Quote:
|
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
|
peaches, read carefully: "abridging the freedom of speech" - let's go a little further into extremes to make this easier: imagine Ashcroft was a devout muslim. He pushed laws to stop women from going outside without a headscarf. Now, is that TRULY any different from "stop making porn because it offends me the christian"?
In the end, it is the same thing, just in the christian oriented western world, we wouldn't notice it.
Would you tolerate a priest as president? As a member of congress? Can you not see where their pledge to god is a higher calling for them than the pledge to the people?
Ashcroft is a religious man, a minister, and he chooses, on a daily basis, what situations are important and which ones are not. His being a minister colors what he sees as right and wrong, and he works from THAT, not from the constitution (see the number of things he has put forth that have been slapped down on a constituional level).
Even though this discussion is about a state law, trust me, the power behind it comes from the federal level (wasn't that AAAAAAAAArnold at the RNC?)
Alex