Justice Antonin Scalia dismisses concept of religious neutrality in speech

[ludin]

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.

only if you want to be dishonest at what he is saying but I pretty much expect that from your posts.
you either strawman the person. or distort what they say to say something else.

he didn't say what you think he said and on top of that if you look at his audience then yes he is going to focus on Christianity.
of course you would have known this if you had read the OP instead of what you wanted.

 

[joG]

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"

He is certainly right that the US was a "Christian" country, when it formed, grew and became strong. In God We Trust, as the Greenback proclaims. What was intended was that no laws should be passed to interfere with religion. In this the country has gone wrong.

 

[joG]

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.


.

You will find that atheists will soon give up their position of not being a religion.

 

[joG]

"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

Do you thing that it would include those that say of themselves to be without religion and know there be no God?

 

[danarhea]

Do you thing that it would include those that say of themselves to be without religion and know there be no God?

Of course it does, since Jefferson included "infidel" in his statement.

 

[shrubnose]

Do you thing that it would include those that say of themselves to be without religion and know there be no God?

What is an 'infidel' besides someone who doesn't believe in any religion? Fill us in.

:lol:

 

[shrubnose]

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.

.

Try to shove your religion down anyone's throat and see how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on that case.

Seriously: Give it a try.

:lol:

 

[Frank Apisa]

Do you thing that it would include those that say of themselves to be without religion and know there be no God?

How can anyone KNOW there is no god or creator?

 

[HowardBThiname]

You will find that atheists will soon give up their position of not being a religion.

I don't see that ever happening.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I don't see that ever happening.

I agree.

Atheism is definitely NOT a religion.

It is, however, almost always a "belief system."

 

[HowardBThiname]

How can anyone KNOW there is no god or creator?

They cannot honestly say they "know" there is no creator, but they can say that they believe with a high degree of certainty that one does not exist. That is usually sufficient. Since no scientific proof exists, one way or the other, they are just well within their rights to make that claim. Just as "believers" are within their rights to make the opposite claim.

What neither group have the right to do is insist that the other group convert to their personal beliefs.

 

[Montecresto]

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"

Total bull****, YOURE FIRED!!!!!!!

 

[Montecresto]

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.

George Bush said that his foreign policy was guided by his faith.

 

[Frank Apisa]

They cannot honestly say they "know" there is no creator...

They certainly cannot!

...but they can say that they believe with a high degree of certainty that one does not exist.

People can "say" whatever they want; people can "believe" whatever they want.

But just as there is no way one can KNOW there is no god or creator...it is impossible to determine the "likelihood" of the existence of a god or creator using science, reason, or logic. So all one is doing when saying, "I believe with a high degree of certainty (there is a god) or (there are no gods)..."...is that a blind guess is being made.

That is usually sufficient. Since no scientific proof exists, one way or the other, they are just well within their rights to make that claim. Just as "believers" are within their rights to make the opposite claim.

Absolutely! Both are well within their rights to make a blind guess that there is a god or creator...or that there is no god or creator...and they are well within their rights to disguise the fact that they are making a blind guess on the issue by calling it a "belief."

I agree with you there completely.

What neither group have the right to do is insist that the other group convert to their personal beliefs.

Exactly.

 

[Absentglare]

only if you want to be dishonest at what he is saying but I pretty much expect that from your posts.
you either strawman the person. or distort what they say to say something else.

he didn't say what you think he said and on top of that if you look at his audience then yes he is going to focus on Christianity.
of course you would have known this if you had read the OP instead of what you wanted.

He's oblivious to the idea that an explicit endorsement of monotheism is an endorsement of some, BUT NOT ALL, religions and denominations.

 

[Montecresto]

What is an 'infidel' besides someone who doesn't believe in any religion? Fill us in.

:lol:

An adherent to any false religion.

 

[Bob N]

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.

.

Thanks. Total difference than the way you explained it in #2 of this thread.

 

[Bob N]

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.

That's OK. That's what I was doing too.

 

[calamity]

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"

"...God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him."

That's actually quite dangerous thinking. Sad that too few recognize it as such.

 

[Grim17]

Try to shove your religion down anyone's throat and see how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on that case.

Seriously: Give it a try.

:lol:

What religion would that be?

 

[Somerville]

He is certainly right that the US was a "Christian" country, when it formed, grew and became strong. In God We Trust, as the Greenback proclaims. What was intended was that no laws should be passed to interfere with religion. In this the country has gone wrong.

A Christian majority nation but not a Christian one which is generally understood to be a country which places Christian beliefs into the law, denying other beliefs equal status before a court or tribunal.

"In God We Trust" was not found on the currency of the US except for a brief period following the Civil War (ooops, sorry - War of Northern Aggression) until the days of Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare.

I prefer the original motto: E Pluribus Unum A motto which was first proposed by a subcommittee of the group which worked on the Declaration of Independence

 

[shrubnose]

An adherent to any false religion.

Who decides whether a religion is false or real? Fill us in.

:lol:

 

[shrubnose]

What religion would that be?

Any religion. Choose whichever one you like.

:lol:

 

[ludin]

He's oblivious to the idea that an explicit endorsement of monotheism is an endorsement of some, BUT NOT ALL, religions and denominations.

and you are wrong as always because he didn't say that at all.

 

[ludin]

"...God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him."

That's actually quite dangerous thinking. Sad that too few recognize it as such.

Not at all because he is allowed by the 1st amendment to express his religious view points.