Scalia: Theocrat

Political discussions
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69148
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by kalm »

"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country."

- George Washington

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by [Religious] Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in history."

– James Madison

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

– Benjamin Franklin

:coffee:



:lol:
Image
Image
Image
JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 7050
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by JoltinJoe »

None of that has anything to do with what we discussed, but if you think it does, it just goes to show you don't really understand the point.

So thanks for posting that. :thumb:
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60519
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by Ibanez »

Invoking a deity in your deceleration of independence doesn't mean you are creating a country based on religion. "Nature's God" is a Deist idea, written by a Deist. Also, Deism rejects revealed religions (e.g., Catholicism, Baptists, etc...)

I think the problem is that people read the Declaration and assume we're founding a country. No. The Declaration says, " Screw you George, we're breaking up with you and here are the reasons why." It severed the ties between England and the Colonies. It did not establish a separate government. We were not founded to be a Christian nation. We are a nation that allows you to practice what you want (a concept lost on all those that protest and disturb other religious observances.)

So break it down for the dummies. We can all agree that:

The Declaration of Independence - List of grievances to justify secession from England
The Constitution of the US - Document that establishes the gov't of the United States with no references to God.
Spoiler: show
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. God isn't in the Preamble to the Constitution nor is it anywhere in the document.
Also, I guess we should consider the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the US Senate and signed by John Adams, he himself a founder of the country:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries
Gotta make those Arabs happy, right. Damn Barbary pirates!

One historian has noted, pertaining to Article 11:
By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.
~ Frank Lambert in his book, The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. It's a good book.
Last edited by Ibanez on Mon Oct 06, 2014 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69148
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by kalm »

JoltinJoe wrote:None of that has anything to do with what we discussed, but if you think it does, it just goes to show you don't really understand the point.

So thanks for posting that. :thumb:
Another peddle backwards for you, so let's simplify things so you can follow along.

Read Ibanez's excellent post below. Everyone is protected from religion just like everyone has the right to practice their own.

:nod:
Image
Image
Image
JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 7050
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by JoltinJoe »

:rofl:

Dude, Ibanez's post supports me, not you.

Let's cut to the chase.

By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion.

There is no freedom FROM religion in the Constitution.

Why is this so hard for you?
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69148
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by kalm »

JoltinJoe wrote::rofl:

Dude, Ibanez's post supports me, not you.

Let's cut to the chase.

By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion.

There is no freedom FROM religion in the Constitution.

Why is this so hard for you?
So a person's right to not believe isn't protected? :dunce: :lol:
Image
Image
Image
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60519
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by Ibanez »

kalm wrote:
JoltinJoe wrote::rofl:

Dude, Ibanez's post supports me, not you.

Let's cut to the chase.

By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion.

There is no freedom FROM religion in the Constitution.

Why is this so hard for you?
So a person's right to not believe isn't protected? :dunce: :lol:
It is protected. You can believe what ever you want.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69148
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by kalm »

Ibanez wrote:
kalm wrote:
So a person's right to not believe isn't protected? :dunce: :lol:
It is protected. You can believe what ever you want.
:nod:
Image
Image
Image
JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 7050
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by JoltinJoe »

kalm wrote:
Ibanez wrote:
It is protected. You can believe what ever you want.
:nod:
This is too funny. People correct you, and you seem to think they are supporting you. :lol:

You can believe what you want; however, you don't have any right to be free from public displays of affirmative belief, unless that display is government-sanctioned and favors one religious belief over another (i.e., tends to "establish" that religion).

Again, there is no freedom FROM religion in the constitution.
Last edited by JoltinJoe on Mon Oct 06, 2014 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 7050
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by JoltinJoe »

kalm wrote:
JoltinJoe wrote::rofl:

Dude, Ibanez's post supports me, not you.

Let's cut to the chase.

By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion.

There is no freedom FROM religion in the Constitution.

Why is this so hard for you?
So a person's right to not believe isn't protected? :dunce: :lol:
OMG, you're dumb. :(
User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19274
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Palermo Italy

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by Chizzang »

JoltinJoe wrote:
kalm wrote:
:nod:
This is too funny. People correct you, and you seem to think they are supporting you. :lol:

You can believe what you want; however, you don't have any right to be free from public displays of affirmative belief, unless that display is government-sanctioned and favors one religious belief over another (i.e., tends to "establish" that religion).

