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

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now if you take the first part which I explained and put it with the second of free exercise thereof, which I think is self explanatory, you have what the First Amendment means. Then too, look at where it was put, in our Bill of Rights, not the government's rights, the people's rights. So the government has no right to interfere with people's right to worship anyway they please.

 

What both sides didn't want, is either side interfering with the other, like the Church of England did. That is where the wall of separation comes in. No interference by either side in their business.

 

Justice Scalia is correct. You and your Huffington Post are looking for idiots who believe. A class valedictorian saying she thanks god for her success is not unconstitutional. Wearing a cross is not unconstitutional. A group of students praying before a test is not unconstitutional. A government employee saying, "Bless you," when you sneeze is not unconstitutional, People are free to join a church without government interference.

There is nothing in the Constitution implying that a pitiful atheist will be protected from seeing a cross on a hill. Me? I'm an atheist but I'm not pitiful. I am well aware of what the Constitution says, why it says it, and why liberals hate it. The Constitution, and the First Amendment, is there to limit the power of your government, not the power of churches.

 

The only reason Jefferson used those words of separation was the Danbury Church was afraid the new Jefferson government would put restrictions on the church. They knew he wasn't a real big religious man. So they wrote him to see if he had any intention of putting restrictions on the church. His answer was to assure them he wouldn't That it would be like a wall of separation.

 

Seeing as how the government has already set the precedent that they can change the constitution as they see fit ... im not sure what the discussion is about.

 

I wouldn't mind the separation interpretation ruling so much if some hard core atheist hadn't stretched it way beyond reason. They use it like a hammer to keep anyone from saying or doing anything on government property, like preventing that college student for thanking God for helping her make it through college, or the teacher having a Bible on her desk. Or like Bush in trying to stop him from saying So help me God, when swearing in. It's a power trip to many of them. A power over others that under normal circumstances they would never have. They use it like a hammer. That's what pisses me off with them.

 

.....

So why is the Supreme Court so consumed with religion that they are ruling on cases that deal explicitly, implicitly, or as an afterthought, on religion as a base to their case? Think it thru if you can....

 

The USSC only rules on cases taken before them and their ruling has to be based on the Constitution and prior USSC rulings. Wouldn't it be nice if we had people today that was as smart as this man? Wasn't know as being religious but knew the benefits of it.

Benjamin Franklin was frequently consulted by Thomas Paine for advice and suggestions regarding his political writings, and Franklin assisted Paine with some of his famous essays.

This letter(1) is Ben Franklin's response to a manuscript Paine sent him in which Thomas Paine vigorously advocated against the concept of a “Providential God.”







TO THOMAS PAINE.[Date not given]

DEAR SIR,I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion.

For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection.

I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it.

At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtle and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others.

[NOTE: Franklin proved correct in this prophecy, as Paine was rejected by the USA and Britain both, no one claimed him as citizen and neither nation wanted to allow him to be buried there. He died poor, lonely, despised and rejected by all people except a few like-minded folks who rejected a God of Providence]

“He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.”

But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it?

You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations.




Purpose of religion:


But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security.

And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors.

For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance.


If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it.

I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,

SIGNED: B. Franklin

 

The reason what I am debating is nothing, is because I'm using your "nothing" to debate with, trying to make you understand that the statement you originally made about not being free from religion is totally absurd. Which is the "nothing" I am talking about.

 

How is she a riot? Isn't that what it says? That first sentence by the Constitution contradicts the words Scalia is presenting.

 

Sorry, but it isn't the adolescent atheists who use it as a hammer. They whine and throw temper tantrums and the federal government responds. The responsibility lies, in my opinion, with the powerful government and not with the pitiful atheists.

It's not different than Southern Baptists who demand that Wednesday night be kept for prayer meeting and that business be forced to close on Sunday. There demands have no force of law until the government decides they will.

When my mother was in the hospital dying--it took 29 days--a man burst into the room. He had an amazing blonde pompadour and an even more amazing shiny blue suit. He threw his arms in the air and yelled, "Let us all pray." I came out of the chair and headed around the bed as my sister yelled, "Run, he'll hurt you." He ran. Two days later a black woman came in, said she'd heard what was happening with mom, and was the pastor of a fundamentalist church. She said, "We all feel for you so if we can do anything to help from cleaning to cooking to staying with the children you just let me know." We hugged and she said she would be praying for us and she was sincere. Wrong, in my view, but honest and sincere. I have no problem with Christians like her and have no desire to hit.

