I'm from Missouri: No pecking order in Bill of Rights

I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

About Me

Name: Larry Fafarman

Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

No pecking order in Bill of Rights

Some stupid fatheads have this crazy notion that the order of listing of the protections in the Bill of Rights has something to do with their relative importance. So these idiots reason that the establishment clause and the free-exercise clause are the most important protections in the Bill of Rights because they are first in the list. So an outfit with the stupid name "First Freedom First" says of the Constitution's framers , "So strong was their commitment to religious freedom that they enshrined it in the first sentence of the Bill of Rights." The establishment clause often just involves a "right" to not be offended, which is not even in the Bill of Rights. Sheeesh.

Labels: Establishment clause

2 Comments:

Anonymous said...: > Some stupid fatheads have this crazy notion that the order of listing of the protections in the Bill of Rights has something to do with their relative importance. <

And some dimwits believe that they don't. While there is no claim that one of the amendments is superior to the others. (They don't seem to confilict so this is not an issue) The order in which they were listed definitely indicates what the founders thought about first.

Since many of the first settlers came here because of religious intolerance elsewhere, It would be logical to assume that this would have a high priority.

> So an outfit with the stupid name "First Freedom First" <

Seems like a brilliant name.

> says of the Constitution's framers , "So strong was their commitment to religious freedom that they enshrined it in the first sentence of the Bill of Rights." <

That statement makes far more sense than any of the drivel that you have posted on this blog.

> The establishment clause often just involves a "right" to not be offended <

This is another one of your misinterpretations. Sheeesh!; Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:03:00 AM
Larry Fafarman said...: Fake Dave said,
>>>>> BTW, there is no "right not to be offended" -- which no doubt explains why it is not in the Bill of Rights, especially since it conflicts with the First. <<<<<<

Many people seem to think that there is such a right.; Monday, May 21, 2007 11:15:00 AM