Again, there is no freedom FROM religion in the constitution.
I affirm that ANY display of a religious device - approved by government - is affirmation from the Government
and thus and example of the Government supporting a religion
Which is strictly forbidden


Its simple actually

:coffee:
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 7050
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by JoltinJoe »

It's not that simple.

But I don't expect you to get it either. :coffee:
CAA Flagship
4th&29
4th&29
Posts: 38529
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 pm
I am a fan of: Old Dominion
A.K.A.: He/His/Him/Himself
Location: Pizza Hell

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by CAA Flagship »

Chizzang wrote:
JoltinJoe wrote:
This is too funny. People correct you, and you seem to think they are supporting you. :lol:

You can believe what you want; however, you don't have any right to be free from public displays of affirmative belief, unless that display is government-sanctioned and favors one religious belief over another (i.e., tends to "establish" that religion).

Again, there is no freedom FROM religion in the constitution.
I affirm that ANY display of a religious device - approved by government - is affirmation from the Government
and thus and example of the Government supporting a religion
Which is strictly forbidden


Its simple actually

:coffee:
Federal and State employees should work on Christmas. :coffee:
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69148
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by kalm »

JoltinJoe wrote:
kalm wrote:
:nod:
This is too funny. People correct you, and you seem to think they are supporting you. :lol:

You can believe what you want; however, you don't have any right to be free from public displays of affirmative belief, unless that display is government-sanctioned and favors one religious belief over another (i.e., tends to "establish" that religion).

Again, there is no freedom FROM religion in the constitution.
You think this is what we're arguing? :rofl:

You think this constitutes "freedom from religion"? :rofl: :rofl:

You thin Ibanez was arguing with me? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Image
Image
Image
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69148
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by kalm »

JoltinJoe wrote:
kalm wrote:
So a person's right to not believe isn't protected? :dunce: :lol:
OMG, you're dumb. :(
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Breath...

Like I said, Joe, anytime you need further help figuring this stuff out , I'm here for ya. :nod:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
89Hen
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 39283
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I am a fan of: High Horses
A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by 89Hen »

Chizzang wrote:I affirm that ANY display of a religious device - approved by government - is affirmation from the Government
and thus and example of the Government supporting a religion
Which is strictly forbidden


Its simple actually

:coffee:
Image
Image
Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by Baldy »

I'm calling 9-1-1...Joe's using kalm's face as a speed bag. :ohno:
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69148
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by kalm »

Baldy wrote:I'm calling 9-1-1...Joe's using kalm's face as a speed bag. :ohno:
Yeah, that's what's happening. :lol:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
CitadelGrad
Level4
Level4
Posts: 5210
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:19 pm
I am a fan of: Jack Kerouac
A.K.A.: El Cid
Location: St. Louis

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by CitadelGrad »

Chizzang wrote:
JoltinJoe wrote:
This is too funny. People correct you, and you seem to think they are supporting you. :lol:

You can believe what you want; however, you don't have any right to be free from public displays of affirmative belief, unless that display is government-sanctioned and favors one religious belief over another (i.e., tends to "establish" that religion).

Again, there is no freedom FROM religion in the constitution.
I affirm that ANY display of a religious device - approved by government - is affirmation from the Government
and thus and example of the Government supporting a religion
Which is strictly forbidden


Its simple actually

:coffee:
Not that simple really. The Constitution prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion, but it doesn't prohibit, say, municipalities from posting the ten commandments in a court house or constructing a nativity scene in a public square.

Does posting the ten commandments in a court house discourage a Buddhist from practicing his religion? I doubt that it ever has. Does a nativity scene in a public park force an atheist to become a Baptist? I doubt that has ever happened either.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787

Image
CAA Flagship
4th&29
4th&29
Posts: 38529
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 pm
I am a fan of: Old Dominion
A.K.A.: He/His/Him/Himself
Location: Pizza Hell

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by CAA Flagship »

Image
JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 7050
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by JoltinJoe »

kalm wrote:
You think this is what we're arguing? :rofl:
:ugeek:

Uh, yea.
kalm wrote:So…we are not constitutionally protected by freedom from religion? :?
Let me try to explain this one more time, dumb dumb.

There is a constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion. Period. Obvious.

The government cannot establish a religion, which has been universally understood to mean that the government can not endorse or favor one religion over another. Period. Obvious (to everyone but you).

There is no constitutional right to freedom from religion. Period. Obvious (to everyone but you).

