Scalia: Theocrat

[CAA Flagship]

Serious question:
When has Scalia actually ruled in a manner that matches his speeches?

Gore V. Bush

And we are better for it.
But he wasn't the only one was he?

[JohnStOnge]

Guys, they were holding Church services in the House Chamber shortly after the First Amendment was ratified. You can quote snippets from various people all you want. But it's clear from the way things were done that they did not interpret the First Amendment Establishment Clause as the kind of "separation of Church and State" we have today. If they were thinking ANYTHING like what perverse "interpretations" of the Judiciary have established over the years there is no WAY they'd have shortly thereafter hired Christian Chaplains and held Christian church services in the House Chamber. And Thomas Jefferson was fine with what they did because nobody was forced to go to the services. The idea that there was any intent to end up with a situation whereby local governments couldn't say prayers before public meetings is absolutely ridiculous.

Then you just look at what the thing actually says. It says the Congress of the United States can't make a law with respect to the establishment of religion. That's it. It is painfully obvious that all sorts of things that are not laws made by the Congress of the United States or any other legislative body have been banned. It's OBVIOUS that the actual language of the Establishment Clause does not prohibit those things.

[kalm]

Gore V. Bush

And we are better for it.
But he wasn't the only one was he?

No, I'm pretty sure all of the state's rights constructionists voted for Bush.

[CAA Flagship]

And we are better for it.
But he wasn't the only one was he?

No, I'm pretty sure all of the state's rights constructionists voted for Bush.

Yeah, yeah. Now stay on topic. Has he ruled on this issue of religion?

[kalm]

No, I'm pretty sure all of the state's rights constructionists voted for Bush.

Yeah, yeah. Now stay on topic. Has he ruled on this issue of religion?

Why are you asking me? I've seen enough of his inconsistency to dismiss him (I think i remember some nefarious corporate associations as well, but I'm too lazy to look them up).

Try his BFF, Joltin Joe. He gets Tony. He thinks he's the bees knees.

[CAA Flagship]

Yeah, yeah. Now stay on topic. Has he ruled on this issue of religion?

Why are you asking me? I've seen enough of his inconsistency to dismiss him (I think i remember some nefarious corporate associations as well, but I'm too lazy to look them up).

Try his BFF, Joltin Joe. He gets Tony. He thinks he's the bees knees.

Didn't you start the shitball fight? I'm trying to understand if this is a real problem for some people or a potential problem. If it's a potential one, then I would say there are real problems to worry about.

[kalm]

Why are you asking me? I've seen enough of his inconsistency to dismiss him (I think i remember some nefarious corporate associations as well, but I'm too lazy to look them up).

Try his BFF, Joltin Joe. He gets Tony. He thinks he's the bees knees.

Didn't you start the shitball fight? I'm trying to understand if this is a real problem for some people or a potential problem. If it's a potential one, then I would say there are real problems to worry about.

No, it's not a real problem. It's what bored first world people do to try and prove their intellectual superiority (or in the case of Fordham grads, there over-rated lack there of) while keeping an eye on whether Doug Baldwin is going to out-score Percy Harvin.

[CAA Flagship]

Didn't you start the shitball fight? I'm trying to understand if this is a real problem for some people or a potential problem. If it's a potential one, then I would say there are real problems to worry about.

No, it's not a real problem. It's what bored first world people do to try and prove their intellectual superiority (or in the case of Fordham grads, there over-rated lack there of) while keeping an eye on whether Doug Baldwin is going to out-score Percy Harvin.

You shut your whore mouth. My Skins are only down 7 and have the ball.

[kalm]

No, it's not a real problem. It's what bored first world people do to try and prove their intellectual superiority (or in the case of Fordham grads, there over-rated lack there of) while keeping an eye on whether Doug Baldwin is going to out-score Percy Harvin.

You shut your whore mouth. My Skins are only down 7 and have the ball.

Not any more! I have Baldwin and my opponent has Harvin. This shit just got real bitch!

[CAA Flagship]

You shut your whore mouth. My Skins are only down 7 and have the ball.

Not any more! I have Baldwin and my opponent has Harvin. This shit just got real bitch!

So that means you have the Seattle O-line. They are doing a great job of keeping Harvin out of the endzone.

[Grizalltheway]

Didn't you start the shitball fight? I'm trying to understand if this is a real problem for some people or a potential problem. If it's a potential one, then I would say there are real problems to worry about.

No, it's not a real problem. It's what bored first world people do to try and prove their intellectual superiority (or in the case of Fordham grads, there over-rated lack there of) while keeping an eye on whether Doug Baldwin is going to out-score Percy Harvin.

Just thought I'd pop in to say

Spoiler: show

*their

[kalm]

No, it's not a real problem. It's what bored first world people do to try and prove their intellectual superiority (or in the case of Fordham grads, there over-rated lack there of) while keeping an eye on whether Doug Baldwin is going to out-score Percy Harvin.

Just thought I'd pop in to say

Spoiler: show

*their

I batted .500.

Oh...and I hate you...

[Grizalltheway]

Sorry, I can't help my national socialist tendencies.

[JoltinJoe]

Let's reframe the debate:

That's the least artful retreat I've ever seen on these boards.

Where does the constitution say anything about non-religion?

Oh, I get it. By "reframe the debate," you mean you are going to argue what I've been arguing, because that's been my point all along.

And from a big picture standpoint, I'm still pretty sure a person's constitutional right to freedom from religion is intact.

Everyone in this thread is trying to tell you the same thing. That the First Amendment has never been construed to prevent the government's support of generic, non-sectarian expressions of religion: Christmas stamps; Christmas trees on public property; chaplains on public payrolls; non-sectarian prayer before public services. As Scalia pointed out, the constitution does not forbid these type of non-sectarian expressions of religion or religious faith. There is no freedom FROM religion.

