- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/19/14 at 7:21 pm to Rex
Does anyone see Rex's response to this? He says I can't read. Just checking.
quote:
Is there anything in this amendment that says government has the right to prohibit pray in a government building? or prevent a public school from having a function in a church facility?
Explain that to me.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 7:23 pm to Rex
quote:No.
There is no freedom of religion unless there's freedom from it
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
That's it.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 7:26 pm to Rex
Environmentalism is a form of religion IMO.
Does 'religion' have to involve a deity?
Does 'religion' have to involve a deity?
Posted on 10/19/14 at 7:31 pm to weagle99
quote:
Does 'religion' have to involve a deity?
Al Gore?
Posted on 10/19/14 at 7:32 pm to Rex
Freedom from religion implies you have the right to not ever have to encounter religion in your day to day life, which is neither realistic nor the intention of the first amendment.
Everyone has the freedom to not practice religion and be free from theocratic legislation, but you aren't guaranteed the right to never be exposed to it.
Everyone has the freedom to not practice religion and be free from theocratic legislation, but you aren't guaranteed the right to never be exposed to it.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 7:43 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
quote: There is no freedom of religion unless there's freedom from it No.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That's it.
"Freedom" as in free from governmental imposition, not as outside of earshot of some enthusiastic neighborhood preacher.
The body of the Constitution, itself, before inclusion of the Bill of Rights, prevents a religious test for public office. Jefferson, Madison, and delegates to the Constitutional Convention made it quite clear in personal letters outside that convention that the intent was that government would not prefer a particular religion over other religions, and could not prefer religion over non-religion.
Madison, for example, in Federalist Paper No. 52 wrote that public office should be open to “merit of every description” without regard to any “profession of religious faith”.
Jefferson: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Are we supposed to believe that Madison and Jefferson knew less about their own constitution than the BIG FAT LIAR Antonin Scalia?
Posted on 10/19/14 at 7:47 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Freedom from religion implies you have the right to not ever have to encounter religion in your day to day life, which is neither realistic nor the intention of the first amendment.
Dumb.
The Constitution delineates what's empowered to the government and its Bill of Rights defines what's prohibited. "Freedom from religion" refers to freedoms guaranteed against the government, not against hearing some Christmas carol.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 7:47 pm to Rex
quote:
Are we supposed to believe that Madison and Jefferson knew less about their own constitution than the BIG FAT LIAR Antonin Scalia?
quote:What is it you think the Madison quote means?
Madison, for example, in Federalist Paper No. 52 wrote that public office should be open to “merit of every description” without regard to any “profession of religious faith”.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 7:48 pm to Rex
quote:
Are we supposed to believe that Madison and Jefferson knew less about their own constitution than the BIG FAT LIAR Antonin Scalia?
What did Madison and Jefferson say in the quotes you just posted that is contrary to what Scalia said??
Posted on 10/19/14 at 7:49 pm to Rex
The Constitution prohibits a state religion to protect the state and prohibits the state from persecuting the individual.
Individuals are being persecuted all over the place.
Individuals are being persecuted all over the place.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 7:51 pm to weagle99
quote:
Does 'religion' have to involve a deity?
By definition, yes
This is like asking if football has to involve a ball.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 7:52 pm to Rex
His position is correct, Rex. If you didn't have such a doggy boner for Scalia you'd see his point.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 7:53 pm to Rex
quote:
"Freedom from religion" refers to freedoms guaranteed against the government, not against hearing some Christmas carol.
Right?
Posted on 10/19/14 at 7:53 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
What did Madison and Jefferson say in the quotes you just posted that is contrary to what Scalia said??
You really don't know how to read.
Madison and Jefferson both state that government can not legitimately favor religion over non-religion. Scalia says the opposite.
I shouldn't have had to repeat this to you.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 7:57 pm to Paluka
I bet you Scalia will support a state's decision to allow gay marriage because the Constitution does not address the issue.
He may not agree with gay marriage but he believes in the Constitution as written and he has on several occasions voted to protect the constitution over what many would think his personal preferences are.
Liberals and conservatives should expect this from SCOTUS.
Rex simply wants the SCOTUS to agree with him and bend and interrupt the Constitution to accommodate the way he see things. That is very dangerous.
He may not agree with gay marriage but he believes in the Constitution as written and he has on several occasions voted to protect the constitution over what many would think his personal preferences are.
Liberals and conservatives should expect this from SCOTUS.
Rex simply wants the SCOTUS to agree with him and bend and interrupt the Constitution to accommodate the way he see things. That is very dangerous.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 7:58 pm to Rex
quote:
"Freedom from religion" refers to freedoms guaranteed against the government, not against hearing some Christmas carol.
I know, but that isn't what the average angry atheist talking about freedom from religion means.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 8:01 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
but he believes in the Constitution as written
He absolutely does not.
You only need to refer to Bush v. Gore as proof, when he wrote his own de facto statute imposing an electoral deadline for the state of Florida.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 8:03 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
That is correct.
They were trying to prevent the consolidation of theocratic and political authority like the one in England, nothing more..
quote:
Her Majesty the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England
The Church of England
Posted on 10/19/14 at 8:06 pm to Rex
Scalia said
How does that conflict with this?
How about this?
Scalia cites as an example of government favoring religion over non religion the reciting of the Pledge of Alliance. Is that injurious as Jefferson described? No.
Have you seen an example of government forced religion on anybody that Scalia defended?
quote:
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.
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.
“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” the Reagan-appointed jurist told the crowd of about 400 people.
“We do Him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” the conservative Catholic justice continued. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”
How does that conflict with this?
quote:Does it call for abandoning "merit of every description" No.
“merit of every description” without regard to any “profession of religious faith”.
How about this?
quote:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Scalia cites as an example of government favoring religion over non religion the reciting of the Pledge of Alliance. Is that injurious as Jefferson described? No.
Have you seen an example of government forced religion on anybody that Scalia defended?
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News