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

Wrong again. The government of the US is not a principle. Moreover, the only principle which could ever unify a just nation is that of adherence to the Two Great Commandments enunciated by Christ during His earthly ministry.

 

I actually agree whole heartedly with that concept.

Religion is part of many people's lives, and I wouldn't want to live in a society that wouldn't protect everyone's right to live the way they want, with or without religious dogma.

However, the pledge did not always contain a reference to god, it was added in the 1950's as an attempt to combat communism...

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

If we really want to restore things to the way they were meant to be, the revised pledge should be scrapped and the original restored. The same with our money, and the In God we Trust part. The constitution is quite clear that:

Since legislation was used to add these lines to our pledge, and money they are unconstitutional, and should be removed immediately. God is generally accepted as the name used the Christian Religions, however other religions use different terminologies, which to me means that a government establishment of religion has taken place in direct violation of our constitution.

Our government was established to be secular, and separate from religion. The declaration of independence does have small references to a creator, but the constitution does not. Big difference as the declaration is a document and not a law, where as the constitution is the framework of our nation. The government should not recognize any religion, or lack there of.

Now, I do not expect the airwaves to be stripped of all religious pandering just because I do not believe in any deity, nor should there be any prohibition on billboards, printed materials etc... But likewise if an atheist group wants to push it's message via media sources no one should complain either. It's a different point of view, that's all.

 

In that event, we are on opposing sides. Creationism has been scientifically falsified. In the event you're not familiar with that phrase, it means that we have proved it to be untrue. Under no circumstances should we be teaching untrue things to children (or anyone else for that matter). A prayer has no place in a public school unless it's a private individual praying a private prayer (which I'm sure during finals happens a lot). But for the school to lead one, even a so-called "non-denominational" one, amounts to government endorsement of not only religion, but generally christianity, despite the attempt to hide behind the "non-denominational" banner, which is complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

As for the 10 Commandments, 7 out of 10 of them are Unconstitutional, and the 3 that aren't are stone cold obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than 5.

I'll give you the "Christmas Tree" in the post office, because it's a Pagan symbol stolen by the christians and the holiday itself has been secularized, at least here in the US. But no religious ornaments.

 

The name of God used in different religions.


Allah, Buddha, Eshwara, Brahma, TheTao, Jehovah, Jesus, .I am Who am, Krishna, etc, etc. There are dozens more. But they all think of their own when they see the word God.

 

This is true. And the word "creator" was used very intentionally to allow everyone to adapt their own personal interpretation of who/what that creator is. Had they intended to reference the christian god, they would have. Had they intended to reference the hindu gods, they would have. Had they intended to reference a non-spiritual, materialistic explanation (which is to say the big bang, and materialism, neither of which they were familiar with), they would have.

But they VERY intentionally left it ambiguous, so that no matter what any individuals thoughts are on the matter, the statement would still fit and be accurate. It is not an accident that the word "creator", as opposed to "god", "lord", or any of a dozen (or more) other potential choices was used. But today's militant christians don't get that.

 

I have no issue with an atheist play or a wiccan play. In order for there to be fair and proper support for such, then classrooms should teach students about various religions and their beliefs to help them understand people have different beliefs. it would be a great way to get the students to understand that it's perfectly ok for their best friend to be a wiccan, or even an atheist without any childish bullying.

Sadly, i don't think atheists would support that because that'd mean the discussion of creationism would be allowed, and the atheists most definitely won't allow that.

No religious anything in public anything is most definitely NOT fair. No one is forcing you, or your children to be in the play, or even to go to the school to see it.

One of the biggest problems we have in this country is that people aren't able to accept that others believe anything differently and can't explain or respect the differences without ridicule.

I'm sorry, a Christmas tree in a public office is in no way, shape or form harming you or anyone else. A Jewish Menorah in the window of a public office isn't doing one bit of harm to any Christian. A Wiccan symbol in my local courthouse wouldn't bother me one bit.

 

So you wouldn't object to changing US money to "In Allah We Trust"?

 

Exactly that, our founding fathers did not advocate a christian nation, but try explaining that to nutbag evangelicals.

 

Unfortunately, the Supreme Law of the Land says they are wrong and the US is not founded in any way on Christianity.

 

I have been. It's not working out very well. I may just stop.

 

What a load of horse pucky.

I've never noticed that every president ends every speech that way, and frankly, don't care if he does or not. Since, according to you they don't, then how do you know how "Christians" will react, or is this just more BS projection and hype?

Ah...there it is....just can't, absolutely CAN'T keep that race card out of your little tirade.

You almost had a respectable argument going, but alas, you failed. You let your facade of reason slip and your true colors popped out.

Nice try though.

 

So just to be clear, is it restricting the free exercise of religion when Christian politicians pass laws against gay marriage because those things are immoral in their religion/their religion defines marriage differently?

Because there are religions in America that have no problem at all with gay marriage. Those laws passed by those Christian politicians due to their religion being involved in their politics would be restricting the religious freedoms of non-Christians, would they not?

 

My mistake, I didn't know it was all about you.

NO, PUBLIC school is NO place to teach all religions, students have enough of a problem learning English and math and science...wasting time on fairy tales is for kindergarten.
And if the bloody gruesome history of christianity was studied accurately and in detail I think christians would quickly change their minds on how much they wanted students to learn


Where did I say a Christmas tree was harming me? I didn't. It's just a symbol of the Profit is the Only God season....doesn't matter to me....

but religious symbols in public places is just another example of the arrogant entitlement attitude that christians wallow in.... I just wish christians, and any other religion, would get their churches and pastor off Welfare.

