Ron Paul: Why should those that honor religious freedom support him?

[Kade]

Damn, you guys have your meathooks in me deeper than the Truthers.



Ron Paul's proposed amendment would:

They already have those rights, except when you work under the authority of an official government role... there is no need for the amendment, unless you are willing to say the first amendment, as it has been defined, does not apply to state governments...

And please... don't compare me to a truther.....

 

[Mises.org]

Agreed, there's no need to throw that comparison around.


That's the last thing we need is to have secularism affiliated with truthers and other 9/11 people like Rosie or someone.


But seriously... did you know that the Titanic wasn't really hit by an Iceberg?

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

 

[Rastis McNastis]

Though the amendment is not really necessary, there is always an advantage to being more explicit.

Regardless, when publicly owned space is used for religious reasons, there will most certainly be religious bias.

 

[Mesogen]

Ron Paul cannot be all things to all people. I'll vote for him. But if he actually makes it into the White House, you can bet your ass that I'll very vocally criticize everything he does that I don't agree with.

But let me also add this. Someone earlier said that reference to a Creator was very Christian. Well, it was also very Native American. I tend to believe that those who wrote the Declaration of Independence were "Enlightened" and "Rationalists" of the day and were very intellectual. I'll bet they were very much influenced by some Native American ideas and philosophy.

Read these Native American creation myths and see that there are lots of similarities to that of the Abrahamic Religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).
http://www.crystalinks.com/nativeamcreation.html

In the beginning was only Tepeu and Gucumatz (Feathered Serpent). These two sat together and thought, and whatever they thought came into being. They thought Earth, and there it was. They thought mountains, and so there were. They thought trees, and sky, and animals etc, and each came into being. But none of these things could praise them, so they formed more advanced beings of clay.

Anyway, if you listen to a modern Native American describing something spiritual they will often refer to "The Creator."

In the beginning nothing existed, only darkness was everywhere. Suddenly from the darkness emerged a thin disc, one side yellow and the other side white, appearing suspended in midair. Within the disc sat a small bearded man, Creator, the One Who Lives Above. When he looked into the endless darkness, light appeared above. He looked down and it became a sea of light.

Lots of different tribes, lots of different creation myths, but all tend to reference "Creator."

Anyway, I don't see why reference to a Creator must necessarily be Christian.

 

[Spirit of '76]

They already have those rights, except when you work under the authority of an official government role...

But again, I maintain that there is a tremendous difference between a government employee freely expressing his own religious beliefs and the establishment of a state church. Provided that government employee does not use his office to compel others to believe a certain way or to deny equal treatment on the grounds of religion, I do not see a problem or a First Amendment conflict with their personal expression of their religious beliefs.

And please... don't compare me to a truther.....

Insofar as you've both managed to get me hooked into an ongoing debate over a topic that isn't really of major concern to me, the comparison is apt, but that says as much about me as it does about you or the adherents of the 9/11 Truth religion.

 

[Spirit of '76]

But let me also add this. Someone earlier said that reference to a Creator was very Christian. Well, it was also very Native American. I tend to believe that those who wrote the Declaration of Independence were "Enlightened" and "Rationalists" of the day and were very intellectual. I'll bet they were very much influenced by some Native American ideas and philosophy.

Of course. The Constitution itself was influenced to some degree by the charter of the Iroquois League.

 

[Rastis McNastis]

Though the amendment is not really necessary, there is always an advantage to being more explicit.

Regardless, when publicly owned space is used for religious reasons, there will most certainly be religious bias.

 

[Mesogen]

Of course. The Constitution itself was influenced to some degree by the charter of the Iroquois League.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois#Government

Interesting.

 

[Kade]

But again, I maintain that there is a tremendous difference between a government employee freely expressing his own religious beliefs and the establishment of a state church. Provided that government employee does not use his office to compel others to believe a certain way or to deny equal treatment on the grounds of religion, I do not see a problem or a First Amendment conflict with their personal expression of their religious beliefs.

The current system allows anyone to freely express their religious beliefs, and in state institutions, like the current school system, there is no need for teachers to lead the class in prayer. The amendment would allow teachers to do so by clarifying that the state could not stop them, as long as the state did not write the prayer... but the courts have shown that this will be abused... allowing teachers to compel students to prayer in a public institution is unconstitutional on the establishment side...

Again, there was no reason for the Amendment.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

I thought you folks rejected "other writings"...

Other writings include such things as Paine's Common Sense, Rights of Man, and Age of Reason.

The founding fathers, ALL of them, save maybe Patrick Henry and John Jay, were hostile towards Christianity...

This whole thing has gotten out of hand, and nobody has answered any of the simplest questions... specifically with application of the amendment to the states.. and the proposal of Ron Paul's amendment IMPOSED ON ANY STATE?!