In all fairness there are some atheists I find as objectionable as I find people like Rev. Al Sharpton or the gay thug Dan Savage. But, there are Christian preachers I've known and respected and there are gays I love dearly.

The Constitution is quite clear in protecting churches and religion and leaving us atheists to protect ourselves from the government and some Christians.

 

False good sir.

I am free to be free from your religion all I want. How? Simple. You don't get to inflict your religion onto me. I don't get to take away your religious rights.

Meaning you can practice your religion all you like as long as it isn't being used to dictate my freedoms. Your beliefs don't get to interfere with how I live my life and enjoy my freedom.

 

same occurs on both side, look at our pledge, our money... ect....

if theists keep it out of the public, atheists will go away too..... they just want equal time for their message


.

 

You can never be "free" from religion as it is all around you. You have the freedom OF religion not FROM.. How simple do i have to make it for you?

 

I'm Agnostic first off.

How are you free from religion? You do not have to practice any religion but it is all around you. People are constantly practicing religious beliefs. They have the right to. You have the right not to practice or believe. Its pretty simple. What are you confused about?

The only way you can be "free from religion" is to take that right away from others around you.

 

Easy. Someone practicing their religion does not inflict said religion on me.

What I consider forcing religion onto me is pushing religion into the law or trying to legislate based on religious beliefs.

The constitution strictly prohibits this and sets up ways to combat this.

 

Wrong. The first amendment establishes freedom OF and FROM religion.

You can not force your religion into my life or lesson my freedom based on your religion.

 

Oh that we agree on. However there is a very loud group of aethists that complain that anything religious is "religion being forced down their throats". Heaven forbid ( pun intended) you say god bless you to them when they sneeze. You might as well spit on them.

- - - Updated - - -

What religion is that? You are at the point of just repeating yourself.

 

Osiris was pretty much correct when he posted: What I consider forcing religion onto me is pushing religion into the law or trying to legislate based on religious beliefs.

I'm sure that we could generally agree that there are more than a few laws which would generally agree with almost all religions or lack thereof, so just because they might deem stealing a criminal act doesn't make them in any way supportive of a particular religion. If, however, someone wants to post excerpts from their Scriptural beliefs on public property, that should not be allowed as it implies even to a casual observer that the government (of wherever that might be) agrees and supports it. It is also as bad for a person who holds antithetical views of that excerpt to post his counter beliefs next to it. That is, two wrongs don't and never did make a right.

 

Any religion. When I say "your religion" I do not intend it to mean you RP12, I mean any religion in general. Bad term of phrase I suppose.

A persons religion. Religion in general. Any religion.

As for over sensitive people...there will always be someone who can suck it up and get over their own need to be offended even when there isn't something affecting their actual freedom.

Religious people need to understand that their religious freedom ends where other peoples rights begin.

Atheists need to understand that christians have the freedom to belief as they like and practice those beliefs, as long as that practice does not entreat on their rights. Freedom from being offended...is not a right.

 

It's funny they can put out rap music calling on killing cops and that's fine, but if a graduate wants to thank God for helping her through school, that's against the law with the way the 1947 Liberal court interpreted the First Amendment. Does that even sound right to you? Both are in public. Your not only taking away their religious rights, but their freedom of speech.Why is it one is fine and the other is totally wrong? I don't understand that kind of thinking. I only have a GED education, but I swear some of these highly educated people don't have a lick of common sense.

 

I'm not sure using the term forcing your religion into your life is the right term, They can't force you to partake in religion. Having a student thanking God for helping her graduate is forcing her religion on you, because you hear it.

 

Lol! You are playing semantics to fit your argument. The trouble with that is, you are being too obvious. Your words have a clear meaning that do not reflect the reality on the ground. It's as if you are attempting to make the argument that we are never free from the sun shining, which is true. But, in the case of religion, all one needs to do is ignore. It's that simple. Thereby, one can be as free as they want.

 

True, but it seems we have a lot of atheist out there that think putting out rap songs calling on raping your mom is fine and is free speech. But saying God bless you or thank you God, is throwing their religion on you and is against the law.

 

The trouble today is everyone is offended by something. I shot him because he didn't respect me. I'm offended because you said Merry Christmas. How many times have we had to change the name we give Black folks? Your a racist if you don't believe in illegal immigration. People today look for things to be pissed about, they look for ways to put others down. I guess they think that makes them look bigger.