Scalia: Theocrat

[kalm]

"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.

Wait a second, weren't you just recently suggesting reading the Federalist Papers to better understand the constitution? News flash: the federalist papers appear no where in the constitution either.

The establishment clause (which comes first), clearly infers that government cannot write laws that establish any religion. As a brief aside…for those who claim atheism is a religion (Joltin Joe?), you've just lost the argument right here. If not, please define the constitutional meaning of religion and who gets to determine what is, or is not.

Like it or not, the US was founded on secularism. Our founding was based on ideas and reason rather than divine rights. I think that's pretty fucking cool. Too bad that people like Scalia are so insecure in their faith that they must distort the intent of the founders.

[houndawg]

"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.

What about the religions that don't think there is a god?

[CAA Flagship]

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.

What about the religions that don't think there is a god?

What about them?

[kalm]

What about the religions that don't think there is a god?

What about them?

Well, since we have a secular government, their rights are equal. This is where Scalia is wrong.

[CAA Flagship]

What about them?

Well, since we have a secular government, their rights are equal. This is where Scalia is wrong.

Their rights are on display everywhere. It is visible on every blank space on a flagpole, on a wall, on a lawn, on a door, etc. If they have an item that represents your beliefs, bring it forward and I'm sure it will be put on display. Stop being pussies. Geesh.

[kalm]

Well, since we have a secular government, their rights are equal. This is where Scalia is wrong.

Their rights are on display everywhere. It is visible on every blank space on a flagpole, on a wall, on a lawn, on a door, etc. If they have an item that represents your beliefs, bring it forward and I'm sure it will be put on display. Stop being pussies. Geesh.

[houndawg]

Well, since we have a secular government, their rights are equal. This is where Scalia is wrong.

Their rights are on display everywhere. It is visible on every blank space on a flagpole, on a wall, on a lawn, on a door, etc. If they have an item that represents your beliefs, bring it forward and I'm sure it will be put on display. Stop being pussies. Geesh.

That all you got?

[JoltinJoe]

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.

Wait a second, weren't you just recently suggesting reading the Federalist Papers to better understand the constitution? News flash: the federalist papers appear no where in the constitution either.

The establishment clause (which comes first), clearly infers that government cannot write laws that establish any religion. As a brief aside…for those who claim atheism is a religion (Joltin Joe?), you've just lost the argument right here. If not, please define the constitutional meaning of religion and who gets to determine what is, or is not.

Like it or not, the US was founded on secularism. Our founding was based on ideas and reason rather than divine rights. I think that's pretty **** cool. Too bad that people like Scalia are so insecure in their faith that they must distort the intent of the founders.

You are wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

First, the debatable Jefferson quote, if legitimate, is NOT from The Federalist Papers. It is allegedly from a letter he wrote in 1806, and its legitimacy is doubted by many. Whatever.

Second, I've never said atheism is a religion. I have called it an "internet cult" on some occasions (usually to piss off D1B), a belief system, or a value system (especially when discussing secular humanism). But I have never called atheism a religion.

Third, the establishment clause prevents the government from either establishing a state religion or engaging in acts tending to endorse one religion over another.

It does not prevent the government from favoring general religious belief. It does not require the government to favor general religious belief.

In order for you to try to win this point, YOU would have to claim that atheism is a religion, and that government cannot therefore favor the religion of belief over the religion of non-belief.

But that's a house of cards which collapses when reviewed logically. It simply isn't possible for the government to be "neutral" in such a debate. The moment it decides to favor the "religion of faith," it has violated your reading of the establishment. The moment it thus decides to banish all generic religious expression, it is thereby favoring the "religion of non-belief," and thus violating your reading of the establishment clause by favoring "the religion of non-belief" over "the religion of belief."

You cannot logically interpret the First Amendment the way you do. You advocate for an interpretation of the First Amendment which is impossible for the government to obey.

As I said earlier, Scalia is correct when he says that 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. In other words, the state may or may not, at its discretion, favor belief over non-belief (or favor non-belief over belief).

[houndawg]

Wait a second, weren't you just recently suggesting reading the Federalist Papers to better understand the constitution? News flash: the federalist papers appear no where in the constitution either.

