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

Should an atheist have the right to stop a school from singing Christmas songs in school, or put on a Christmas play? Your not required to take part in either according to the First Amendment. That's part of your right to be free of religion

 

Lol, more lies, more damn lies.

Please show us where you, or anyone else in this country has been forced to be of any religion?

Yeah...I didn't think so...

Your ignorant little faux rage game makes you look stupid.

 

No, it's not. The government cannot favor one religion over another, that includes non-religion. Scalia is flat-out wrong.

 

Both are true, yet as people are free to worship as they please, with the Govt being the unifying principle of said nation (especially considering enforcement and regulation) that the Govt is the one part of the nation that is the most...malleable or changeable by the people.

Again, I fully agree. Principles of morality came from religion, things like murder, theft, etc... which were incorporated into the legal system. But as their are many religions, and not all aspects of any of them were incorporated, then their needs to be a wall between the legal system, and the various Religions. If that breaks down, then it becomes a matter of 'whos religion is right, which is more influential, etc..etc..) which would bring about serious conflict.

Yeah, I went to a private christian school for one of my HS years and Religion was forefront (daily worship, religious classes etc..) which I have no problem with. If a parent can send their kid to a private school, then by all means. But when it comes to publicly funded schools, Religion should not have any mandatory aspects to it (I have no problem with religious classes being offered as optionals)

Govt policy should not be influenced by religion. Nor should it be antagonistic to religion for the sake of being antagonistic. Does Atheism constitute a 'religion' of it's own?

 

The government isn't. The people decide what religion they want to favor. Muslims have a big group in Michigan and some schools have a large Muslim attendance. If they wanted to put on a Muslim play and the school agreed, they have every right to do it.

Now if you still believe the First Amendment means separation, tell me how they can do this.

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.

 

I was responding to first poster quoted above,....who states we have no freedom FROM religion.

why do believers have to try and twist everything to CAUSE issues?

No one is forcing them to not HAVE a religion. They are free to be as religious as they want to be, they just can't stamp their feet like a big baby and prevent everyone else from having or expressing theirs.
They stamp their feet and demand THEIR religion is brought into PUBLIC schools, PUBLIC venues, demanding their religion owns this country, causing issues to arise.
They're such big babies they can't just be happy having tax free churches ( that entitlement mentality ! ).

 

Lies, lies, lies.

How about forced to say prayers? I was forced to say the "Lord's Prayer" every morning. How about forced to go to church? When I was in the military I was ordered to go to church in basic training. Oddly enough, when I went to language training I was told I should not go to a Unitarian Church, which is where my parents went when they were required to go to church.

 

The government isn't. The people decide what religion they want to favor. Muslims have a big group in Michigan and some schools have a large Muslim attendance. If they wanted to put on a Muslim play and the school agreed, they have every right to do it.


I'm all for taxing churches

 

Can a court rule in favor of Baptists of Catholics?

 

Except, the truth is, religious things were already in schools, in public...no one had to stamp their feet from the believers side. It wasn't until militant atheist types started threatening law suits, stamping their feet to force believers to not be able to practice their beliefs.

Nice try though.

 

Well seeing as it was changed to include "under god", perhaps we should change it again to honor Allah and then see if there is nothing wrong with that. . .

Allah means god so I'm sure it will be just fine.

 

Under the law and the First Amendment, you can not be forced to say a prayer.

In the military it's different. Your taught discipline. They force you to do things you don't want to do to get you to act when given orders. Believe me the Marines made me do a hell of a lot of things I didn't want to do. I gave up most of my rights when I joined.

I don't know where you went to language training so I can't answer to that. I don't know who required your parents to go to church, it sure wasn't the government.

 

I am sure if this country was mostly Muslim and the Congress voted to do it, they could. But God is sort of a generic word, meaning a higher being which can take in many religions.

 

As someone now retired after 24 years in the service I find your claim either dubious, or a rare example (of which you might have had a case).

Who forced you to say the prayer every morning?

Who at DLI (assuming that's where you studied your language as a 1N3, 35P, CTI, 2643) told you not to attend a Unitarian church?

Who required your parents to go to a Unitarian church?

 

No, they can not show favorism

 

How are you using the phrase "freedom from religion"? If you mean that a citizen does not have the realistic expectation to move about their community and never see a church, or a religious message posted on a sign on private property, or a billboard that has been rented for the sole purpose of expressing some religious idea, I agree with you wholeheartedly. On the other hand, if you mean it's appropriate for religious doctrines that stand no legitimate secular purpose to be legislated into law (as an over the top example, imposing criminal sanctions for failing to "keep the sabbath holy"), then you've lost me.

 

I think a lot of people on this board just like to argue on certain subjects and don't mean half of what they say. Some can't be that misinformed.

 

And an atheist play and a Wiccan play? No, the Christians would whine and stamp their feet....

NO religious plays of any kind in PUBLIC schools is the only FAIR way to deal with it.

 

God is not a generic word, as there are religions which have multiple Gods. And then their are the sane people who know that saying under god is factually no different than saying under harry potter. So no it is not generic.

If something is supposed to be a universal pledge for all, the provisions should be things that are universal, which they were until the 19450's Christian movement used during the red scare McCarthism era.

One Nation
Indivisible
Liberty and Justice for all.

Thousands of years of history show us that all these things have been negated "Under God". It taints it.

 

I'm still waiting for one of you to answer me this. You guys keep ignoring it and it shows no separation was ever meant.

Now if you still believe the First Amendment means separation, tell me how they can do this.

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

 

You're right , that sense of entitlement that christians have works well, they're right and anyone else is less a citizen. Yes, they were handed everything so why would they complain ??? so WHY are they whining about some war on christianity all the time????


Want to see Christians scream and wail? Just have a President who doesn't end a speech with the incredibly stupid words, "god bless America".....


Want to see Christians wail and stomp their feet ?, just have a black man with a middle name Hussein run for President and watch the sick accusations....

- - - Updated - - -

And an atheist play and a Wiccan play?

 

It's generic. God is not the name in the Christian religion or any other.

 

Yes, I do believe Atheism is a religion: • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance : consumerism is the new religion.

 

Eisenhower encouraged congress to add the "under God" part in 1954 in response to the communist threats of the time period.

Considering muslim extremists are a current threat, it makes no sense to change "under God" to "under Allah".

Interestingly, Francis Bellamy, in addition to writing the first version of the pledge, also prescribed the salute. Folks were to stand facing the flag, hands at their side. At a signal, they would give a military salute, but once they reached the words "to my flag", they were to "gracefully" extend their hand toward the flag, palm upward.

At some point afterward, the salute was changed to placing the hand over the heart initially, and then extending the hand toward the flag palm down. During WWII it was decided the pledge salute was too similar to the Nazi salute and was changed to how we know it today.

 

No, I think the fervor is over things like whether or not creationism can be taught in school, or if a school can have a morning prayer, or if a statue of the 10 commandments is ok to sit on a schools property, or a Christmas tree can be set up and decorated in a post office

I say yes to all the above, so long as the same post office can have a Jewish Menorah on Hanukkah (if a Jewish employee so wanted), or other items of religion that represents the religion of its employees/students, etc.

The problem in this entire uproar is you have atheists wanting anything and everything 'religious" completely removed from any place that is not privately owned, thereby limiting or eliminating the right to practice religion.