In a counterpoint to my other thread: [yt=Gould, Arkansas city council should be run out of town on a rail]43w9rg-Nq1E[/yt] It takes a special kind of stupid to draft this sort of legislation; it takes a much wider, sadder kind of stupid to actually have the city council pass it.
You forget, this is Arkansas, where pronunciation is state law: Arkansas Code 1-4-105 (official text): Whereas, confusion of practice has arisen in the pronunciation of the name of our state and it is deemed important that the true pronunciation sould be determined for use in oral official proceedings. And, whereas, the matter has been thoroughly investigated by the State Historical Society and the Eclectic Society of Little Rock, which have agreed upon the correct pronunciation as derived from history, and the early usage of the American immigrants. Be it therefore resolved by both houses of the General Assembly, that the only true pronunciation of the name of the state, in the opinion of this body, is that received by the French from the native Indians and committed to writing in the French word representing the sound. It should be pronounced in three (3) syllables, with the final "s" silent, the "a" in each syllable with the Italian sound, and the accent on the first and last syllables. The pronunciation with the accent on the second syllable with the sound of "a" in "man" and the sounding of the terminal "s" is an innovation to be discouraged.
They may have already agreed to repeal the legislation: http://arkansasmatters.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=444596
How in the fuck did they even think they could abridge the rights to free assembly and speech? Like the news broadcast asked "What is the Catalyst"? Another corrupt small town that doesn't like the spotlight?
In 1980, Gould defeated Dierks in the quarterfinals of the state playoffs 18-7. It was surprisingly close given that Dierks had less than 70 yards total offense while Gould had three running backs get over 100 yards rushing in the game and close to 400 yards total offense. My youngest sister graduated that year.
How nerdy is is that I actually looked up Gould's demographics and did the math? (By 2000 numbers, the result was 898 under the three-fifths compromise on a population if 1,305, if anyone cares...)
http://www.wordforge.net/showthread.php?t=88484 In this thread, several posters argued that the first amendment only applies to what the US Congress may or may not do, and that local communities are free to do as they please. Curious how the same argument hasn't been made here, even though it's basically the same issue.
Both covered by the same amendment. At issue is whether local governments are constrained from abridging either one, as well as the right of people peaceably to assemble (in a mosque).
I'm amazed you can't see the difference. Local governments have the right to tell people what they can and can't build and where they can build it. They don't have the right to tell people what subjects they can discuss amongst themselves. Comparing the two issues is totally disingenuous.
I don't think anyone would suggest that zoning laws violate the first amendment. But I don't think it's quite the same thing if permission is refused for a certain type of building purely out of religious bigotry. That would be a clear violation of the first amendment, if the first amendment is applicable to a local government. So you disagree with those who claim the first amendment does not apply to the actions of local governments?
No, it wouldn't. Read the amendment again. Having the freedom to freely exercise a religion does not mean the right to build a house of worship. Denying the building of one does not prohibit the exercise of that religion, either. In the New York City case, for example, no one was saying that the people wishing to build a mosque could no longer be Muslims. Yes. They're wrong. The first amendment clearly applies to state and local governments as evidenced by a wide variety of SCOTUS rulings as well as those by lower courts. Again, though, those state and local governments are simply prohibited from establishing a religion, prohibiting citizens from freely exercising their religion, stifling speech, muzzling the press, keeping people from peaceably assembling, and preventing citizens from petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Nothing in there says they can't decide whether or not a church or other place of worship can be built in a particular location.