The establishment clause (which comes first), clearly infers that government cannot write laws that establish any religion. As a brief aside…for those who claim atheism is a religion (Joltin Joe?), you've just lost the argument right here. If not, please define the constitutional meaning of religion and who gets to determine what is, or is not.

Like it or not, the US was founded on secularism. Our founding was based on ideas and reason rather than divine rights. I think that's pretty **** cool. Too bad that people like Scalia are so insecure in their faith that they must distort the intent of the founders.

You are wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

First, the debatable Jefferson quote, if legitimate, is NOT from The Federalist Papers. It is allegedly from a letter he wrote in 1806, and its legitimacy is doubted by many. Whatever.

Second, I've never said atheism is a religion. I have called it an "internet cult" on some occasions (usually to piss off D1B), a belief system, or a value system (especially when discussing secular humanism). But I have never called atheism a religion.

Third, the establishment clause prevents the government from either establishing a state religion or engaging in acts tending to endorse one religion over another.

It does not prevent the government from favoring general religious belief. It does not require the government to favor general religious belief.

In order for you to try to win this point, YOU would have to claim that atheism is a religion, and that government cannot therefore favor the religion of belief over the religion of non-belief.

But that's a house of cards which collapses when reviewed logically. It simply isn't possible for the government to be "neutral" in such a debate. The moment it decides to favor the "religion of faith," it has violated your reading of the establishment. The moment it thus decides to banish all generic religious expression, it is thereby favoring the "religion of non-belief," and thus violating your reading of the establishment clause by favoring "the religion of non-belief" over "the religion of belief."

You cannot logically interpret the First Amendment the way you do. You advocate for an interpretation of the First Amendment which is impossible for the government to obey.

As I said earlier, Scalia is correct when he says that 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. In other words, the state may or may not, at its discretion, favor belief over non-belief (or favor non-belief over belief).

What makes it not a religion?

[Ibanez]

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?

So that makes it ok?

[DSUrocks07]

You are wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

First, the debatable Jefferson quote, if legitimate, is NOT from The Federalist Papers. It is allegedly from a letter he wrote in 1806, and its legitimacy is doubted by many. Whatever.

Second, I've never said atheism is a religion. I have called it an "internet cult" on some occasions (usually to piss off D1B), a belief system, or a value system (especially when discussing secular humanism). But I have never called atheism a religion.

Third, the establishment clause prevents the government from either establishing a state religion or engaging in acts tending to endorse one religion over another.

It does not prevent the government from favoring general religious belief. It does not require the government to favor general religious belief.

In order for you to try to win this point, YOU would have to claim that atheism is a religion, and that government cannot therefore favor the religion of belief over the religion of non-belief.

But that's a house of cards which collapses when reviewed logically. It simply isn't possible for the government to be "neutral" in such a debate. The moment it decides to favor the "religion of faith," it has violated your reading of the establishment. The moment it thus decides to banish all generic religious expression, it is thereby favoring the "religion of non-belief," and thus violating your reading of the establishment clause by favoring "the religion of non-belief" over "the religion of belief."

You cannot logically interpret the First Amendment the way you do. You advocate for an interpretation of the First Amendment which is impossible for the government to obey.

As I said earlier, Scalia is correct when he says that 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. In other words, the state may or may not, at its discretion, favor belief over non-belief (or favor non-belief over belief).

What makes it not a religion?

The fact that atheists claim its not a religion...

[kalm]

Wait a second, weren't you just recently suggesting reading the Federalist Papers to better understand the constitution? News flash: the federalist papers appear no where in the constitution either.

The establishment clause (which comes first), clearly infers that government cannot write laws that establish any religion. As a brief aside…for those who claim atheism is a religion (Joltin Joe?), you've just lost the argument right here. If not, please define the constitutional meaning of religion and who gets to determine what is, or is not.

Like it or not, the US was founded on secularism. Our founding was based on ideas and reason rather than divine rights. I think that's pretty **** cool. Too bad that people like Scalia are so insecure in their faith that they must distort the intent of the founders.

You are wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

First, the debatable Jefferson quote, if legitimate, is NOT from The Federalist Papers. It is allegedly from a letter he wrote in 1806, and its legitimacy is doubted by many. Whatever. I didn't say it was from the FP's, my point is that in one instance it's ok for JSO to suggest searching for additional meaning, while in the other it's not. You could provide a link to doubts regarding it's legitimacy…but whatever.

