Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

So…we are not constitutionally protected by freedom from religion?

The separation of church and state doesn’t mean “the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued during a speech at Colorado Christian University on Wednesday, according to The Washington Times.

Defending his strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution, Scalia knocked secular qualms over the role of religion in the public sphere as “utterly absurd,” arguing that the Constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion -- not freedom from it.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” the Reagan-appointed jurist told the crowd of about 400 people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/0 ... mg00000013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's 100 percent correct on this point. The problem is many of his critics don't really understand what he is saying (which is typical -- Scalia's opinions are routinely distorted by his critics).

How about freedom from superstitious nonsense? Must we have it inflicted upon us and pretend to believe it?

JoltinJoe wrote:He's 100 percent correct on this point. The problem is many of his critics don't really understand what he is saying (which is typical -- Scalia's opinions are routinely distorted by his critics).

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."

houndawg wrote:How about freedom from superstitious nonsense? Must we have it inflicted upon us and pretend to believe it?

As an agnostic, I think you're full of shit. I've never felt compelled to pretend that I'm religious or spiritual. I've never had anyone inflict their religion on me. If someone is praying in front of me, I ignore it. It's easy to do. If someone is proselytizing to me, I tell them to fuck off. That is equally easy.

Scalia needs to eat more veggies

There is no freedom from religion. Next question.

Regardless of the dopey & mildly insane Scalia and his "strict reading"

The truth is still the truth:
When Religion and Politics MIX it is NEVER good
And a brief examination of world history should clear this debate up in a few posts

JoltinJoe wrote:He's 100 percent correct on this point. The problem is many of his critics don't really understand what he is saying (which is typical -- Scalia's opinions are routinely distorted by his critics).

Sorry Joe - but Scalia is wacked - easily the worst justice in the history of the Supreme Court - his opinions are biased, illogical, and follow his personal prejudices and not the constitution.

dbackjon wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:He's 100 percent correct on this point. The problem is many of his critics don't really understand what he is saying (which is typical -- Scalia's opinions are routinely distorted by his critics).

Sorry Joe - but Scalia is wacked - easily the worst justice in the history of the Supreme Court - his opinions are biased, illogical, and follow his personal prejudices and not the constitution.

Jon, you know I love you but seriously? Coming from you, that's rich.

Ibanez wrote:

dbackjon wrote:


Sorry Joe - but Scalia is wacked - easily the worst justice in the history of the Supreme Court - his opinions are biased, illogical, and follow his personal prejudices and not the constitution.

Jon, you know I love you but seriously? Coming from you, that's rich.

Jon doesn't sit on the highest court in the country.

I want freedom from mayo. I just went to a sub shop and am tired of seeing "...oil & vinegar, and mayo..." listed. Who the hell put these together? It should be either/or, not both.

Oh, and next time ask me if I want it hot or cold. Don't assume I want it hot.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Jon, you know I love you but seriously? Coming from you, that's rich.

Jon doesn't sit on the highest court in the country.

Oh, in that case, hypocrisy is totally acceptable.

CAA Flagship wrote:I want freedom from mayo. I just went to a sub shop and am tired of seeing "...oil & vinegar, and mayo..." listed. Who the hell put these together? It should be either/or, not both.

Oh, and next time ask me if I want it hot or cold. Don't assume I want it hot.

You really (really) need to work on your analogies a lot...
That is so dumb I feel dumber having spent the 3 seconds reading it

You fascinate me Flag
Sometimes you sound almost normal and other times the post is so dumb I think you're punking everybody

dbackjon wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:He's 100 percent correct on this point. The problem is many of his critics don't really understand what he is saying (which is typical -- Scalia's opinions are routinely distorted by his critics).

easily the worst justice in the history of the Supreme Court

hah hah hah hah hah Taney hah hah hah hah

you dramatic idiot

Ibanez wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Jon doesn't sit on the highest court in the country.

Oh, in that case, hypocrisy is totally acceptable.

No, but his personal beliefs and bias don't affect the lives of 300 million people. See the difference?

Chizzang wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:I want freedom from mayo. I just went to a sub shop and am tired of seeing "...oil & vinegar, and mayo..." listed. Who the hell put these together? It should be either/or, not both.

Oh, and next time ask me if I want it hot or cold. Don't assume I want it hot.

You really (really) need to work on your analogies a lot...
That is so dumb I feel dumber having spent the 3 seconds reading it

You fascinate me Flag
Sometimes you sound almost normal and other times the post is so dumb I think you're punking everybody

Mostly punking with a pinch of seriousness. Much like stereotypes.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
You really (really) need to work on your analogies a lot...
That is so dumb I feel dumber having spent the 3 seconds reading it

You fascinate me Flag
Sometimes you sound almost normal and other times the post is so dumb I think you're punking everybody

Mostly punking with a pinch of seriousness. Much like stereotypes.

Right...
But Mayo isn't a belief system - it's a sandwich spread
Religion is a way of classifying and separating humans and should NEVER creep into politics

Chizzang wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Mostly punking with a pinch of seriousness. Much like stereotypes.

Right...
But Mayo isn't a belief system - it's a sandwich spread
Religion is a way of classifying and separating humans and should NEVER creep into politics

True. I never meant that to be an analogy, just a hijack.

Pwns wrote:There is no freedom from religion. Next question.

Do go on...

CC to cleets: Flaggy can't think when he's hungry, which is 99.9% of the time, so he just posts about food, instead.

Grizalltheway wrote:CC to cleets: Flaggy can't think when he's hungry, which is 99.9% of the time, so he just posts about food, instead.

Hey Pablo, don't you have a cliff to jump off?

kalm wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:He's 100 percent correct on this point. The problem is many of his critics don't really understand what he is saying (which is typical -- Scalia's opinions are routinely distorted by his critics).

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."

The words "wall of separation between church and state" appear nowhere in the Constitution. And Jefferson is not the Constitution.

Scalia is correct that the Constitution requires the state to protect freedom of religion. Nothing in the Constitution protects "freedom from religion" or requires the state to do so. The state may choose to do so, but it is not constitutionally required.

As Justice Black observed in his brilliant dissent in Griswold: "One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning."

The words "separation of church and state" and "freedom from religion" appear nowhere in the First Amendment. The words: "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" do appear in the First Amendment.

What is funny is how many people think Scalia is "wacked" for declaring with 100% accuracy what the First Amendment says.

Chizzang wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Mostly punking with a pinch of seriousness. Much like stereotypes.

Right...
But Mayo isn't a belief system - it's a sandwich spread
Religion is a way of classifying and separating humans and should NEVER creep into politics

Ok, now think about this statement:

Defending his strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution,

In other words, the author of the article is saying that what he's saying is what the Constitution actually says.

Gee. What a concept. We say the Constitution says what it actually says. You write a set of rules then you proceed according to what the rules actually say.

IMAGINE THAT!!!!