Are First Amendment guarantees more beneficial or detrimental to spreading the Good Word?

Question

Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Press
Freedom to Peaceably Assemble
Freedom to Petition our Government for a Redress of Grievances

Available online at lots of places, including:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_firstamd
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Answer 1

Is this a serious question, or are you baiting?

It's beneficial, obviously.

Some people interpret the first amendment to be absolute - that anyone, anywhere at anytime can make any sort of speech (be it visual art, verbal expression or some other USSC defined "speech.") To them, the idea that a teacher is forbidden from saying a prayer is proof that the 1st amendment is either useless or a way for the government to impose its anti-religion stance on others.

Here's where they fall short in their argument:

The Constitution guarantees ALL the freedom of religion - which by default also means freedom FROM religion. The USSC decided long ago, and rightly so, IMO, that in order for the 1st amendment to have "teeth" - to "stick," as it were - then government EMPLOYEES (like teachers or police officers), who are presumed to have "standing" or "authority" over the average citizen must not be able to, while in the employee of the government, make religious statements. That doesn't mean that Mrs. Smith, 1st grade teacher at PS 120, can't go stand on the corner after her shift and declare as loudly as she wants that Christ is Lord. It means that she cannot stand in front of impressionable school children, whose grades depend on her, and instruct them in religion.

Imagine that we didn't have that distinction (between government agent and citizen) and that teachers, for example, were allowed to teach their religious beliefs to children. Now, imagine that it's Mrs. Maswari teaching your children - and instructing them in the prayers of the Koran. Or it's Mrs. Chin instructing the children in the ways of God being Everything. Or its Mrs. Patel teaching children the origin of humanity by teaching them that Vishnu is and was real.

OK, so now we say, "Well, we're a Christian nation, so only Christian doctrine can be taught."

Lovely. Except now you've got Creationists (who are Christians) fighting for evolution to be taught while you've got Intelligent Design proponents (also Christians) demanding that Creation be taught their way.

Now which way do you rule.

Because at some point, if the government has gotten this involved, it's decided that one religion is more deserving of protection than another. And at that point it's ruled that the Constitution is useless - because the words "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" now have no teeth. The government has declared one religion right over another.

And even Christians will be left out in the cold because most denominations can't even agree on whether communion means that Christ actually becomes the wafer and wine or not, or even if communion is to be celebrated.

The way it is now, any individual, in the capacity of an individual, cannot be prevented from expressing their religious views.

Answer 2

As written, they're more beneficial to the spread of the Gospel. But as interpreted by the semi-atheistic Supreme Court of the US, you'd hardly recognize that freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech are in the same Bill of Rights.

Answer 3

The Country was founded for freedom that means my children not having to pledge allegiance to a God that is just some adults imaginary friend(freedom from the bulsht). Get over it this war on religion against freedom of speech is all ready over. Constitution 1 Religion Nothing. And technorton is comunist idiot.

Answer 4

More detrimental, because the "good" word is Christianity doctrine, and in order for a doctrine to thrive, it needs to silence other competing doctrines. Given that the 1st amendment gives equal opportunity to all forms of tought, speech and communication. The "good" word of christianity no longer holds the monopoly and has to share with all the other different world views.

So the 1st amendment is protection against brainwashing, tyranny, narrow mindedness and endoctrination.

Answer 5

The whole idea of separation of church and state was so government could not establish a national religion like the Church of England.

Today, secular zealots are twisting this provision in an attempt to keep religion inside the walls of the church--something that was never originally intended.

Answer 6

More beneficial in the long run, because the Constitution doesn't place a premium on any one faith or any expression that does not prove a "clear and present danger".

Answer 7

The original intent was beneficial to religion, but the courts are twisting it to be detrimental.

Answer 8

Freedom of zombie like glaze in the eyes while quoting the scriptures.

Answer 9

This question is like:

Don't confuse me with facts and figures, my mind is made up.

The way you stated the question your are looking for a validation of your decision.

Sorry I will not validate it for you.

Answer 10

the firstr ammendment is there, in my opinion, to keep a religious majority from forcing their religion down the throats of the unbeleiving minority. so i suppose its detremental to the spreading of your disease....i mean religion.