Gee, thanks, guys. Let's try it again.

[jimpeel]

Thin skinned moderators aside :banghead: , does anyone on this board have anything -- ANYTHING! -- to say on the premise of the previous thread on this subject???????????????????????

Petition in support of Judge Roy Moore

I stated then and reiterate now:

It has obviously become time to clarify the First Amendment through a subsequent Amendment. I propose the following:

Amendment XXVIII: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a government sponsored or government operated religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof by any individual, group, or entity -- private or public; 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.

Feel free to amend my amendment but the more convoluted it gets the worse it gets. I had considered the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a government sponsored or government operated religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof by any individual, group, or entity -- private or public nor shall any head of government also head any religious establishment; 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.

That would place an unfair onus upon anyone who is an American citizen who also is the head of a religious institution. That would be in conflict with Article II, Section 1, Paragraph five which states:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

ANY THOUGHTS -- ANYONE?

 

[Preacherman]

Jimpeel, moderators take action NOT because they are thin-skinned, but because it's our job to prevent threads deteriorating into ad hominem attacks (as the previous thread did), keep discussion on The High Road (as the previous thread did not), and ensure that our Rules Of Conduct are observed (which they were not in the previous thread). Add to that: users who dispute a moderator's actions by starting up ANOTHER thread on a subject already closed down are likely to be viewed with some displeasure by the moderators concerned!

That said, I'll save Marko the trouble, and close this one for him. Please don't start another!