Your debating style is Aristotalean to be sure, and thats fine, you bring up alot of good points, but here you are just begging the question, and in this case, the implication you make is false. If we consider founding fathers the ones who signed the declaration of independance, the shakeup looks like this:

Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic
Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist
Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist
Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist
John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
George Walton Georgia Episcopalian
John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian
George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian
Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian
Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian
William Paca Maryland Episcopalian
Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian
Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian
Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian
William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian
Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian
Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian
Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian
Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian
Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian
John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian
Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian
John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian
William Floyd New York Presbyterian
Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian
James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian
George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian

Franklin, Jefferson, and arguably madison were all deists, NOT atheists, but deists - they rejected the divinity of christ but did not reject his existence, nor even the existence of a Supreme being. Yet they all acknowledged that religion was an important institution, even if they didn't actually believe everything a religion taught. If im reading you correctly, your thesis in this entire thread is that Ron Paul does not believe in separation of church and state, or at least that it exists under the constitution. However, other major founding fathers were professed believers, such as Adams and Washington, at least rhetorically. From a page off the library of congress, is this paragraph:

The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence presented in this section shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.

another excerpt about Franklin:

Franklin Requests Prayers in the Constitutional Convention
Benjamin Franklin delivered this famous speech, asking that the Convention begin each day's session with prayers, at a particularly contentious period, when it appeared that the Convention might break up over its failure to resolve the dispute between the large and small states over representation in the new government. The eighty one year old Franklin asserted that "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth--that God governs in the Affairs of Men." "I also believe," Franklin continued, that "without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel." Franklin's motion failed, ostensibly because the Convention had no funds to pay local clergymen to act as chaplains.

Then of course, there were numerous "lesser" founding fathers, and John Jay and Patrick Henry, the evangelists.

Kade, my understanding of your thesis on this page is that Ron would not uphold separation of church and state as a rigid notion, or at least that is implied by the fact that you cite 2 pieces of evidence - his motion to allow public school prayer, and his Christmas-time piece. He may not have chosen the best wording, but he is not really wrong when he says the founders did give credence to religion as an important institution. He never said the founders were dedicated christians - some of them were, some were not, some were a mix - especially Franklin (who was a professed deist but was "fond" of the instution of religion in many aspects). I think his take on separation of church and state is correct - and even Barack Obama has talked about religion being a very important institution, but neither should intersect each other in how the other runs. Under a Ron Paul presidency, none of your beliefs (or lack thereof) would be infringed upon. Speeches he has given on this topic (he especially talks about how he finds religious pandering distasteful, and use of religion as a false justification for many acts) affirm that he is certainly religious, but he is also not a theocrat by any stretch of the imagination.

Ron paul's amendment actually states thing very clearly, and from a very libertarian stance. By the very fact that government cannot give preferential treatment to a religion by law, there cannot be a case where religion directly influences lawmaking or policy. Essentially, this amendment affirms that the government should be lassez faire with respect to religion, both at the state level and federal level. The first amendment should be explicit enough, but this amendment only makes it more-so. And by religion/beliefs, atheism is included as well. It is all-inclusive.




reference: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

Anyways, this is a good debate to have, certainly.

 

[hard@work]

Claiming that the state has the right to make a law, which puts tax payer money in religious indoctrination, is also saying the state has the right to outlaw Religious expression altogether... does anyone else see that?

I do. I find myself for some reason in need of fighting for the rights of those who wish to practice their religious beliefs however paradoxical it is to my secular dogmatism. This is where the divergence is which is what I would propose we analyze to find a compromise in belief.

So my question to you would be what can we do to ensure the protection of religious freedoms of the individual? I understand the concerns of the oppression of others through majority rule very well. I find it ironic that the conversation here is coming from two sides of the same coin however and I think you may have missed that. Your lines of questions were good but I don't think the expression of understanding came from either side so far.

So I'll ask you directly then: do you believe we can protect the right of the religious individual who is operating or employed in a "state" function while at the same time preventing oppressive behavior based on the same religion from becomming dominate or dominating?

If so, what are you thoughts on the proper structure of governance here? If not, why not?


Also, thanks for resetting the debate you gaiz. Sorry for the harsh words but flame wars =/= construction.

<3

 

[Spirit of '76]

allowing teachers to compel students to prayer in a public institution is unconstitutional on the establishment side...

Yes, and Congressman Paul's proposed amendment clarifies this:

"H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

H. J. RES. 78 (1997):

To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."

I would think that would be a comfort to you.