Second, I've never said atheism is a religion. I have called it an "internet cult" on some occasions (usually to piss off D1B), a belief system, or a value system (especially when discussing secular humanism). But I have never called atheism a religion. My apologies, many on here have.

Third, the establishment clause prevents the government from either establishing a state religion or engaging in acts tending to endorse one religion over another. Wrong, it merely says the former…that is, if we want to go all Scalia on it. The problem is that leads to a further desire to interpret like you are doing here. So it's simply your opinion of what they meant.

It does not prevent the government from favoring general religious belief. Again, that's your opinion because that's how you'd like to see it. There are many written examples and the historical background for the founders to mean, government should stay the fuck out of religion and religion should stay the fuck out of government. In, fact, in Kalm's constitution, that's exactly how it would be worded. :nod: It does not require the government to favor general religious belief.

In order for you to try to win this point, YOU would have to claim that atheism is a religion, and that government cannot therefore favor the religion of belief over the religion of non-belief.

But that's a house of cards which collapses when reviewed logically. It simply isn't possible for the government to be "neutral" in such a debate. The moment it decides to favor the "religion of faith," it has violated your reading of the establishment. The moment it thus decides to banish all generic religious expression, it is thereby favoring the "religion of non-belief," and thus violating your reading of the establishment clause by favoring "the religion of non-belief" over "the religion of belief." The word "favor" does not appear in the establishment clause and nobody is suggesting that. Government isn't required to do anything other than "make no laws...

You cannot logically interpret the First Amendment the way you do. You advocate for an interpretation of the First Amendment which is impossible for the government to obey. You've been interpreting it all along

As I said earlier, Scalia is correct when he says that 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. In other words, the state may or may not, at its discretion, favor belief over non-belief (or favor non-belief over belief). In your opinion. The founders were men of the enlightenment who clearly understood the importance of freedom of thought and the dangers of religious influence on government. Again we were founded on an idea not on religion and we were the first country in the world without a state church. I'm sure that disappoints you and Scalia.

[kalm]

You are wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

First, the debatable Jefferson quote, if legitimate, is NOT from The Federalist Papers. It is allegedly from a letter he wrote in 1806, and its legitimacy is doubted by many. Whatever.

Second, I've never said atheism is a religion. I have called it an "internet cult" on some occasions (usually to piss off D1B), a belief system, or a value system (especially when discussing secular humanism). But I have never called atheism a religion.

Third, the establishment clause prevents the government from either establishing a state religion or engaging in acts tending to endorse one religion over another.

It does not prevent the government from favoring general religious belief. It does not require the government to favor general religious belief.

In order for you to try to win this point, YOU would have to claim that atheism is a religion, and that government cannot therefore favor the religion of belief over the religion of non-belief.

But that's a house of cards which collapses when reviewed logically. It simply isn't possible for the government to be "neutral" in such a debate. The moment it decides to favor the "religion of faith," it has violated your reading of the establishment. The moment it thus decides to banish all generic religious expression, it is thereby favoring the "religion of non-belief," and thus violating your reading of the establishment clause by favoring "the religion of non-belief" over "the religion of belief."

You cannot logically interpret the First Amendment the way you do. You advocate for an interpretation of the First Amendment which is impossible for the government to obey.

As I said earlier, Scalia is correct when he says that 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. In other words, the state may or may not, at its discretion, favor belief over non-belief (or favor non-belief over belief).

What makes it not a religion?

Scalia's interpretation.

Why didn't those revolutionary idiots define religion in the constitution?

I wonder if animistic faiths like the Native Americans had were considered a religion back then?

I know JJ doesn't consider them one now.

[CAA Flagship]

Their rights are on display everywhere. It is visible on every blank space on a flagpole, on a wall, on a lawn, on a door, etc. If they have an item that represents your beliefs, bring it forward and I'm sure it will be put on display. Stop being pussies. Geesh.

That all you got?

Congrats. You are improving!!!!!
I thought your head would be spinning for at least 3 days before you could respond.
Keep up the good work.

[travelinman67]

...Like it or not, the US was founded on secularism. Our founding was based on ideas and reason rather than divine rights. I think that's pretty fucking cool...

