Scalia: Theocrat

[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.

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.

"Personal God" is not meaningless. A personal God is not the Deist's concept of God.

[kalm]

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.

"Personal God" is not meaningless. A personal God is not the Deist's concept of God.

And the deists didn't use a personal god. They were smarter than the Christians.

[JoltinJoe]

"Personal God" is not meaningless. A personal God is not the Deist's concept of God.

And the deists didn't use a personal god. They were smarter than the Christians.

Not the point ... My point was general references to a personal (non-Deist) God have always been accepted without any claim of violation of the Establishment Clause.

To you point that Deists are "smarter" for not "using" a personal God -- that point is very debatable. In fact, when you reason through the process, the only God which makes sense is a personal God, i.e., if there is a God, he is a personal God.

[Ibanez]

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.

Oh I see what you're getting at. Accepted yes.

Is it proof that we were founded as and ARE a Christian Nation? No.

[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.

Oh I see what you're getting at. Accepted yes.

Is it proof that we were founded as and ARE a Christian Nation? No.

I agree we were not founded as a Christian nation, and intentionally so.

But as I said earlier, that neither Christianity nor any other faith was the "founding religion" does not mean that we are a "secular" nation, at least in the sense that people who say we are a "secular" nation mean that generic nods toward the faithful are unconstitutional.

The Establishment Clause cannot even be logically read to mean that the government MUST banish all expressions of faith from governmental fora. If that were the case, then the government would be required to favor non-belief over belief, thus "establishing" atheism. This is what Scalia means when he says the government may or may not, at its discretion, engage in acts which are generic nods toward the faithful.

[D1B]

And the deists didn't use a personal god. They were smarter than the Christians.

Not the point ... My point was general references to a personal (non-Deist) God have always been accepted without any claim of violation of the Establishment Clause.

To you point that Deists are "smarter" for not "using" a personal God -- that point is very debatable. In fact, when you reason through the process, the only God which makes sense is a personal God, i.e., if there is a God, he is a personal God.

[JoltinJoe]

Self-portrait?

[D1B]

Self-portrait?

Personal God. You're an idiot.

[JoltinJoe]

Self-portrait?

Not a bad self-portrait, D1b, but this one is a stunning likeness of you.

[D1B]

Self-portrait?

Not a bad self-portrait, D1b, but this one is a stunning likeness of you.

Why did your personal make you so hateful?

[D1B]

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).

Bold above: more proof Joe will lie and say anything to appear to win an argument.

Shame on you.

[JoltinJoe]

The sound of D1B checking the words "atheism" and "religion" with the author "JoltinJoe." ...

When you find one where I called atheism a "religion" let me know.

[hitchinaride]

The founding fathers attitude of freedom of religion certainly didn't include proselytizing. Sad that some think GOP stands for "God's own party". Freedom of also means freedom FROM if folks so choose to do so. I believe in God and I practice my faith but to do so in a way that shames one's neighbor is not how one's religion should be practiced.

[kalm]

Oh I see what you're getting at. Accepted yes.

Is it proof that we were founded as and ARE a Christian Nation? No.

I agree we were not founded as a Christian nation, and intentionally so.

But as I said earlier, that neither Christianity nor any other faith was the "founding religion" does not mean that we are a "secular" nation, at least in the sense that people who say we are a "secular" nation mean that generic nods toward the faithful are unconstitutional.

The Establishment Clause cannot even be logically read to mean that the government MUST banish all expressions of faith from governmental fora. If that were the case, then the government would be required to favor non-belief over belief, thus "establishing" atheism. This is what Scalia means when he says the government may or may not, at its discretion, engage in acts which are generic nods toward the faithful.

But atheism isn't a religion, right? Are you saying the government MUST favor religion?

[JoltinJoe]

I agree we were not founded as a Christian nation, and intentionally so.

But as I said earlier, that neither Christianity nor any other faith was the "founding religion" does not mean that we are a "secular" nation, at least in the sense that people who say we are a "secular" nation mean that generic nods toward the faithful are unconstitutional.

The Establishment Clause cannot even be logically read to mean that the government MUST banish all expressions of faith from governmental fora. If that were the case, then the government would be required to favor non-belief over belief, thus "establishing" atheism. This is what Scalia means when he says the government may or may not, at its discretion, engage in acts which are generic nods toward the faithful.

But atheism isn't a religion, right? Are you saying the government MUST favor religion?

I can't even fathom how that could be your comment in response to what I wrote.

[kalm]

But atheism isn't a religion, right? Are you saying the government MUST favor religion?

