• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Antonin Scalia dismisses concept of religious neutrality in speech

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,822
Reaction score
8,296
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
He may finally have gone too far this time. Probably many will praise him but his supposed 'originalist' legal philosophy seems to be falling apart under the weight of his religious and political beliefs.

Justice Antonin Scalia dismisses concept of religious neutrality in speech

METAIRIE, La. (AP) — Supreme CourtJustice Antonin Scalia said Saturday the idea of religious neutrality is not grounded in the country’s constitutional traditions and that God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him.

Scalia was speaking at a Catholic high school in the New Orleans suburb of Metairie, Louisiana. Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 is the court’s longest serving justice. He has consistently been one of the court’s more conservative members.

He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is “no place” in the country’s constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.


I do wonder why the authors of the Constitution wrote the phrase: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. if they didn't favour "religious neutrality"
 
He may finally have gone too far this time. Probably many will praise him but his supposed 'originalist' legal philosophy seems to be falling apart under the weight of his religious and political beliefs.




I do wonder why the authors of the Constitution wrote the phrase: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. if they didn't favour "religious neutrality"

What Scalia said was absolutely correct. There is “no place” in the actual constitution itself, stating that the government must be neutral between religion and its absence. All the constitution says, is that the state can't adopt one particular religion over another.

The constitution does not state that people have a right to freedom from religion.


.
 
What Scalia said was absolutely correct. There is “no place” in the actual constitution itself, stating that the government must be neutral between religion and its absence. All the constitution says, is that the state can't adopt one particular religion over another.

The constitution does not state that people have a right to freedom from religion.


.

Your belief then is that the "no religious test" phrase excludes atheists, pagans and polytheists from serving in government offices? How?
 
What Scalia said was absolutely correct. There is “no place” in the actual constitution itself, stating that the government must be neutral between religion and its absence. All the constitution says, is that the state can't adopt one particular religion over another.

No it doesn't. Note:


Amendment I

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.
 
He may finally have gone too far this time. Probably many will praise him but his supposed 'originalist' legal philosophy seems to be falling apart under the weight of his religious and political beliefs.

I do wonder why the authors of the Constitution wrote the phrase: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. if they didn't favour "religious neutrality"

Not at all. he is 100% correct in what he said.
Ol they favored that the government remain neutral they didn't
write that no one could say God.

or that people can't express their religious beliefs.
 
He may finally have gone too far this time. Probably many will praise him but his supposed 'originalist' legal philosophy seems to be falling apart under the weight of his religious and political beliefs.

Can you cite any decision during his tenure on SCOTUS where his religious belief system was the basis of his opinion?

I do wonder why the authors of the Constitution wrote the phrase: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. if they didn't favour "religious neutrality"

Wonder no more.

The authors did not support the establishment of a national religion like those leading to so many wars and pogroms in Europe. Religious tests were used by various European governments to prevent those who were not members of the State Religion from holding public office. The Colonies had large Catholic minorities and a number of different Protestant sects. So, that clause was included to insure such tests would never be used to limit access to office to members of the principal Protestant faith.

It did not mean that elected officials had to act without any reference to their personal religious beliefs. Just that they could not raise any one over all the others.
 
Last edited:
He may finally have gone too far this time. Probably many will praise him but his supposed 'originalist' legal philosophy seems to be falling apart under the weight of his religious and political beliefs.




I do wonder why the authors of the Constitution wrote the phrase: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. if they didn't favour "religious neutrality"

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

~Thomas Jefferson
 
No it doesn't. Note:


Amendment I

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.

:doh splitting hair fallacy.
it says congress but that also applies to the states as well.
 
Your belief then is that the "no religious test" phrase excludes atheists, pagans and polytheists from serving in government offices? How?

strawman much?
 
:doh splitting hair fallacy.
it says congress but that also applies to the states as well.

Of course. That comes from the Supremacy Clause, which states that Federal Laws trump State Laws.
 
Of course. That comes from the Supremacy Clause, which states that Federal Laws trump State Laws.

did you read what I was responding to though?
 
:doh splitting hair fallacy.
it says congress but that also applies to the states as well.
My argument with Grim is that it wasn't written the way he explained it. :shrug:
 
Can you cite any decision during his tenure on SCOTUS where his religious belief system was the basis of his opinion?



