31
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 39:
Line 39: +
no edit summary
:I'd say you misread the first amendment. With even a cursory glance at it, the only thing that can violate the first amendment is a law passed by Congress; no argument or discussion can violate it.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 9:29, 12 February 2013
:I'd say you misread the first amendment. With even a cursory glance at it, the only thing that can violate the first amendment is a law passed by Congress; no argument or discussion can violate it.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 9:29, 12 February 2013
::I exactly what way did I supposedly "misread" the First Amendment? Be specific. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 12 February 2013 (EST)
::I exactly what way did I supposedly "misread" the First Amendment? Be specific. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 12 February 2013 (EST)
:::Simply, the first amendment only sets out several kinds of laws that Congress cannot make - thus, only Congress can violate the first amendment. You say "Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on," but Conservapedia is not calling for Congress to make any laws about atheism. Thus, how can Conservapedia be trying to violate the first amendment?[[User:williagz|williagz]] 16:04, 12 February 2013
Look, there's a lot of ongoing dispute between Faith and Christianity, but all your doing is favoring Christianity over Atheism. Just answer me this, Is it or is it not a violation of the First Amendment.
Look, there's a lot of ongoing dispute between Faith and Christianity, but all your doing is favoring Christianity over Atheism. Just answer me this, Is it or is it not a violation of the First Amendment.