Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't.



>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.
Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:
1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?
2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?
"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go: Washington"
3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?
4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?
5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?
7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?
>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.

Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:

1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?

2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?

"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington"

3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?

4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?

5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?

7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?

>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.

@ant, the nature channel is not for pets. Channel description:

Relax and enjoy the peace and tranquility of Mother Nature, with this collection of videos that reflect the wonder and beauty of our animals, trees, rivers, lakes and mountains.

For domesticated animals, see the CatsAndDogs Channel; but videos of wild animals in human environments are included here -- such as urbanized animals, zoos, or animal rescues. And even the occasional goat, cow or sheep!

>> ^Sagemind:

You have to admit though, that is an amazing horse!
So calm - amazing!


Tranquilizers.

@Lawdeedaw We're 14 Trillion in debt; FEMA does not even make up 1% of that, to help people who have been befallen by unforseen disasters. Farm subsidies make up many times what is spent on FEMA every year, and actually do create a chronic dependency on the government and distort the agricultural market.

To be such a constitutionalist, what part of "..... insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,..... " does he not understand? If helping people in a sudden natural disaster is not promoting domestic tranquility and general welfare of citizens, then what, pray tell, the hell is?

Helping people whose homes have been destroyed by a hurricane or tornado is creating dependency? What a selfish fuck he is.

This is what Boxxy would look like on elephant tranquilizers.

>> ^dag:

The strategy of legislating the vagaries of human behaviour in minute detail is dumb, and yes bad for democracy and liberty. If people are causing a disturbance- stick with disturbing the peace.


You know, I was almost convinced by the arguments about non-public places and how the right to dance is like the right to artistically defecate in public.

Then Dag reminded me of the law against disturbing the peace.

Now, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know exactly how it currently works, but let me explain how I think it should work. If a "Peace Officer" is making his rounds through a public place, and somebody is making a spectacle and obviously harassing others in the area, then that person should be warned and potentially arrested. This would include the extreme examples of defecating in public and indecent exposure, and more moderate and disputable examples like dancing at a memorial. Those people would then be tried before a jury of peers, who would make the judgement call. Was the disturbance large enough to warrant being arrested in order to stop it? If so, then the person would be found guilty. And if the police had arrested people for silently swaying in a rhythmic manner, then perhaps the jury could find them innocent, which might leave the police open to a counter-suit. That way the police would also have to make a judgement call instead of following some absurd zero tolerance policy.

So there you have it. I don't think those laws should try to enforce a "tranquil atmosphere for solemn reflection", I think that juries should decide what is acceptable behavior under a given circumstance.

In this system, there would still be penalties for breaking the bounds of common decency, but also some wiggle room for common sense to survive.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^smooman:
So we should let the west borough baptist church stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers and otherwise disrupt funeral processions lest we suppress their first amendment rights. Gotta agree with bareboards, you are irrational and incoherent
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^smooman:
In what way is it a bad law? It's bad because it seeks to preserve the tranquility of the memorial? Or is it bad only because it's infringing on your god given right to dance horribly and cause a scene?
You not being allowed to dance in one particular spot and then crying tyranny over it just makes you look like a child

What tranquility? You're talking about policing behavior. Look, you may not like that people dance at the Memorial, but that's the price of freedom. Freedom means we're all free as long as we don't hurt others. It doesn't mean because I was in the military I get more rights than you, or that because I'm part of the majority of people you have to act like us. It means sometimes you have to put up with the fringe of society and put up with things you don't like on public property.
There are people out there who believe you shouldn't be allowed to eat meat on public property. Or you shouldn't be allowed to drive if you're a woman. Or you shouldn't be allowed to wear leather. Or eat certain foods that are unhealthy like hamburgers and fries. Or drink sodas. Or have the right to pray. Or marry someone of the opposite sex. Or of another race. Or dance.


Stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers? Yes, exactly the same as people dancing at a public place paid for by public tax dollars.


it is the same in principle. analogies are hard to follow i know, i'll spell it out in play-doh terms so you can keep up. the crux of what you are saying is that those who wish to dance inside the memorial as a form of free expression should be allowed to do so, even if it disturbs those around them, lest we become victims of a totalitarian dictatorship. In the same way, The WBC clan should then be allowed to protest a funeral within the actual procession even if it disturbs those who are observing the departed...

...in the same way a couple could have indiscreet sex in a public park even if it disturbs others enjoying the park. in the same way one could take a shit on the middle of a city bus even if it disturbs the other passengers.

put another way, if not being allowed to dance inside the jefferson memorial is suppressing our right to dance, is not being aloud to have indiscreet sex in a public place suppressing our rights to fornicate? is not being aloud to dump in the middle of a public transportation vehicle suppressing our rights to go number 2?

thats what this whole charade is about. and its fucking obnoxious. its made even more obnoxious by gobshites like you who then compare their struggle to the struggle of black men and women in the 60's.

>> ^smooman:

So we should let the west borough baptist church stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers and otherwise disrupt funeral processions lest we suppress their first amendment rights. Gotta agree with bareboards, you are irrational and incoherent
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^smooman:
In what way is it a bad law? It's bad because it seeks to preserve the tranquility of the memorial? Or is it bad only because it's infringing on your god given right to dance horribly and cause a scene?
You not being allowed to dance in one particular spot and then crying tyranny over it just makes you look like a child

What tranquility? You're talking about policing behavior. Look, you may not like that people dance at the Memorial, but that's the price of freedom. Freedom means we're all free as long as we don't hurt others. It doesn't mean because I was in the military I get more rights than you, or that because I'm part of the majority of people you have to act like us. It means sometimes you have to put up with the fringe of society and put up with things you don't like on public property.
There are people out there who believe you shouldn't be allowed to eat meat on public property. Or you shouldn't be allowed to drive if you're a woman. Or you shouldn't be allowed to wear leather. Or eat certain foods that are unhealthy like hamburgers and fries. Or drink sodas. Or have the right to pray. Or marry someone of the opposite sex. Or of another race. Or dance.



Stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers? Yes, exactly the same as people dancing at a public place paid for by public tax dollars.

So we should let the west borough baptist church stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers and otherwise disrupt funeral processions lest we suppress their first amendment rights. Gotta agree with bareboards, you are irrational and incoherent
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^smooman:
In what way is it a bad law? It's bad because it seeks to preserve the tranquility of the memorial? Or is it bad only because it's infringing on your god given right to dance horribly and cause a scene?
You not being allowed to dance in one particular spot and then crying tyranny over it just makes you look like a child

What tranquility? You're talking about policing behavior. Look, you may not like that people dance at the Memorial, but that's the price of freedom. Freedom means we're all free as long as we don't hurt others. It doesn't mean because I was in the military I get more rights than you, or that because I'm part of the majority of people you have to act like us. It means sometimes you have to put up with the fringe of society and put up with things you don't like on public property.
There are people out there who believe you shouldn't be allowed to eat meat on public property. Or you shouldn't be allowed to drive if you're a woman. Or you shouldn't be allowed to wear leather. Or eat certain foods that are unhealthy like hamburgers and fries. Or drink sodas. Or have the right to pray. Or marry someone of the opposite sex. Or of another race. Or dance.

>> ^smooman:

In what way is it a bad law? It's bad because it seeks to preserve the tranquility of the memorial? Or is it bad only because it's infringing on your god given right to dance horribly and cause a scene?
You not being allowed to dance in one particular spot and then crying tyranny over it just makes you look like a child


What tranquility? You're talking about policing behavior. Look, you may not like that people dance at the Memorial, but that's the price of freedom. Freedom means we're all free as long as we don't hurt others. It doesn't mean because I was in the military I get more rights than you, or that because I'm part of the majority of people you have to act like us. It means sometimes you have to put up with the fringe of society and put up with things you don't like on public property.

There are people out there who believe you shouldn't be allowed to eat meat on public property. Or you shouldn't be allowed to drive if you're a woman. Or you shouldn't be allowed to wear leather. Or eat certain foods that are unhealthy like hamburgers and fries. Or drink sodas. Or have the right to pray. Or marry someone of the opposite sex. Or of another race. Or dance.

In what way is it a bad law? It's bad because it seeks to preserve the tranquility of the memorial? Or is it bad only because it's infringing on your god given right to dance horribly and cause a scene?

You not being allowed to dance in one particular spot and then crying tyranny over it just makes you look like a child

Okay, I read all SEVENTEEN PAGES of the court's ruling. Luckily, the margins were wide.

Here are some fun bits I found -- including the first, which was a footnote at the very beginning:

1. For his part, Mr. Jefferson is on record discouraging celebration of
his birthday. “On Mr. Jefferson’s accession to the Presidency
[visitors] had waited on him, requesting to be informed, which was
his birthday, as they wished to celebrate it with proper respect. ‘The
only birthday I ever commemorate,’ replied he, ‘is that of our
Independence, the Fourth of July.’”


2. Having thus created and maintained the Memorial as a commemorative site, the government is under no obligation to open it up as a stage for the roving dance troupes of the world — even those
celebrating Mr. Jefferson.


3. We have noted previously that the Park Service has a
substantial interest in promoting a tranquil environment at our
national memorials. See Henderson, 964 F.2d at 1184 (“Th[e]
interest in maintaining a tranquil mood at the [Vietnam]
Memorial wall is similar to ones that the Supreme Court and
this court have recognized as substantial.”). Here the
government has reasonably advanced its interest in tranquility
because, unlike in Henderson, the restriction on expressive
activity does not sweep beyond the actual Memorial space.
Outside the Jefferson Memorial, of course, Oberwetter and
her friends have always been free to dance to their hearts’
content.

>> ^residue:

"The purpose of the memorial is to publicize Thomas Jefferson's legacy, so that critics and supporters alike may contemplate his place in history," Bates wrote. "The Park Service prohibits all demonstrations in the interior of the memorial, in order to maintain 'an atmosphere of calm, tranquillity, and reverence.'"
"Prohibiting demonstrations is a reasonable means of ensuring a tranquil and contemplative mood at the Jefferson Memorial," the judge added.


(Anti-)Free Speech Zones! Good idea Judge!!!

Because that's what real freedom is, deciding when and where natural rights actually apply!

wow, based on a link posted by @bareboards2, this guy is a complete idiot.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5RXqqf9ivc)

Here's info from the video:
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled in a 26-page opinion on Monday that the interior of the memorial is not a public forum where people may dance, even if they are silently boogying to music on headphones.

"The purpose of the memorial is to publicize Thomas Jefferson's legacy, so that critics and supporters alike may contemplate his place in history," Bates wrote. "The Park Service prohibits all demonstrations in the interior of the memorial, in order to maintain 'an atmosphere of calm, tranquillity, and reverence.'"

"Prohibiting demonstrations is a reasonable means of ensuring a tranquil and contemplative mood at the Jefferson Memorial," the judge added.

Upon hearing this information, what is Kokesh's response? fuck that! I can be disruptive wherever I want! Which is the sentiment that led to this video..

So knowing the recent verdict he got a troup together to go cause a disturbance because he feels like "freedom" means you can do whatever you want wherever you want.

I'm with @d3n4l1 on this one.. why not have a gay butt-fucking orgy for freedom at the holocaust memorial next week! hooray!