Scalia: Theocrat

[LeadBolt]

The Griswold decision you quoted, was that the Clark Griswold case?

[D1B]

The popes and cardinals are your highest leaders and the ignorant Middle Ages shit flows downstream from them to your homosexual and pervert freak "celibate" priests - the first person idiot Catholics get their advice on these issues.

You're so out of touch it's comical.

You're so delusional it's pathetic.

[89Hen]

You're so out of touch it's comical.

You're so delusional it's pathetic.

Good one Myron.

[D1B]

You're so delusional it's pathetic.

Good one Myron.

I know it was. Don't need or want your validation.

[89Hen]

Don't need or want your validation.

Finally some common ground.

[D1B]

Don't need or want your validation.

Finally some common ground.

Not really. You crave my approval and respond to every one of my posts with silly attempts to convert me.

[89Hen]

Finally some common ground.

Not really. You crave my approval and respond to every one of my posts with silly attempts to convert me.

Convert you to what? Sanity?

[Baldy]

I'm calling 9-1-1...Joe's using kalm's face as a speed bag.

Yeah, that's what's happening.

Ok...you're beating the shit of his fist with your face.

Better?

[kalm]

Yeah, that's what's happening.

Ok...you're beating the shit of his fist with your face.

Better?

I'm pretty sure I don't have to eat fish on Friday, turn to Mecca five times per day, or have my religion questioned when I run for office.

But you go on and keep adding more quality posts.

[Baldy]

Ok...you're beating the shit of his fist with your face.

Better?

I'm pretty sure I don't have to eat fish on Friday, turn to Mecca five times per day, or have my religion questioned when I run for office.

But you go on and keep adding more quality posts.

kalm,

I could smear dog shit on my computer screen and it would be higher quality than what you've posted in this thread. I'm actually feeling embarrassed for you.

[BDKJMU]

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.

No, I said "non" religious test. Since it's ok to favor religion over non-religion and such. Can we at least make sure someone isn't an atheist before electing them?

Regarding secular nation and "generic nods" notwithstanding, we have no state religion, "God" does not occur in the founding documents, the government is supposed to be neutral in all matters pertaining to religion and non-religion. BTW, the word "favor" doesn't occur in the first amendment either).

There is fantastic freedom from religion in the US. You get to believe or not believe what you believe or don't believe. And others can't enforce their religious laws upon you (at least for the most part)

It's one of the things that makes us strong.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/ ... t+on+money" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... onal_motto" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.netstate.com/states/mottoes/fl_motto.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ibanez]

No, I said "non" religious test. Since it's ok to favor religion over non-religion and such. Can we at least make sure someone isn't an atheist before electing them?

Regarding secular nation and "generic nods" notwithstanding, we have no state religion, "God" does not occur in the founding documents, the government is supposed to be neutral in all matters pertaining to religion and non-religion. BTW, the word "favor" doesn't occur in the first amendment either).

There is fantastic freedom from religion in the US. You get to believe or not believe what you believe or don't believe. And others can't enforce their religious laws upon you (at least for the most part)

It's one of the things that makes us strong.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/ ... t+on+money" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... onal_motto" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.netstate.com/states/mottoes/fl_motto.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Those references were not added by our founders. Those are all way after we were founded.

[JohnStOnge]

the government is supposed to be neutral in all matters pertaining to religion and non-religion.

The NATIONAL government is supposed to be neutral. In fact, when you think about it, the Supreme Court telling a State or local government that it can't do something pertaining to religion is contrary to what the purpose of the establishment clause is. The establishment clause prohibited the Congress of the United States from enacting legislation with respect the establishment of religion.

That cuts both ways. That means they can't make a law requiring the establishment of religion. It also means they can't make law saying a State or local government can NOT establish a religion within its jurisdiction. And in fact a number of States had State churches for decades after the national Constitution was ratified.

It's not Congress doing it but when the Supreme Court does stuff like tell a local school board they can't have prayer in Public schools that is the national government doing something the people who ratified the first amendment were specifically trying to prohibit the Federal government from doing. The idea was to keep the national government out of it EITHER WAY.