Courts occasionally rule that government action pertaining to religion amounts to an endorsement of a religion, and restrict the government from future acts of that nature. Now here is the tricky part: THAT does not amount to a personal right, on your part, or on the part of anyone else, to be "free" from religion. THAT action by the Court was taken because, in the Court's judgment, the government action amounted to an endorsement of a specific religion (meaning, the government violated the Establishment Clause, a specific restriction on its power, not that the government violated any of your rights).

The First Amendment's language pertaining to religion involves two things: (i) a recognition that the people possess a right to freedom of religion; and (ii) a restriction on the government's authority to establish an official state religion.
Got it? Now go re-read Ibanez's post. If you post on this subject again, we will lose what little respect we have left for you. :coffee:
Ibanez wrote: We were not founded to be a Christian nation. We are a nation that allows you to practice what you want (a concept lost on all those that protest and disturb other religious observances.)
Now do you still want to protest and disturb state-allowed observances of religion??
CAA Flagship
4th&29
4th&29
Posts: 38529
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 pm
I am a fan of: Old Dominion
A.K.A.: He/His/Him/Himself
Location: Pizza Hell

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by CAA Flagship »

The Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, Chaplain, U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Capitol, Room HB25, Washington, DC 20515-6655
Phone: (202) 225-2509

http://chaplain.house.gov/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69148
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by kalm »

JoltinJoe wrote:
kalm wrote:
You think this is what we're arguing? :rofl:
:ugeek:

Uh, yea.
kalm wrote:So…we are not constitutionally protected by freedom from religion? :?
Let me try to explain this one more time, dumb dumb.

There is a constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion. Period. Obvious.

The government cannot establish a religion, which has been universally understood to mean that the government can not endorse or favor one religion over another. Period. Obvious (to everyone but you).

There is no constitutional right to freedom from religion. Period. Obvious (to everyone but you).

Courts occasionally rule that government action pertaining to religion amounts to an endorsement of a religion, and restrict the government from future acts of that nature. Now here is the tricky part: THAT does not amount to a personal right, on your part, or on the part of anyone else, to be "free" from religion. THAT action by the Court was taken because, in the Court's judgment, the government action amounted to an endorsement of a specific religion (meaning, the government violated the Establishment Clause, a specific restriction on its power, not that the government violated any of your rights).

The First Amendment's language pertaining to religion involves two things: (i) a recognition that the people possess a right to freedom of religion; and (ii) a restriction on the government's authority to establish an official state religion.
Got it? Now go re-read Ibanez's post. If you post on this subject again, we will lose what little respect we have left for you. :coffee:
Ibanez wrote: We were not founded to be a Christian nation. We are a nation that allows you to practice what you want (a concept lost on all those that protest and disturb other religious observances.)
Now do you still want to protest and disturb state-allowed observances of religion??
Now Joe, name calling and elitism don't help your argument one darn bit. :ohno:

This one should be easy for you to win. :thumb:

Let's reframe the debate:

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.
Where does the constitution say anything about non-religion? Please define "religion." Please define "non-religion"…according to the constitution.
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.
This might be our hang up here and I apologize for not being more clear (see, that's a nice way of debating and admitting to your role in a misunderstanding rather than being an arrogant and semi-retarded dick about it). Scalia is interpreting the establishment clause to fit his faith. One could easily construe that the framers meant that religion had no place in the public sphere - if by public sphere, he means public buildings etc.

REASONABLE people (of which Scalia clearly is not) can make an argument either way. But then part of that argument has to be what defines religion and non-religion, which, for simpleton…oops, I mean strict constructionists like Scalia, opens up a whole other can of worms. Allowing Flying Spaghetti Monster statues, defending the right of states to invoke sharia law, etc.

Again, the clearly easiest path is to not bleed religion into the the public square. As Franklin suggested, if you're religion is strong, you don't need it.

And from a big picture standpoint, I'm still pretty sure a person's constitutional right to freedom from religion is intact. :mrgreen: :kisswink:
Image
Image
Image
CAA Flagship
4th&29
4th&29
Posts: 38529
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 pm
I am a fan of: Old Dominion
A.K.A.: He/His/Him/Himself
Location: Pizza Hell

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by CAA Flagship »

Serious question:
When has Scalia actually ruled in a manner that matches his speeches?
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69148
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Scalia: Theocrat

Post by kalm »

CAA Flagship wrote:Serious question:
When has Scalia actually ruled in a manner that matches his speeches?
Gore V. Bush
Image
Image
Image
Post Reply