Lie. Repeat lie. Lie again. Keep repeating lie. Hope lie is eventually allowed to exist without challenge.

Not today.

Kalm, America WAS NOT founded on secularism.

[kalm]

...Like it or not, the US was founded on secularism. Our founding was based on ideas and reason rather than divine rights. I think that's pretty fucking cool...

Lie. Repeat lie. Lie again. Keep repeating lie. Hope lie is eventually allowed to exist without challenge.

Not today.

Kalm, America WAS NOT founded on secularism.

It most certainly was and I know that's a real sore spot for people like Scalia.

Good fucking god, read your history.

[travelinman67]

Lie. Repeat lie. Lie again. Keep repeating lie. Hope lie is eventually allowed to exist without challenge.

Not today.

Kalm, America WAS NOT founded on secularism.

It most certainly was and I know that's a real sore spot for people like Scalia.

Good fucking god, read your history.

HuffPo is not "history", Kalm.

Read. Learn.

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

First two sentences of The Declaration of Independence clearly state that the Rights of Man protected by our constitution are conferred by "Nature's God" and "The Creator".

Can't get more founding than that, Dawkins.

[JoltinJoe]

kalm is talking out his ass.

Ignore.

[kalm]

kalm is talking out his ass.

Ignore.

How does it feel being owned by a rec management major from a directional school, Joe? Surrender accepted.

[kalm]

It most certainly was and I know that's a real sore spot for people like Scalia.

Good fucking god, read your history.

HuffPo is not "history", Kalm.

Read. Learn.

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

First two sentences of The Declaration of Independence clearly state that the Rights of Man protected by our constitution are conferred by "Nature's God" and "The Creator".

Can't get more founding than that, Dawkins.

I see you're taking a longer than usual trip on the struggle bus today.

Go research "Nature's God and Nature" then get back to us.

We are and always have been a secular nation. If that invalidates your god or love of America, I truly pity you.

[JoltinJoe]

kalm is talking out his ass.

Ignore.

How does it feel being owned by a rec management major from a directional school, Joe? Surrender accepted.

Owned?

Your last response to me didn't even make sense.

I thought young terrier took over your account.

BTW, the fact that the First Amendment not only bars the establishment of a state religion, but also prohibits the state from favoring one religion over another is so well established that I laughed out loud when you purported to correct me.

[travelinman67]

HuffPo is not "history", Kalm.

Read. Learn.

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

First two sentences of The Declaration of Independence clearly state that the Rights of Man protected by our constitution are conferred by "Nature's God" and "The Creator".

Can't get more founding than that, Dawkins.

I've got nothing.

FIFY






Lie. Repeat lie. Lie again....

[travelinman67]

How does it feel being owned by a rec management major from a directional school, Joe? Surrender accepted.

Owned?

Your last response to me didn't even make sense.

I thought young terrier took over your account.

BTW, the fact that the First Amendment not only bars the establishment of a state religion, but also prohibits the state from favoring one religion over another is so well established that I laughed out loud when you purported to correct me.

No amount of evidence will ever convince Klam...

...it's a liberal thang.

Why do we waste our time, Joe?

[kalm]

How does it feel being owned by a rec management major from a directional school, Joe? Surrender accepted.

Owned?

Your last response to me didn't even make sense.

I thought young terrier took over your account.

BTW, the fact that the First Amendment not only bars the establishment of a state religion, but also prohibits the state from favoring one religion over another is so well established that I laughed out loud when you purported to correct me.

Um yeah, it was kind of difficult responding to that JSOesque polemic.

So you and I agree that the state prohibits favoring one religion over another. Let me know if you'd like to reframe the rest of the argument about how Scalia is wrong and America was founded as a secular nation.

I'm always here for ya, bud.

[kalm]

Owned?

Your last response to me didn't even make sense.

I thought young terrier took over your account.

BTW, the fact that the First Amendment not only bars the establishment of a state religion, but also prohibits the state from favoring one religion over another is so well established that I laughed out loud when you purported to correct me.

No amount of evidence will ever convince Klam...

...it's a liberal thang.

Why do we waste our time, Joe?

You probably shouldn't. Go back to stroking it to pictures of Reagan…it's much safer for you.