Wonder no more.

The authors did not support the establishment of a national religion like those leading to so many wars and pogroms in Europe. Religious tests were used by various European governments to prevent those who were not members of the State Religion from holding public office. The Colonies had large Catholic minorities and a number of different Protestant sects. So, that clause was included to insure such tests would never be used to limit access to office to members of the principal Protestant faith.

It did not mean that elected officials had to act without any reference to their personal religious beliefs. Just that they could not raise any one over all the others.

All too often though, we have seen politicians basing their actions on their personal beliefs in ways that do deliberately raise their beliefs over all others.
 
My argument with Grim is that it wasn't written the way he explained it. :shrug:

actually it was just fine the way it was written. as we are only talking about a small portion of the first amendment not the entire thing.
 
did you read what I was responding to though?

Yup, I did. I was just putting it in the proper perspective, since the same people who want to claim that the Constitution does not allow discrimination against the Christian religion are hot to discriminate against other religions, particularly Islam. Hence my Thomas Jefferson quote, and my mention of the Supremacy clause, which prohibits states from refusing to take in refugees because of their religion. You can't have it both ways. Either the First Amendment works for everybody, or it doesn't work at all.
 
Your belief then is that the "no religious test" phrase excludes atheists, pagans and polytheists from serving in government offices? How?

The two are different issues. That phrase deals with discrimination based on a persons faith or lack there of, while what I said deals with the government not showing preference for a particular religion over other religions.


.
 
Last edited:
No it doesn't. Note:


Amendment I

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.

It's pretty clear that it's saying that when it comes to religion, the government must treat them equally and not show a preference for any particular denomination or denominations.

.
 
The two are different issues. That phrase deals with discrimination based on a persons faith or lack there of, while what I said deals with the government not showing preference for a particular religion over religions.


.

HOW are they different issues? I seem to have read various comments on DP that "atheism is a religion" Basically I find your comment to be nonsensical but that's just my opinion
 
HOW are they different issues? I seem to have read various comments on DP that "atheism is a religion" Basically I find your comment to be nonsensical but that's just my opinion

1. I have never made such a statement.

2. If you find my words nonsensical, then you must have occasional difficulty understanding what you read.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof deals only with religious establishments and people of faith, not atheism and people who do not embrace religion. It's religion "a" vs religion "b".

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States deals with the equal treatment and opportunities for people, whether they embrace religion or not. It protects the non-religious from being discriminated against by the religious when it comes to obtaining public office or being a public servant/employee.

.
 
1. I have never made such a statement.

2. If you find my words nonsensical, then you must have occasional difficulty understanding what you read.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof deals only with religious establishments and people of faith, not atheism and people who do not embrace religion. It's religion "a" vs religion "b".

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States deals with the equal treatment and opportunities for people, whether they embrace religion or not. It protects the non-religious from being discriminated against by the religious when it comes to obtaining public office or being a public servant/employee.

.

Referring to 'God' disenfranchises all religions that have more than one or less than one god(s).
 
Yup, I did. I was just putting it in the proper perspective, since the same people who want to claim that the Constitution does not allow discrimination against the Christian religion are hot to discriminate against other religions, particularly Islam. Hence my Thomas Jefferson quote, and my mention of the Supremacy clause, which prohibits states from refusing to take in refugees because of their religion. You can't have it both ways. Either the First Amendment works for everybody, or it doesn't work at all.

I never argued anything of the such.
 
Referring to 'God' disenfranchises all religions that have more than one or less than one god(s).

Nope it doesn't if that person doesn't believe in those other religions.
that is why the 1st amendment is so cool. it gives you the ability to express whatever religion you believe in.
 
Nope it doesn't if that person doesn't believe in those other religions.
that is why the 1st amendment is so cool. it gives you the ability to express whatever religion you believe in.

Lol this isn't a first amendment issue.
 
LOL you evidently didn't read the OP.

LOL i did read the OP:

"
“To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?” he said. “To be sure, you can’t favor one denomination over another but can’t favor religion over non-religion?”
"

He concludes that there is no religion with zero gods (or multiple gods?). He is wiping his ass with separation of church and state by explicitly disenfranchising non-Christian format religions.
 
Back
Top Bottom