Justice Antonin Scalia dismisses concept of religious neutrality in speech

[Grim17]

Any religion. Choose whichever one you like.

:lol:

You said for me to try and shove my religion... What makes you think I am a religious person?

 

[shrubnose]

You said for me to try and shove my religion...

What makes you think I am a religious person?

I don't know or care what religion you follow or don't follow. This has zero impact on my life.

 

[Grim17]

I don't know or care what religion you follow or don't follow. This has zero impact on my life.

My point is, you assumed me to be a religious person and/or a religious advocate and I'm not.

 

[Absentglare]

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

He's saying 'as long as you don't accept a specific denomination [you can talk about God]," which is basically admitting that he only considers a subset of religions to be legitimate.

 

[ludin]

He's saying 'as long as you don't accept a specific denomination [you can talk about God]," which is basically admitting that he only considers a subset of religions to be legitimate.

again distortions.

so let us actually see what he says vs you.

"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 is correct.

all the constitution says is that the state nor congress can pass any law that prohibits the exercise of religion or free practice thereof.
he is basically counter the freedom from religion people that doesn't exist in the constitution anywhere.

 

[Absentglare]

again distortions.

so let us actually see what he says vs you.

"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 is correct.

all the constitution says is that the state nor congress can pass any law that prohibits the exercise of religion or free practice thereof.
he is basically counter the freedom from religion people that doesn't exist in the constitution anywhere.

"You can't favor one denomination over another," he admits yet seems blissfully unaware that referring to "God" favors one set of denominations over all others.

 

[rocket88]

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


.

Isn't the right to be an atheist inherent in freedom of religion?

 

[Montecresto]

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

:lol:

Obviously the Muslims consider those of any other religion to be infidels, not just atheists, is the point that seems clear enough.

 

[joG]

How can anyone KNOW there is no god or creator?

Ask them.

 

[joG]

I don't see that ever happening.

That is lucky for them.

 

[joG]

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

There were rather strong theories about the effect of Christianity and in this case Calvinism and similar beliefs on the success of societies adopting them.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Ask them.

Huh???

 

[joG]

Huh???

You were asking the wrong person.

 

[HonestJoe]

Atheism is definitely NOT a religion.

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

A common error. Atheism is the opposite of theism. If atheism were a belief system, theism would be as well.

Both describe singular characteristics but neither form a system in and of themselves. They both commonly form part of belief systems because pretty much everyone, atheist or theist, has such a system to some extent. None of that makes atheism or theism belief systems in and of themselves.

 

[Frank Apisa]

A common error. Atheism is the opposite of theism. If atheism were a belief system, theism would be as well.

Both describe singular characteristics but neither form a system in and of themselves. They both commonly form part of belief systems because pretty much everyone, atheist or theist, has such a system to some extent. None of that makes atheism or theism belief systems in and of themselves.

Sorry, Joe...but atheism IS almost always a "belief system"...as I said.

If the "system" part bothers you...disregard it.

In any case, for the most part, atheists and theists are making guesses about the true nature of REALITY...and calling their guesses "beliefs."

 

[HonestJoe]

Sorry, Joe...but atheism IS almost always a "belief system"...as I said.

If the "system" part bothers you...disregard it.

In any case, for the most part, atheists and theists are making guesses about the true nature of REALITY...and calling their guesses "beliefs."

Yes, it’s the “system” that is wrong. I can’t just disregard it because “belief” and “belief system” mean two entirely different things, with the latter often used as a political weapon.

How could it almost always be a belief system anyway? If it’s a system, that must apply in all cases or none – it’d just be what atheism is. If we’re talking about multiple different systems, they can’t all be just atheism alone (like the distinction between theism and religions in fact).

In general terms, beliefs aren’t guesses. None of us can control our beliefs, they’re just a function of what our brains do with the information we have available. That’s another distinction between beliefs (what we think) and systems (how we internally rationalise them all). Incidentally, that applies to everyone, even you.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Yes, it’s the “system” that is wrong. I can’t just disregard it because “belief” and “belief system” mean two entirely different things, with the latter often used as a political weapon.

My use of "belief system" in my earlier comment is just as appropriate as saying that Protestantism is a belief system.

Sorry you are having so much trouble with it.

How could it almost always be a belief system anyway?

In the same way that a cocktail is almost always an alcoholic drink. It means "almost always" but not necessarily "always."

If it’s a system, that must apply in all cases or none...

Interesting gratuitous definition of what it must be.

I disagree.

– it’d just be what atheism is. If we’re talking about multiple different systems, they can’t all be just atheism alone (like the distinction between theism and religions in fact).

I have no idea of what you are going on about here.

In general terms, beliefs aren’t guesses.

In general terms...EVERY "belief" is a guess.

None of us can control our beliefs...