[D1B]

the government is supposed to be neutral in all matters pertaining to religion and non-religion.

The NATIONAL government is supposed to be neutral. In fact, when you think about it, the Supreme Court telling a State or local government that it can't do something pertaining to religion is contrary to what the purpose of the establishment clause is. The establishment clause prohibited the Congress of the United States from enacting legislation with respect the establishment of religion.

That cuts both ways. That means they can't make a law requiring the establishment of religion. It also means they can't make law saying a State or local government can NOT establish a religion within its jurisdiction. And in fact a number of States had State churches for decades after the national Constitution was ratified.

It's not Congress doing it but when the Supreme Court does stuff like tell a local school board they can't have prayer in Public schools that is the national government doing something the people who ratified the first amendment were specifically trying to prohibit the Federal government from doing. The idea was to keep the national government out of it EITHER WAY.

[D1B]

I'm pretty sure I don't have to eat fish on Friday, turn to Mecca five times per day, or have my religion questioned when I run for office.

But you go on and keep adding more quality posts.

kalm,

I could smear dog shit on my computer screen and it would be higher quality than what you've posted in this thread. I'm actually feeling embarrassed for you.

Baldy, emboldened by the first strong day at his GED class.

You go girl!

[kalm]

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/ ... t+on+money" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... onal_motto" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.netstate.com/states/mottoes/fl_motto.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Those references were not added by our founders. Those are all way after we were founded.

They are generic god references just like "natures god" and "creator".

[DSUrocks07]

This never gets old:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI9ImScQGAo[/youtube]

[Ibanez]

Those references were not added by our founders. Those are all way after we were founded.

They are generic god references just like "natures god" and "creator".

Natures God is the god of Deism..again..not a reveled religion.

[kalm]

They are generic god references just like "natures god" and "creator".

Natures God is the god of Deism..again..not a reveled religion.

[JoltinJoe]

Those references were not added by our founders. Those are all way after we were founded.

They are generic god references just like "natures god" and "creator".

Not for nothing, since I won this thread days ago and this is a mere victory lap ( ), but the statement, "In God We Trust," certainly invokes a personal God.

[kalm]

They are generic god references just like "natures god" and "creator".

Not for nothing, since I won this thread days ago and this is a mere victory lap ( ), but the statement, "In God We Trust," certainly invokes a personal God.

Still a generic god. Personal god is fairly meaningless. But since you think you've won something, you go ahead and run with that. Me, I'm gonna sit back and celebrate the fact that I don't have give money to any church, nor am I required to give up anything for lent.

[Ibanez]

They are generic god references just like "natures god" and "creator".

Not for nothing, since I won this thread days ago and this is a mere victory lap ( ), but the statement, "In God We Trust," certainly invokes a personal God.

Yes, it is a personal god. However, that motto first appeared on our currency in 1864 and wasn't made the official motto until the 1950s. So...it's not a valid point.

[JoltinJoe]

Not for nothing, since I won this thread days ago and this is a mere victory lap ( ), but the statement, "In God We Trust," certainly invokes a personal God.

Yes, it is a personal god. However, that motto first appeared on our currency in 1864 and wasn't made the official motto until the 1950s. So...it's not a valid point.

But it does support my point that generic references to God by our government have long been allowed without anyone asserting that these generic references by government violate the Establishment Clause.

[kalm]

Yes, it is a personal god. However, that motto first appeared on our currency in 1864 and wasn't made the official motto until the 1950s. So...it's not a valid point.

But it does support my point that generic references to God by our government have long been allowed without anyone asserting that these generic references by government violate the Establishment Clause.

Correct.

[JoltinJoe]

But it does support my point that generic references to God by our government have long been allowed without anyone asserting that these generic references by government violate the Establishment Clause.

Correct.

So ... then ... there has never been a recognition that the Establishment Clause protects an individual's so-called right to "freedom from religion." Right?