Antonin Scalia Says Constitution Permits Court To 'Favor Religion Over Non-Religion'

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2012/09/25/was-america-founded-as-a-christian-nation/

They took the good parts but made sure to show that it wasn't specific to the christian ideology.

 

Ahh ok, I see what you mean. Part of me agrees with that, but when religion effects the political process with regards to how people live (schools for example), I start disagreeing fully. For example, evolution vs creationism. Creationism is a religious ideal, which should be in religious classes. Evolution is a scientific ideal, which means it should stay in Science class. If you want to debate the two, have a philosophy class.

 

No sir, the 1947 ruling by the Liberal dominated USSC (5-4) was the biggest misinterpretation of the First Amendment. Taken from only Jefferson's words of separation. Do you know why and under what context he used those words? Because unless you do, then you can't understand what he meant.

 

The government is not the nation.

I'm pretty sure anyone who believes in such things doesn't qualify as a scientist.

 

It's interesting that you and the author happened to cite John Adams, of all people.

“The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
-- John Adams

Harry Truman pointed this out as well:

“The fundamental basis of this nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.”

What they're saying is that our nation's laws and the philosophies behind them didn't spring out of the ether in 1776. They were based on laws and traditions that pre-dated the Founding. Some of them are specific to Christan ideology and some of them are not - they're based on Greco-Roman ideas and practices as well as the ideas that animated the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment.

It's also interesting to note that America's take on the Enlightenment was decidedly different than that of say France. The Founders did not attempt to rid religion from public life the same way the Jacobins, et al, did during the French Revolution.

 

You can't say the government wants complete separation and then for the next 60 years use the Capital building to hold religious services which Jefferson and Madison both attended. You can't pay ministers to say the morning prayer to Congress for over 200 years and think our forefathers meant separation.

 

And, Scalia, a UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUSTICE has turned into a partisan hack and arbiter of RELIGIOUS belief! A CATHOLIC with 8 kids who wants to tell the rest of us how to BELIEVE and what to do with our reproductive organs--as HE sees fit.

 

No he did not.

You are expanding his comments to suit your argument. He is very clear in stating that the constitution only guarantees the right of religion to exist. You have ever right in the world to ignore it. No one is going to force you to go to church

 

I think that's fair and logical. However, I think we should be clear that when we start talking about public schools we are talking about the legal, not the political, process.

Of course, that isn't an issue in private schools, especially private religious schools...

 

It is freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion

 

So the US should FORCE it's citizens to HAVE a religion.....we can choose a religion but we cannot choose to not have a religion....that is what it says....

(sounds like those countries where you HAVE to be Muslim)

 

You sir don't know what your talking about. He wants you to believe anyway you want. No one is stopping you. Read my post 32 and see if that makes sense to you. I maybe asking to much from you, we'll see.

 

So you are fine if atheist practice guides the political process?

 

I don't think you guys are even trying to understand. Like your 1947 Liberal court.

 

No, it is right on the money.

 

The Left are saying they are smarter?

 

That is EXACTLY what it says.....how am I not understanding...? It says we do NOT have freedom FROM religion.....


just like ME countries that force everyone to be Muslim...those people do NOT have freedom FROM religion...

 

I think most people agree with this, as long as the source of that religion is from a private entity. I certainly dont care if someone sits on the street corner preaching the word of god from dusk to dawn. Makes no difference to me.

But for example. my child to be required to sit through a biblical prayer at the start of a school day in a public school for example, then I have a huge problem with that.


I dont have the right to live free from religion, in the sense that I cannot escape free speech. But I DO have the right to live free from government sanctioned religion.

 

And yet, you support the partisan hacks who want to tell us what to do with our entire bodies a la ObamaCare - as they, not every individual, sees fit.

I don't know where progs got it into their heads that our control and freedom of choice over our bodies somehow begins and ends at a woman's uterus. That has to be one of the most appallingly stupid, conflicted and hypocritical ideas I have ever had the misfortune of witnessing.

"Pro-Choice" my gluteus maximus...

 

HIS JOB IS TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION...JUST because YOU don't LIKE his INTERPRETATION...TOO BAD!!

Nowhere in his ARTICLE is he telling you what to believe, so stop your blatant LIES.

 

I see nothing wrong with prayer in school as long as it's a silent prayer. It was our founder's wish to allow freedom of religion and allow those who don't believe to not take part. That doesn't mean they can't hold anything religious around you. I don't believe in this porn put out by these rappers that evocate killing cops and raping your mother. But freedom of speech gives people the right to play it right in my presence.

 

Sigh...why do people like you have to try and twist everything to CAUSE issues?

No one is forcing you to HAVE a religion. You are free to be as un-religious as you want to be, you just can't stamp your feet like a big baby and prevent everyone else from having or expressing theirs.

 

That certainly is not what the language in the First Amendment says.
.

 

no you can choose not to have a religion but you cant choose for religion not to influence society and or have a voice in that society

 

They frequently claim they are...but I was just replying to Lee's statement Scalia's interpretation was a gross misinterpretation.