. Maybe you could read
about it.

http://www.10news.com/news/19562217/detail.html

I was listening to this story the other morning on KFMB 760.


At least now we know where KFMB's signal is aimed. We were wondering...

Day or night it's aimed at my boat off the coast but it travels well up
and down the coast.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

What kind of a boat do you have? Any photos of your boat?
cuhulin

In article ,
wrote:

What kind of a boat do you have? Any photos of your boat?

No photos. It's a 34 foot sail boat.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California