Houston Funeral Home BANS "God" From Military Funerals. Time To Rise Up

[MikeBjerum]

Check this out:

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/dayton/news/article_7e61fdfb-80ac-5170-8346-79128867c3c7.html

This supports what I am thinking.  This is a government employee acting way above her pay grade!

I have not called a National Cemetery myself, but I did call a friend I worked with.  He had a burial at Ft. Snelling last week, and so did another director from the firm.  Neither was told they could not have any type of service or inclusion.

I do believe that Arleen has squeezed the toothpaste out of the tube, and we will now have the ACLU telling us how much we can put back in 

[tombogan03884]

No, I didn't say they were lumping "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press"  I was saying it was lumping those types of expression that fall outside of those two, if taken literally.  For instance hand written letters or posters or anything not printed by a printing press or by reporters, perhaps, are not protected.  The TV shows we all watch (except you) on Wed. evening could be banned by a government agency that did not want the gun culture on TV.  Or it could ban the statue of the Marines at Iwo Jima since it is neither printed or spoken.

Not sure if what we type here would be covered under "Freedom of the press" since it is neither printed on a press or created by news reporters, if that is the Press referenced.

If we were talking semantics, then yes, gun show loop hole and assault weapon would apply.

If we are talking the intent of the Founding Fathers then they are only indirectly related as they are attempts to subvert the 2A, not actually about how it is interpreted.

I misunderstood your meaning. In that case your understanding is correct as to the meaning.
However, you do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to, as you phrase it, "those types of expression that fall outside of those two".
The 1st Amendment confirms your right to say, or publish whatever you want, (with the assumption that honest people will not intentionally lie ) with in the bounds of libel and slander laws.
Where we have run into problems is with socialists Judges and SC Justices legislating from the bench that things like Flag burning are "forms of political expression" and therefore protected. They are not, if they were then it would be impossible for the Govt to prosecute terrorists. 9-11 was an act of political and religious expression, therefore the hijackers and all involved are protected under the 1st A.
Just because the SC says something does not make it so. In the Dredd Scott decision Justice Taney wrote that blacks were property therefore not entitled to the rights of citizenship. And for purposes of taxation and Congressional representation only counted as 4/5ths of a person. While his decision contains much more sound reasoning than the "Free expression decision", (If Blacks were actually citizens then they would have to be allowed to own and carry arms were ever they pleased ) it was still overturned after the Civil War by the Court dominated by anti slavery Lincoln/Johnson appointees.
Bear that in mind when you are talking about gun rights, a 1 vote shift in the SC and Heller and McDonald are gone.

[kmitch200]

This supports what I am thinking.  This is a government employee acting way above her pay grade!

I do believe that Arleen has squeezed the toothpaste out of the tube, and we will now have the ACLU telling us how much we can put back in 

Exactly right. Arleen The Ahole is going to get this one jammed in her Arleen.

[Ping]

Absolutely disgraceful. Again, I feel as though our leaders are turning the US into a modern day Babylon.

The lady in charge of the cemetary should keep her anti-God ideas to her self. I agree to allowing the burial take place as the family wishes. I know that when I pass and have a military funeral, if God is left out, I am coming back to haunt some people. 

Pecos Bill, Madeline O'hare disappeared. Never to be heard from again after getting prayer removed from schools. I would imagine she is waiting to go to her fiery inferno in time?

[tombogan03884]

The reason she disappeared is because she changed her mind and decided she had been wrong. Before her disappearance she made statements that perhaps it had not been such a good idea after all.

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

I misunderstood your meaning. In that case your understanding is correct as to the meaning.
However, you do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to, as you phrase it, "those types of expression that fall outside of those two".
The 1st Amendment confirms your right to say, or publish whatever you want, (with the assumption that honest people will not intentionally lie ) with in the bounds of libel and slander laws.
Where we have run into problems is with socialists Judges and SC Justices legislating from the bench that things like Flag burning are "forms of political expression" and therefore protected. They are not, if they were then it would be impossible for the Govt to prosecute terrorists. 9-11 was an act of political and religious expression, therefore the hijackers and all involved are protected under the 1st A.
Just because the SC says something does not make it so. In the Dredd Scott decision Justice Taney wrote that blacks were property therefore not entitled to the rights of citizenship. And for purposes of taxation and Congressional representation only counted as 4/5ths of a person. While his decision contains much more sound reasoning than the "Free expression decision", (If Blacks were actually citizens then they would have to be allowed to own and carry arms were ever they pleased ) it was still overturned after the Civil War by the Court dominated by anti slavery Lincoln/Johnson appointees.
Bear that in mind when you are talking about gun rights, a 1 vote shift in the SC and Heller and McDonald are gone.

I agree that the SC is a crap shoot and I we would likely be better off if they stuck to a literal interpretation of the Constitution rather than trying to "imagine" the intent of the Founding Fathers.  While I would prefer they interpret based on an honest evaluation of the intent of the Founding Fathers, that might allow much "wiggle room" for social agenda judges.

However, to say that a bad reading of the 1st Amendment is what allows flag burning not allowed by a literal one, that literal one will allow the banning of flying the Flag by local authorities, including home owners associations.  If Flag Burning is not protected, then Flag Flying is not either.

As to the 911 terrorists prosecution, any right to political expression, religious belief or any other right are limited and end when they infringe upon the rights of others.  And I mean rights, not sensitivities.

As I have stated, I am a firm believer in religious freedom but am pretty much convinced that the Muslim religion does not warrant protection under the 1st Amendment.  The Muslim religion calls for the murder or enslavement of non-believers and encourages the overthrow of our form of government, both of which condemn it, in my book.

The only caveat I have is the hope that those Muslims who do not agree with those precepts of their religion will work to change it from within.  However, I have grave doubts that will happen, as they will be placed under sentence of death by their own religion of peace.  They have had 100s of years of recent history to work for changes and I haven't seen any evidence that it is occurring.  We can discuss whether just teaching those precepts is enough for a "DQ" or if they have to do something first.  I go with the former.

But back to the intent of the Founding Fathers.  Tom, we may not agree on this, but I strongly believe that the Founding Fathers did not intend to not have had written letters and other actions like plays not covered by the Freedom of Speech clause of the 1st Amendment.  If, by a literal interpretation, they are excluded from the 1st, then they are included by the 9th, as there is no reference to allowing them to be  prohibited elsewhere in the Constitution.

Frankly, I'll live with having Flag Burning protected, even though it makes my blood boil thinking of the disrespect shown to all those who gave so much for the defense of that Flag..including some who died striving to prevent it from touching the ground..and I'll restrain from decking the Flag burner as I've gotten wiser with age...and I will remember the thrill I felt when hearing the refrain from The Star Spangled Banner "gave proof through the night that our Flag was still there"

The Flag burning and the Flag burner are petty events by petty persons. The flying of the Flag by citizens exercising their Right to Political Expression, by the young man who was supported in flying the Flag on his bike as his expression, by the HS graduates who want their graduation pictures to be in their ROTC uniforms as their expression, even down to the little kids who want to play "soldiers" and hold their fingers in the "gun" position have their expression; these are what need to be protected.

Sigh...thanks for the soapbox...