Someone else's property begins at my property line, and continues in all directions for thousands of miles. Do you mean to suggest that the first amendment applies to me only within the confines of my property?
The first amendment applies to your private property and to public property. It does not extend to the private property of others, namely because you do not have an inherent right to even be on the private property of others. The owners of the property have the right to remove you for any reason, or even no reason at all.
May I practice religion only in my yard, and peaceably assemble only in my living room? What, as I referenced earlier, of those who don't own land?
You can practice it on your land, on public lands, and on the land that belongs to those who do not mind your practicing it on their land. A Jehovah's Witness does not have the right to try to convert me within my own house if I do not give him the permission to enter, even if such proselytizing is a core practice of his religion.
You seem to seriously believe that the first amendment exists only for these people at the behest of exceptions in their lease agreement.
If I am a landlord and believe that, for example, burning candles is a significant fire hazard, I have a perfect right to put a "no candle-burning" clause into the housing contract. If a tenant decides to burn candles anyway and I catch her, I have a perfect right to evict her, even if candle-burning happens to be part of her religious ritual.
Did you read the part in the Declaration of Independence about how we (Americans) believe rights flow? Rights are inherent, not to be granted by the government, but you seem to have no problem relegating those rights to landowners.
However, rights very often come into conflict with each other. As the popular maxim goes, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. In this case, the right to free speech is in conflict with the right to private property, both of which are protected by the US Constitution.
Without the threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction, we would have had World War 3 (and probably World War 4) instead of the fairly benign Cold War. This means that splitting the atom has saved tens (if not hundreds) of millions of lives, at the initial investment of just a few hundred thousand.
Not to mention that splitting the atom gave us access to a cheap, clean, and efficient source of energy.
Slashdot Mirror
Without the threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction, we would have had World War 3 (and probably World War 4) instead of the fairly benign Cold War. This means that splitting the atom has saved tens (if not hundreds) of millions of lives, at the initial investment of just a few hundred thousand. Not to mention that splitting the atom gave us access to a cheap, clean, and efficient source of energy.
Two words: baseball strike