 

[Kade]

Your debating style is Aristotalean to be sure, and thats fine, you bring up alot of good points, but here you are just begging the question, and in this case, the implication you make is false. If we consider founding fathers the ones who signed the declaration of independance, the shakeup looks like this:

Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic
Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist
Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist
Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist
John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
George Walton Georgia Episcopalian
John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian
George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian
Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian
Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian
William Paca Maryland Episcopalian
Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian
Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian
Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian
William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian
Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian
Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian
Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian
Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian
Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian
John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian
Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian
John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian
William Floyd New York Presbyterian
Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian
James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian
George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian

Franklin, Jefferson, and arguably madison were all deists, NOT atheists, but deists - they rejected the divinity of christ but did not reject his existence, nor even the existence of a Supreme being. Yet they all acknowledged that religion was an important institution, even if they didn't actually believe everything a religion taught. If im reading you correctly, your thesis in this entire thread is that Ron Paul does not believe in separation of church and state, or at least that it exists under the constitution. However, other major founding fathers were professed believers, such as Adams and Washington, at least rhetorically. From a page off the library of congress, is this paragraph:



another excerpt about Franklin:



Then of course, there were numerous "lesser" founding fathers, and John Jay and Patrick Henry, the evangelists.

Kade, my understanding of your thesis on this page is that Ron would not uphold separation of church and state as a rigid notion, or at least that is implied by the fact that you cite 2 pieces of evidence - his motion to allow public school prayer, and his Christmas-time piece. He may not have chosen the best wording, but he is not really wrong when he says the founders did give credence to religion as an important institution. He never said the founders were dedicated christians - some of them were, some were not, some were a mix - especially Franklin (who was a professed deist but was "fond" of the instution of religion in many aspects). I think his take on separation of church and state is correct - and even Barack Obama has talked about religion being a very important institution, but neither should intersect each other in how the other runs. Under a Ron Paul presidency, none of your beliefs (or lack thereof) would be infringed upon. Speeches he has given on this topic (he especially talks about how he finds religious pandering distasteful, and use of religion as a false justification for many acts) affirm that he is certainly religious, but he is also not a theocrat by any stretch of the imagination.

Ron paul's amendment actually states thing very clearly, and from a very libertarian stance. By the very fact that government cannot give preferential treatment to a religion by law, there cannot be a case where religion directly influences lawmaking or policy. Essentially, this amendment affirms that the government should be lassez faire with respect to religion, both at the state level and federal level. The first amendment should be explicit enough, but this amendment only makes it more-so. And by religion/beliefs, atheism is included as well. It is all-inclusive.




reference: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

Anyways, this is a good debate to have, certainly.

I should have clarified Founding Fathers to PEOPLE MAGAZINE's Founding Fathers...

heh, You are correct. Many of these people were "robustly" christian.. many were also slave owners, many were also federalists and statists...

The spirit behind the bill of rights, by its' most vocal adherents would demand that rigorous secularism, while tolerant, should be the status quo, not robust Christianity, while tolerant.

 

[Kade]

Yes, and Congressman Paul's proposed amendment clarifies this:




I would think that would be a comfort to you.

The courts already agreed with this my friend. Why did Ron Paul propose the amendment?

 

[Rastis McNastis]

I can see that amendment being construed in such a way that public monies could promote religion, and as such cannot support it.

While I see no harm an amendment clarifying the separation of church and state, the wording of Ron Paul's proposed amendment is itself not explicit enough to prevent abuse.

 

[Kade]

So my question to you would be what can we do to ensure the protection of religious freedoms of the individual?

From what I understand, every major civil rights organization will fight for your right in court, under the constitution, and under the first and fourteenth amendment to express yourself religiously in any way... (except in the poor Mormon's case.)

As a religious observer, you have the right to take off religious holidays from work, and receive pay. You have the right to prayer at any time of day, anywhere, anytime...You have the right to observe any cultural practices, and observances, to acknowledge publicly your god... etc..

The law has decided that in accordance with the anti-establishment clause, certain artifacts of the former understanding of the separation of church and state need to be re-assessed because of a growing number of people who were not monotheists in general... when those people brought up claims, the courts listened and responded. The most important aspect of these finding, the lemon test, was born:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.


Under these guidelines, yes, people have lost the right to have the Ten Commandments in the courthouse alone (but not with other monuments) you have lost the right to lead prayer at a graduation ceremony (but not if other prayer is allowed) you have lost the right to open homeroom with a bible reading (unless you are in bible history) and you have lost the right to teach creationism and intelligent design.

I don't see where you have lost any "rights". You can still do all those things, outside of publicly funded establishments...

 

[Spirit of '76]

The courts already agreed with this my friend. Why did Ron Paul propose the amendment?

Yes, but many people have tried to skirt around it. The Congressman's proposal is a step toward preventing that by clarifying the language and intent of the First Amendment.

As to why he proposed it, again I do not speak for him, but it seems to me that his clarification will protect both the rights of individuals to express their personal beliefs and the right of individuals to be free from government-sponsored coercion/discrimination on the basis of religion.

