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

And example to counter you're whole "If something is 'wrong' the law needs to prohibit it" bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

I was responding to the poster bolded above.

So atheists are the only group that can't " foist prohibitions on expressions of belief by people that believe differently than Atheists" ?....but Christians can foist prohibitions on expressions of belief by people that believe differently than they do ? Oh, sounds really fair .... I wonder if we atheists can get a tax break for not being full citizens like those loving Christians...

 

They suffer from the sins of Arrogance, Pride and Entitlement, they truly , and erroneously, believe that people who believe in god are good decent people ONLY because they believe in god....that's all it takes in their opinion.

They are bullies who want THEIR opinions made into law, opinions based on their flimsy morals and will never admit that there ARE better people whose opinions are just as valid.

 

It's not about 'fair' it's about letting The People worship their religion without fear of government restrictions/mandates as long as the worship doesn't break the law. The government places no restrictions/mandates on Atheists. They are free to not believe.

 

Of course it's not about "fair" if christians are involved

 

What government restrictions/mandates are placed upon Atheists? Apparently you forgot to read the rest of my post in your zeal to yet again boorishly spew your hatred of Christianity. .

 

Ya know , I kinda like that phrase "boorishly spew" ( it's so delightfully pompous!) but then you ruined it by bringing up christians favorite tip-of-their -tongue word , hatred....any criticism and they think immediately "hatred"...what little pouters!

 

"The separation of church and state doesn’t mean “the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued"

what an idiot, it means exactly that, the gov is to remain neutral..... religious freedom depends on the nation not taking sides

and if the gov favors God Religions over Non-God religions than that is against the meaning of the constitution

 

"It is freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion"

you can't have freedom of religion if the gov is pushing their flavor of religion

theists can believe what ever they want, atheists can believe what ever they want, stop trying to force your beliefs on others via the government

the only threat to religious freedom in this country is fanatical Christians, no other religion tries to pull this stuff

 

it prohibits turning our schools into churches, gov employees should not be trying to proselytize other peoples children

you want to proselytize instead of teach, teach at a not gov run religious school

I do not want teachers telling students there "IS" or that there "IS NOT" a God, leave that for the parents


.

 

he is a loon, and just getting ready to try and justify his vote on same gender marriage and why he thinks he can use religion to strike it down

"Supreme Court will take up gay marriage ‘soon, soon,’ Justice Scalia says"

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepo...supreme-court-to-take-up-gay-marriage-scalia/

"U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a fiery dissenter in gay rights rulings, has hinted broadly that the high court is prepared to rule on the constitutionality of states’ legal and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage."

 

I agree that teachers should not proselytize however, I see no harm in teaching ABOUT different beliefs.

 

You aren't making sense. What do you mean I can never be free from religion? If I choose to not participate in any religious belief, am I not free from religion?

 

So then gay marriage shouldn't be illegal due to its wrongness?

 

We'll, that's what we would hope. Except his wording can certainly be interpreted totally different from what you just explained.

 

Thanks! I was beginning to believe I was the only one who interpreted what he said differently. He certainly needs to explain again what he is saying exactly.

 

Well, given that he said religion should be given preference to non-religion, he is openly defying the constitution. I can't believe anyone could see that any differently. He should be impeached. He is not fit to serve.

 

Lol! I have no argument here. I'm just confused as to his exact meaning. If you go by his exact wording, you can interpret that to mean that we are bound to religion according to the Constitution. He will need to explain what he is talking about again.

 

We'll, that too is how I interpreted it, but maybe I'm wrong and his choice of words weren't the best. I'm curious to see if he will attempt to try and change his explanation of this. Because as you and I see it right now, it certainly can be interpreted as taking a hammer and slamming it down on the Constitution.

 

Yes however there will be religion around you. Even its a Christmas song playing in a store.

 

Scalia is of course absolutely right, and disputing the historical context of his opinion is for idiots, regardless of one's personal political persuasion. Religious services were held in government buildings while Jefferson was President, for instance, a clear evidence that even among 'Diests' there was no belief that 'freedom of religion' can be interpreted as 'freedom from religion', most especially since Jefferson's own election to offices was almost entirely a result of support from evangelicals of the Second Great Awakening.

For the main roots of the principle of separation of church and state, a couple of links that might interest the Peanut Gallery:

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Thomas_Helwys

A small essay on the historical context of Thomas Helwys and the founders of the Baptist denomination:

http://www.georgetowncollege.edu/cdal/files/2011/06/Mary_Nelson.pdf

 

I agree with that, as long as it's an elective and it's teaching the history of world religions, not proselytizing them

 

It's really rather simple. Religion is protected by the hated Constitution. It is. First Amendment. It isn't a stealth amendment like abortion it's right there.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...."

It's not only the 1st Amendment but it's the first clause in the 1st Amendment. Please note, there is no guarantee that easily offended people might not see a church, see a political ad, or see people praying. There is no restriction on a valedictorian thanking a god for her success. There is nothing saying a group of students can't pray together before a test or an athletic event. Sorry, folks, but it doesn't.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

I realize some do not expect, or even want, Supreme Court Justices to read and follow the Constitution. They would prefer the Justices make rules based on their personal ideology and prejudices.

For the record, I have been an atheist for about 64 years but I'm not a leftist so I'm not one of the fragile, easily offended, whimpering atheists. You worship as you choose and don't come to my door peddling your magazines.

 

No problem, Marine1, now if I could just get them to quit knocking on my door while I'm reading.

 

No. What the forefathers didn't want was the government establishing a church, or churches, as state churches and prohibiting or legislating against others. It does not say that if a particular church has a "church law" against murder or incest or rape then the state cannot have the same law.

Where I grew up the Southern Baptists ruled in every sense of the word. Business were, by law, closed on Sunday...except used car lots. Amazing, that. I think that's wrong but I do not think it's unconstitutional. It should be dealt with, and was, through elections.

At the same time the schools served fish on Friday in case there was a Catholic or two and never served ham even though there were no observant Jews. The lunch room ladies told me there might be a Jew some day.

The bitter atheists and the bitter Christians should both tend to their own knitting and the liberals should acknowledge the Constitution and quit trying the make it irrelevant or non-existent.