[kalm]

Let's reframe the debate:

That's the least artful retreat I've ever seen on these boards.

Where does the constitution say anything about non-religion?

Oh, I get it. By "reframe the debate," you mean you are going to argue what I've been arguing, because that's been my point all along.

And from a big picture standpoint, I'm still pretty sure a person's constitutional right to freedom from religion is intact.

Everyone in this thread is trying to tell you the same thing. That the First Amendment has never been construed to prevent the government's support of generic, non-sectarian expressions of religion: Christmas stamps; Christmas trees on public property; chaplains on public payrolls; non-sectarian prayer before public services. As Scalia pointed out, the constitution does not forbid these type of non-sectarian expressions of religion or religious faith. There is no freedom FROM religion.

Joe, get to bed, it's late. In the morning I'll tell you a story.

[JoltinJoe]

[D1B]

Joe, Kalm has got you by the clitorus.

Nice work, Kalm et al.

[JoltinJoe]

Joe, Kalm has got you by the clitorus..

Yea, that about sums it up, since I don't have a clitorus.

[kalm]

Good morning, Joe.

Funny you should post that pic…

My 11 year old's flag football team was without a coach, so one of the mom's took up the duty and I was begged to help out as she knew very little about football. Despite an extremely busy fall schedule, I reluctantly accepted the task.

I had to miss the first game (which we won) so my first experience was this past weekend when we took on Airway Heights. Airway Heights is a town adjacent to Fairchild Air Force Base and also is home to a huge indian casino and a corrections facility. You might say it's the other side of the tracks and their youth sports teams are known for their hostile parents, large dirty playing kids who, judging by their facial hair may have struggled with graduating from elementary school , and aggressive/thuggish coaches.

As we're warming up on Saturday, the opposing coach was walking by our team during warm-up and without making eye contact, passive aggressively goes into a loud rant about how our team has the wrong flags…that according to 4-Rec rule 6b-1 all belts must have break-away mechanisms with two side flags and one rear flag…that maybe he has enough regulation flags that we can use but he's not sure…and how Cheney Parks and Rec tried to pull this bullshit on him last year…yada, yada, yada. While I had skimmed the league rules packet (constitution) and fully understood the basic gist of the information, I could see that the opposing coach's (Joltin Joe) superior knowledge and rule nazi elitism might pose a threat.

Our mom coach (in a calm voice) tries to reply that these are simply the flags that have been provided us and the dude cuts her off and says "well yeah but they ARE NOT regulation flags and they are UNACCEPTABLE" at which point I felt it necessary to suggest that he didn't need to be a jerk about things…especially in front of the kids.

He stops dead in his tracks, sticks his chest out, comes marching right up to me, and shouts "well she doesn't need to yell at me". I calmly point out that she in fact didn't yell, and that I'm sure we can find a resolution. He's still interrupting, mumbling, citing the 4-Rec rule book, and frothing at the mouth so I look him in the eye, stick my hand out, suggest "we've gotten off on the wrong foot', and say 'Hi! I'm coach Kalm"

This seemed to diffuse the situation a bit.

On the opening drive, the Airway Heights QB turned a busted play into an 80 - yard TD run. THEY NEVER MADE A FIRST DOWN THE REST OF THE GAME and we dominated 21-7.

[CAA Flagship]

I had to miss the first game (which we won) so my first experience was this past weekend when we took on Airway Heights. Airway Heights is a town adjacent to Fairchild Air Force Base and also is home to a huge indian casino and a corrections facility.

Redskins?

[JoltinJoe]

[S]o I look him in the eye, stick my hand out, suggest "we've gotten off on the wrong foot', and say 'Hi! I'm coach Kalm"

This seemed to diffuse the situation a bit.

Nice try, but it won't work with me, Bucko.

[kalm]

[S]o I look him in the eye, stick my hand out, suggest "we've gotten off on the wrong foot', and say 'Hi! I'm coach Kalm"

This seemed to diffuse the situation a bit.

Nice try, but it won't work with me, Bucko.

Joe, should there be a non-religious test for public office?

[dbackjon]

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.

100% truth. History will prove me right. He is worse than Taney.

[GannonFan]

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

100% truth. History will prove me right. He is worse than Taney.

Well, only if we forget history. And let's be honest, if you think he's worse than Taney (and 97% of the American public wouldn't recognize the name Taney anyway) then we've already forgotten history. Even if we factored in all your personal biases against Scalia, he's not anywhere in the vicinity of the worst justice ever. Opinions that rankle people not of his political persuasion, sure, sometimes questionable of course, every judge is like that. However, calling him the worst ever is just more of the extremist, hyperbolistic, headline-seeking stuff that's part of the problem with the political culture today - we've thrown aside rational thought in exchange for dogmatic exultations.

[JoltinJoe]

Nice try, but it won't work with me, Bucko.

Joe, should there be a non-religious test for public office?

No religious test for public office. Not in keeping with the spirit of the nation's principles and constitution.

However, just because the US was not founded as a Christian nation (or founded on any other specific faith) does not mean it is a "secular" nation. The fact is, from day one, generic references to God, as well as general requests for his blessings, have always been permitted and were even spoken by our founders.

Go to the Jefferson Memorial some day and read some of what Jefferson said published on its walls.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferso ... n-memorial" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, if by "secular nation," you mean a nation which permits no government-sanctioned references to God, or allows no generic accommodations of religion, you are mistaken. We'd have to tear down the Jefferson Memorial. Ironic, no? There is no freedom from religion and, if the government takes action which represents a generic nod toward the faithful, that has always been permitted.