The language as it stands obviously leaves huge gaps for interpretation, as our own debate here shows. As Rastis said, there is always an advantage to being more explicit.

 

[Spirit of '76]

I can see that amendment being construed in such a way that public monies could promote religion, and as such cannot support it.

While I see no harm an amendment clarifying the separation of church and state, the wording of Ron Paul's proposed amendment is itself not explicit enough to prevent abuse.

This I can certainly agree with. Further clarification stating that government moneys shall not be used for the promotion of religion would be desirable in this amendment.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

I should have clarified Founding Fathers to PEOPLE MAGAZINE's Founding Fathers...

heh, You are correct. Many of these people were "robustly" christian.. many were also slave owners, many were also federalists and statists...

The spirit behind the bill of rights, by its' most vocal adherents would demand that rigorous secularism, while tolerant, should be the status quo, not robust Christianity, while tolerant.

Do you mean in government or in public life? The two are not the same. Ron paul is talking about a robustly christian america as in, a social institution. In his piece, he says nothing about christianity directly affecting government, although he does talk about references to a God/creator in the dec of independance (and the constitution too, though he is essentially wrong there, not sure if he meant that or mistyped and never fixed it). He says the founding fathers envisioned a robustly christian America in public life. Based on many direct quotes from some of the founders, this holds to be true. The arguement put forth here (at least by me in defense of Ron's words) does not affirm an absolute truth, namely, that America SHOULD be a robustly christian America - that is a whole different debate altogether, one that is making this thread unnecessarily long but is essentially tangiental to the point. The arguement i) whether or not Ron is right about the founding father's sentiments. He is, as long as "founding fathers" is not assumed to be completely inclusive in all cases. and ii) would Ron honor freedom of religion in public life (or lack thereof). I think the evidence also points to a yes on that case.

The bill of rights is different from the constitution in a fundamental way - while the constitution enumerates propositions/powers/rights/jurisdiction o fthe GOVERNMENT, the bill of rights simply reserves already-existing rights of the people. It has no "spirit" really, other than to MAKE EXPLICIT rights that the people retain, and then add on that so many rights exist (it acknowledges this in the 9th amendment) that basically every right that does not infringe on the rights of others should not be infringed upon by government. It does not even imply anything about a status quo of religious/secular thought in the united states, it leaves the rights to peculiar beliefs to the people.

The central argument that is at the core of this whole debate is about the nature of religious freedom, and what it entails in relation to government. The first amendment makes that very clear - government shall not respect nor prohibit religion. Period. It says Congress in the first amendment, and an amendment to include the states would be fine if states are retarded enough to play religious favoratism in lawmaking and in relation to holding of political office. Again ,a very lassez-faire approach to religion in government. A theocracy by its very nature respects an establishment of religion... so too does a government like England and many governments of europe in the 18th century. Without respect for an establishment of religion, there cannot and should not be any favoritism in the law. How are laws executed/enforced? Through force. Thus the crux of the debate revolves around force. A government cannot force a person to adhere to a belief or follow in a religious ritual, but it cannot force private citizens or local entities to NOT practice their religious in a certain way (unless it violates the religious freedom of other). Praying in a classroom might offend you and make you worry for your children.. but it does not actually infringe on your right to freely practice your dissent of religion.

So yeah...

Oh let me also pre-emptively address the concern about public prayer in terms of "publicly funded venues" like public schools. An infringement upon the rights of people of other beliefs does not occur when a lone teacher decides to pray in front of his or her class. That is the private individual's decision to do so, and it should not be infringed. If you retort "well, they are working for a public institution, they shouldnt do that when they are in public" i simply respond that if you believe that, then you believe the state owns the right to censor privite individuals. These private individuas, while they work for the government, are not actual members of the government, and their personal opinions or actions need not reflect the actual position/affiliation of the state institution. What WOULD be an infringement upon your rights to freely practice your religion would be a daily, scheduled PA prayer where all are asked to pray aloud - essentially at that point it is the INSTITUTION mandating prayer, NOT a private individual freely practicing their religion.

 

[Kade]

Yes, but many people have tried to skirt around it. The Congressman's proposal is a step toward preventing that by clarifying the language and intent of the First Amendment.

As to why he proposed it, again I do not speak for him, but it seems to me that his clarification will protect both the rights of individuals to express their personal beliefs and the right of individuals to be free from government-sponsored coercion/discrimination on the basis of religion.

The language as it stands obviously leaves huge gaps for interpretation, as our own debate here shows. As Rastis said, there is always an advantage to being more explicit.

People try to step around many, many things... Amending the constitution to bypass the courts in one failed swoop is sickening... especially an amendment that is state restrictive.