Is the 1st Amendment the same with or without the 2nd clause?

[anotherneil]

The government seems to have no problem at all with regulating not only what goes on within the privacy of my home, but it goes further than that by trying to attempt to outlaw the goings on within my own freaking uterus.

Is there a connection between this and your assertion that "not all religions are congregational"?

 

[anotherneil]

That’s it?

No comment on the points I made?
No answers to the other questions I asked?

Nope. Unless I missed something, I agree with you - we see eye to eye. If you really want to, I can go back and post answers to your question, but I don't see the point in doing so.

 

[crossfire]

Is there a connection between this and your assertion that "not all religions are congregational"?

I was directly responding to your statement regarding it opening up a can of worms regarding government regulation of individual actions, to which I gave a blaring example of such government over-reach. You seem to have difficulty following a conversation. I'll exit this thread and leave you to do your own thing.

 

[anotherneil]

I was directly responding to your statement regarding it opening up a can of worms regarding government regulation of individual actions, to which I gave a blaring example of such government over-reach.

Well, I'm still not sure what your thought process or argument is. The issue of this thread basically isn't about government over-reach; it's only about what the difference would be between having and not having the 2nd clause of the 1st Amendment.

I also don't do the "reading between the lines" thing in an online forum debate.

You seem to have difficulty following a conversation.

Perhaps, or perhaps I'm having trouble reading your mind. My mind-reading skills aren't working today. I can only deal with what you post, not with what you're thinking that you don't or won't articulate.

I'll exit this thread and leave you to do your own thing.

Ok.

 

[Balthazzar]

Question: Is there ever a time or condition in which any of our 1st amendment clauses could or should be denied as a right? National security issues might warrant something to this effect. The question is what and why? For me, the 1st has become a national defense and security securer, so the prospect of such a need is concerning.

 

[anotherneil]

Question: Is there ever a time or condition in which any of our 1st amendment clauses could or should be denied as a right?

I don't think so & setting aside what you mention below, I can't think of any time or condition when any of our 1st amendment clauses could or should ever be denied as a right. Same goes with the entire Bill of Rights and the rest of the amendments, as well as the Constitution in general. Denying constitutional rights requires revoking that agreement, and no one has such authority.

If part of it can somehow be revoked, then that would in effect void the entire constitution, including the parts of it that give the branches of government their power in the first place.

National security issues might warrant something to this effect. The question is what and why? For me, the 1st has become a national defense and security securer, so the prospect of such a need is concerning.

What is national security, or what is it about? Is it something legit, or something along the lines of Orwellian newspeak, doublethink, doublespeak, etc? Is it something that entails protecting and preserving our constitutional rights? If it isn't, then what purpose does it serve? What does the US Constitution say about national security?

I wonder if the expression "national security" was actually conjured up for ulterior reasons and to sucker Americans into willingly and unwittingly giving up their rights, similar to the way "conspiracy theory" serves the purpose of getting people not to pay attention to, ask, or, or wonder about what's going on behind the curtain.