I can "control" mine. In fact, I do not do "believing" at all.

..., they’re just a function of what our brains do with the information we have available.

In the matter of "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence?"...a "belief" is just a blind guess...being disguised...apparently in an attempt to obtain for the blind guess respect it doesn't deserve.

That’s another distinction between beliefs (what we think) and systems (how we internally rationalise them all). Incidentally, that applies to everyone, even you.

With all the respect in the world, Joe, I'll decide if it applies to me...not you.

 

[Somerville]

There were rather strong theories about the effect of Christianity and in this case Calvinism and similar beliefs on the success of societies adopting them.

There were "strong theories" and much discussion at the time of the founding of this nation. One man who was involved at the time was a fellow named Thomas Jefferson. Toward the end of his life he wrote to a friend, Benjamin Waterhouse, with a few thoughts on his view of religion

I rejoice that in this blessed country of free enquiry & belief, which has surrendered it’s creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the US. who will not die an Unitarian.

 

[calamity]

Sorry, Joe...but atheism IS almost always a "belief system"...as I said.

If the "system" part bothers you...disregard it.

In any case, for the most part, atheists and theists are making guesses about the true nature of REALITY...and calling their guesses "beliefs."

Only if you call non-belief a belief.

Asserting whether there is or is not a god would be exposing a belief. Saying one does not believe in gods is not.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Only if you call non-belief a belief.

Asserting whether there is or is not a god would be exposing a belief. Saying one does not believe in gods is not.

I do not call non-belief a belief.

As an agnostic...I am a non-believer.

I recognize there are many atheists who simply do not have "beliefs" in gods.

As I said earlier though, most atheists actually "believe" there are no gods.

 

[joG]

There were "strong theories" and much discussion at the time of the founding of this nation. One man who was involved at the time was a fellow named Thomas Jefferson. Toward the end of his life he wrote to a friend, Benjamin Waterhouse, with a few thoughts on his view of religion

True. The discussions I was referring to were much later and among historians.

 

[calamity]

I do not call non-belief a belief.

As an agnostic...I am a non-believer.

I recognize there are many atheists who simply do not have "beliefs" in gods.

As I said earlier though, most atheists actually "believe" there are no gods.

Yeah. It is a fine line. And, I guess, an absence of evidence for gods can lead someone to believe there are no gods, even though such a belief is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assumption. However, belief that something does not exist because nothing out there indicates that it does is not the same as believing something does exist even though nothing out there indicates that it does.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Yeah. It is a fine line. And, I guess, an absence of evidence for gods can lead someone to believe there are no gods, even though such a belief is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assumption. However, belief that something does not exist because nothing out there indicates that it does is not the same as believing something does exist even though nothing out there indicates that it does.

We are getting tangential to the topic of the thread, but I will comment on this:

In a sense, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between a "belief" that there is a god...and a "belief" that there are no gods.

Both are just blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

Insofar as the Scalia comment might be interpreted as short-changing people who either lack "belief" in this area...or who have a "belief" that there are no gods...

...it was an inappropriate comment for him to make.

In my opinion, that is not unusual for him.

 

[calamity]

We are getting tangential to the topic of the thread, but I will comment on this:

In a sense, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between a "belief" that there is a god...and a "belief" that there are no gods.

Both are just blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

Insofar as the Scalia comment might be interpreted as short-changing people who either lack "belief" in this area...or who have a "belief" that there are no gods...

...it was an inappropriate comment for him to make.

In my opinion, that is not unusual for him.

Believing America is favored by god seems to be pretty common for the Scalaiphiles. Believing god has nothing to do with America being what it is, IMO, seems the more rational position.

 

[HonestJoe]

My use of "belief system" in my earlier comment is just as appropriate as saying that Protestantism is a belief system.

Atheism is defined as not believing in and god or gods and that’s it. There is nothing fundamentally systematic about it in any way. Protestantism consists of a whole set of beliefs, doctrine and rules managed by a formal leadership. It is very much systematic (though even then arguably not one system given the extensive diversity world-wide). As I said, atheism is the opposite of theism, not specific religions. Atheism is no more a system than theism is.

Sorry you are having so much trouble with it.

The trouble is a) it’s factually wrong and b) it’s typically used as a tool for generalised attacks, which happen to include me.

In the same way that a cocktail is almost always an alcoholic drink. It means "almost always" but not necessarily "always."

No, it’s like saying a cocktail is almost always a bar. Cocktails can be part of what makes a bar and can even be a core element of a bar but the cocktail alone is not itself a bar.

In general terms...EVERY "belief" is a guess.

A guess is conscious, a belief is sub-conscious.

I can "control" mine. In fact, I do not do "believing" at all.

That’s what you believe. If it is the case, you can demonstrate it by choosing to believe in God for a short period. Can you do that?