I can't even fathom how that could be your comment in response to what I wrote.

You don't think atheism is a religion yet the establishment clause applies to it. Please explain.

[JoltinJoe]

I can't even fathom how that could be your comment in response to what I wrote.

You don't think atheism is a religion yet the establishment clause applies to it. Please explain.

I said that was "illogical" and then explained why.

[D1B]

You don't think atheism is a religion yet the establishment clause applies to it. Please explain.

I said that was "illogical" and then explained why.

You didn't explain shit.

Joe, just admit you don't understand and you're out of your league here.

[kalm]

You don't think atheism is a religion yet the establishment clause applies to it. Please explain.

I said that was "illogical" and then explained why.

I know you did, but it's not jiving with the rest of your story.

If atheism isn't a religion, then what does the establishment clause have to do with atheism. Does the establishment clause protect against "non-religion". Where does it say that religion needs to be "favored"?

[JoltinJoe]

I said that was "illogical" and then explained why.

I know you did, but it's not jiving with the rest of your story.

If atheism isn't a religion, then what does the establishment clause have to do with atheism. Does the establishment clause protect against "non-religion". Where does it say that religion needs to be "favored"?

I'd venture to guess everyone here got my point -- but I'll repeat myself for the benefit of the slow ones (you and DumB).

Construing the First Amendment as you do, as ensuring "freedom from religion," places the government of being constitutionally required to refrain from even generic expressions of faith and to remove any such expression from the public forum. This places the government in the position of "establishing" of atheism. My point was (obvious to everyone else) that it is illogical to construe the First Amendment that way, because the effect of banishing generic expressions of faith would have the effect of establishing atheism, and favoring it over belief, thus violating the Establishment Clause.

For purposes of showing how illogical your construction of the First Amendment is, I was accepting, for argument sake, that atheism was a counter-religion to that of faithful religion, as you must in order to advance your argument in the first place.

I never said the government must favor generic expressions of faith over non-faith, for the same reason. My point has been (and I've said this numerous times), the government may or may not, in its discretion, permit generic expressions of faith. It is NOT a First Amendment matter.

[kalm]

I know you did, but it's not jiving with the rest of your story.

If atheism isn't a religion, then what does the establishment clause have to do with atheism. Does the establishment clause protect against "non-religion". Where does it say that religion needs to be "favored"?

I'd venture to guess everyone here got my point -- but I'll repeat myself for the benefit of the slow ones (you and DumB).

Construing the First Amendment as you do, as ensuring "freedom from religion," places the government of being constitutionally required to refrain from even generic expressions of faith and to remove any such expression from the public forum. This places the government in the position of "establishing" of atheism. My point was (obvious to everyone else) that it is illogical to construe the First Amendment that way, because the effect of banishing generic expressions of faith would have the effect of establishing atheism, and favoring it over belief, thus violating the Establishment Clause.

For purposes of showing how illogical your construction of the First Amendment is, I was accepting, for argument sake, that atheism was a counter-religion to that of faithful religion, as you must in order to advance your argument in the first place.

I never said the government must favor generic expressions of faith over non-faith, for the same reason. My point has been (and I've said this numerous times), the government may or may not, in its discretion, permit generic expressions of faith. It is NOT a First Amendment matter.

Oy...again with the insults. It's almost as if you're unsure of your argument...

Scalia didn't reference generic expressions of faith and neither did I. The public square argument was your construct to support a convoluted argument. I may be slow, but you are tedious to argue with.

So which amendment was Scalia referring or not referring to?

[kalm]

It also doesn't mention the word atheist or the phrase non-belief or non-relgious…or favor.

[BDKJMU]

It also doesn't mention the word atheist or the phrase non-belief or non-relgious…or favor.

Nor does is mention "the wall of separation between church and state" or "the separation of church and state".
Or the word abortion...

[Chizzang]

It also doesn't mention the word atheist or the phrase non-belief or non-relgious…or favor.

Nor does is mention "the wall of separation between church and state" or "the separation of church and state".
Or the word abortion...

Good so we agree
That leprechauns Unicorns and Christianity should ALL NOT be involved in the Local & Federal Government

And abortion isn't mentioned because it was perfectly legal then
the forefathers could never have imagined we'd REGRESS so far as we have when it comes to basic rights

[89Hen]

And abortion isn't mentioned because it was perfectly legal then
the forefathers could never have imagined we'd REGRESS so far as we have when it comes to basic rights

There are 27 more documents that are just as important as that one Chizz.