 

We get the Bill of Rights from Exodus? Really?

Killing people for worshipping a different God and stoning people for speech are definitely things I remember being part of the Bill of Rights...

The Bible is the antithesis of freedom or democracy, to say nothing of people having inalienable rights. The perfect government model according to the Bible is a brutal dictatorship in which all dissent is punished with cruel, unending torture and all subjects are required to worship the leader as god on pain of torture. The only Biblical government on the planet is that of North Korea.

 

I was not using it in either sense, even though I subscribe to the former and not the latter.

I was referring specifically to the language in the First Amendment itself, which imposes limits on Congress. There is no mention of "freedom from religion", much less a guarantee of freedom from religion.

 

I doubt Truman had the two things that you cherry-picked in mind, but you'd have to take that up with him. I don't think there's any question that our laws are a synthesis of many laws, traditions and philosophies ranging from the Judeo-Christian, to the Greco-Roman to the Age of Reason and Enlightenment with some innovations thrown in there (ex., our Fourth Amendment).

 

That's a little self serving, and a lame excuse to use. They do not think god, they think Allah, in fact your comment completely shows your ignorance of other religions, Buddha is not a God as christians think of it, but more of a state of being, or in reference to an enlightened or awakened person. Buddha Shakyamuni was a sage who originally founded Buddhism, but he was never considered a god, a holy man would be a more apt description.

That is why the declaring all those terms mean the same thing is patently wrong.

 

When representatives legislate so as to repudiate glaring insanity, it doesn't matter why they do it. You're welcome.

Bully for them. The Constitution doesn't give them leave to impose their idiocy on the rest of society by way of legislation, court rulings or any other contrivance implemented under color of law.

Obviously not. You're welcome.

 

Then we are, at least mostly, on the same team.

However, in this statement, you're getting into dangerous territory. Many of our founders were opposed to the Bill of Rights, NOT because they opposed what was enumerated therein, but because they were concerned that some future human would come along and claim that since X or Y was not specifically enumerated, it was not protected. On the one hand, we have two centuries (plus) proving that fear right. On the other, we have two centuries (plus) of the Supreme Court finding specific rights, despite their not being enumerated, as being protected nonetheless, and while I think they've (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up a time or two, for the most part they've gotten it right.

But, if we agree that an expectation to never see a religious symbol, institution, or message in public (on PRIVATE property) is unreasonable, and that legislating religious rules into law without a valid secular purpose is inappropriate (which means we can outlaw murder, even though it's in the 10 commandments, but not outlaw keeping the sabbath holy, even though it is, too), then we're more or less on the same page.

 

You cannot merely declare something insane without demonstrating it to be true. You have failed to do so.

 

I guess people are simply not able to, or refuse to understand what is meant by "founded on Christian principles"...that is not the same as "founded on Christianity".

I believe this snippet explains it well:


Lecture #1186 on Political Thought

June 7, 2011
Did America Have a Christian Founding?

By Mark David Hall, Ph.D.

Abstract: Did America have a Christian Founding? This disputed question, far from being only of historical interest, has important implications for how we conceive of the role of religion in the American republic. Mark David Hall begins by considering two popular answers to the query—“Of course not!” and “Absolutely!”—both of which distort the Founders’ views. After showing that Christian ideas were one of the important intellectual influences on the Founders, he discusses three major areas of agreement with respect to religious liberty and church–state relations at the time of the Founding: Religious liberty is a right and must be protected; the national government should not create an established church, and states should have them only if they encourage and assist Christianity; and religion belongs in the public square. In short, while America did not have a Christian Founding in the sense of creating a theocracy, its Founding was deeply shaped by Christian moral truths. More important, it created a regime that was hospitable to Christians, but also to practitioners of other religions.

 

We are.

I understand where you're coming from, and I guess there's going to be an element of "danger" with any human construct, particularly one as open to interpretation and manipulation as language. When I see judges declaring a regulatory penalty a tax when a statute clearly defines an exaction as a tax, I can't help but wonder why we even bother going through the extraordinarily time-consuming and expensive process of writing laws. If the language in a statute doesn't matter, what's the point? If our government is going to operate on the basis of arbitrary fiat instead of the rule of written law, there's not a lot of point in squandering our hard-earned money on what amounts to an elaborate charade.

Yup. I'm an ardent secularist, however, I don't see where our government has been granted the power under our constitution to completely eradicate religion from public life (and by "public" I don't confine/equate that to "government").

 

How exactly does increased freedom impose anything on anyone?

Are you going to be forced to be gay married if gay marriage is legal?

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly what "Christian principles" is America founded on?

 

Private prayer comes down to individual freedom though. Of course you can pray silently without interupting or requiring prayer. I have never had a problem with that, and I think any sane person doesnt.

I think were on the same page here though honestly.

 

No, that is not true. Science has not proven creationism is untrue. If it has, then science has proven God doesn't exist and that has never been done.

Wrong again. If a school leads a non denominational prayer, then it is exactly that...non denominational. If a student is atheist, then they simply do not participate. How difficult is it?

Really? I give you potential unconstitutionality for some as that would, in fact favor one, or some religions over others, but the rest are obvious? How so?

So, at the very least you aren't against religious symbols that meet your personal biases. Glad we have that established.