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

"Render unto Caesar" immediately comes to mind.

You won't find that secular principle at work in any theocracy where there is no division between religion, law and government.

 

Certainly not. I do not feel that I have a reasonable expectation, much less an outright right, to move about my community and NOT see religious institutions/symbology/signs, so long as they are confined to private property. Anyone who does is nuts, though I'm not a fan of organized religion, and would not complain if it went away. (Ironically, I am very spiritual, but that, perhaps is a conversation for another time.)

Where I get my panties in a wad is when someone says "My religion says XYZ, so XYZ should be made into law, and anyone who does (or fails to do, as the case may be) XYZ, should be subject to civil and/or criminal sanction." As long as they don't do that, they can practice their silly religions until the cows come home as far as I'm concerned.

 

Yes, we would. You have now established preference for a particular religion, that is a no-no.

If you support that Allah is ok, then you would be upset if a vote was taken and it ended up being Yahweh, would you?

 

Render unto Caesar was a call for rebellion against Rome, so yeah, I guess it does fit.

 

Then you and I are dealing with different definitions of the term "creationism". I, myself, am a "creationist" of sorts, but my conclusions come from science, not ancient texts that speak about plants appearing before the sun.

Because "non-denominational" is a farce. It's a fiction. Just like the idea that the "airwaves" are "owned" by "the Public", and therefore are exempt from First Amendment protection. Just a silly ass excuse come up with by silly ass christians to continue forcing their nonsense onto the rest of us.

Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not commit perjury.

Obvious. All of the others, should they be attempted to be enacted into law would be Unconstitutional.

No, you misinterpreted me, probably on purpose. I don't see a "Christmas Tree" as a religious symbol. Others might, and while I have no problem with them, because personally I don't see them as such, if they are banned for being such, I would not object.

 

If I tried to prove to a paranoid schizophrenic that he was nutty as a fruitcake, I'm pretty sure I'd fail to so; yet such a failure would not perturb me. Why I should be any more perturbed about my failure to prove to the likes of you that "gay marriage" is abject lunacy is a complete mystery.

Increased freedom to do wrong, which is of course the sort of freedom you're contending for, can hardly do otherwise. That's why businesses are being oppressed for failing to cater to perverts.

 

I view the term "God" to be functionally equivalent to the term "Yayweh", and therefore, object to both. I am not an atheist. I believe we are spiritual creatures living a (simulated) physical existence. But I do not believe that the "God" spoken of in the buybull or any other manmade text to be an accurate description of "Source", which is my preferred term. But, I don't want "In Source We Trust" printed on our money either.

 

I agree, and I don't want my government telling Christians they can't stick crosses in their ear lobes and Pastafarians can't wear colanders on their heads, either. I think we all can be mutually reasonable about these things, but the extremists on both sides don't seem particularly willing to do so...

 

"The likes of me"?? Do expound on that, please. What, exactly, do you mean? I assure you, I may be many things, but a "paranoid schizophrenic" is not on the list. So, please, enlighten us.

 

I think we are arguing despite the fact that there is no disagreement amongst us. That is illogical.

 

I know your frustration, but every time I think the argument is not worth pursuing any further, I also realize that by ending discussion on my part I have conceded the argument and by default they win. To remain silent and allow them to own the conversation is unacceptable. It would be different if a hard core christian could just accept that we think differently, and leave it at that by common acceptance. However by the very teachings they are exposed to they are supposed to go out and spread the word, IE brainwash more people. I can't accept that.

I've never tried to sway my kids either way, I always told them that if they felt the need of a spiritual life I would never love them any less, it is their life to live. They have gone with friends to church, my own mother for that matter who is catholic. The only thing that has done is make them question the logic of what is said during services. Unless parents are taught to brain wash their kids as the religions do, they can see logic for what it is. Kids are amazing beings who when left to their own devices are quite capable of sorting out bullcrap from reality all on their own.

 

Businesses are not being "oppressed". They are in a business that provides a specific service and if they want to discriminate, maybe they should find a different business to be in.

BTW, "freedom to do wrong" would be every freedom, since not all people have the same morality. I believe it is wrong for CEO's to make 1000 times more than their lowest paid employee. Should a law be passed to ban that practice?

 

Firstly, that we were not to be ruled by one man, king, dictator. In fact, we left England to get out from under such rule. It's been a Christian foundation that man is inherently evil and can't be trusted with power.

From Jeremiah 17: "Thus says the Lord, 'Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind... Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord...'" And then he explains why: "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick..."

Secondly, they didn't establish an oligarchy either. Most of the leaders at the time were wealthy aristocrats. They didn't even trust themselves.

From the influence of Christianity, we built our government.

Jefferson said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

So, the exact laws, the rights, the government, the country was not created as a Christian nation, but the founding was based on, or influenced by Christianity.

Had it been been founded on Christianity, I would expect Christianity to be the official national religion, etc, etc. They simply took the principles of Christianity and broadened the scope to include everyone.

 

They took principles of the Enlightenment that are directly contrary to principles from the Bible. God in the Bible routinely grants rulership to "one man, king, dictator" as well as his perfect government consisting of the same but with him as the dictator. The Bible is absolutely anti-freedom and anti-democracy.

 

And yet, very clearly, it wasn't. And if it had been, I certainly hope that would have been changed by now, but that is a moot point. Regardless, the ONLY thing I care about when it comes to religion vs. government is that religion needs to stop attempting to legislate their tenets into law. Sadly, for reasons I seriously do not understand, they cannot seem to do so.

 

I mean professing unrepentant serial adulterers. You're welcome.

Evidently it hasn't dawned on you that one can hardly do so...

... without doing precisely that.

Please, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

 

I know it's hard to believe, but it's actually possible for the members of this forum to carry on a discussion in agreement with one another.

 

You don't think mutual consent renders adultery moot?

- - - Updated - - -

You don't think mutual consent renders adultery moot?

 

I know it doesn't. I also know that unrepentant adulterers are no less determined to defend their conceits than are paranoid schizophrenics, so don't bother asking how I know.

 

You claim knowledge of things you couldn't possibly have knowledge of. >>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<

 

What does that mean to you “freedom FROM religion”?

 

No, it isn't the best........ but as far as disappearing... LOL!

 

Here's an example:

Is porn wrong?

 

What is that supposed to be an example of?

 

No, the US Constitution prohibits the establishment of a State church while, at the same time, allowing the freedom of belief. Atheists believe there is no God and they are free to believe that however, they are NOT free to foist prohibitions on expressions of belief by people that believe differently than Atheists.