- 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
There is no freedom of religion unless there's freedom from it
Posted on 10/19/14 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 10/19/14 at 5:14 pm
Want more evidence that Antonin Scalia is a dishonest cleric in Supreme Court justice garb?
Scalia attacks the separation of church and state
Scalia probably knows, as should any school kid, that language in the Bill of Rights which would have merely prevented the establishment of a state religion was VOTED DOWN in favor of a much broader prohibition: that Congress should make no law RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT thereof. In other words, any law that would intentionally favor one religion or no religion is PROHIBITED.
Scalia attacks the separation of church and state
Scalia probably knows, as should any school kid, that language in the Bill of Rights which would have merely prevented the establishment of a state religion was VOTED DOWN in favor of a much broader prohibition: that Congress should make no law RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT thereof. In other words, any law that would intentionally favor one religion or no religion is PROHIBITED.
26
Posted on 10/19/14 at 5:15 pm to Rex
quote:
any law that would intentionally favor one religion or no religion is PROHIBITED.
Is it even possible for everything to remain so completely neutral that no one gets pissed?
Posted on 10/19/14 at 5:17 pm to Rex
Posted on 10/19/14 at 5:19 pm to House_of Cards
quote:
Is it even possible for everything to remain so completely neutral that no one gets pissed?
that is one of the issues...especially where culture (and again, especially local culture) is based in religion
when does the intersection occur? when does it become religion?
these arguments ignore the real issues and are prime masturbatory lube for militant atheists
Posted on 10/19/14 at 5:22 pm to Rex
Didn't read, voted down dog boy
Posted on 10/19/14 at 5:22 pm to Rex
He didn't say there should be a state religion.
Answer the question he posed Rex.
He is exactly right. If we want a more secular political system we can pass an amendment. A logical thing to do and central to his premise the Constitution is not a living document and I am glad it is not.
What is wrong with his position in your opinion Rex?
Answer the question he posed Rex.
quote:
“Our [the Supreme Court’s] latest take on the subject, which is quite different from previous takes, is that the state must be neutral, not only between religions, but between religion and nonreligion,” Scalia said on Wednesday, according to The Washington Times. “That’s just a lie. Where do you get the notion that this is all unconstitutional? You can only believe that if you believe in a morphing Constitution.”
If Americans want a more secular political system that guarantees those distinctions, they can “enact that by statute,” Scalia said, “but to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”
He is exactly right. If we want a more secular political system we can pass an amendment. A logical thing to do and central to his premise the Constitution is not a living document and I am glad it is not.
What is wrong with his position in your opinion Rex?
Posted on 10/19/14 at 5:26 pm to I B Freeman
How could I be any more clear? Scalia is a BIG FAT LIAR.
From the wording of the Constitution and the deliberations behind that wording, you BIG FAT LIAR.
quote:
Where do you get the notion that this is all unconstitutional?
From the wording of the Constitution and the deliberations behind that wording, you BIG FAT LIAR.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 5:28 pm to Rex
quote:
From the wording of the Constitution and the deliberations behind that wording, you BIG FAT LIAR.
Why don't you point that out for us?
Posted on 10/19/14 at 5:30 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
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.
This post was edited on 10/19/14 at 5:31 pm
Posted on 10/19/14 at 5:57 pm to Rex
Down vote off [on]
Posted on 10/19/14 at 6:01 pm to Rex
Your responses could honestly add value to debates but the name calliing and obstinate refusal to answer direct questions from posters regarding your comments negates any validity you may have regarding certain issues. You sincerely seem like a smart, insightful guy but..well, just consider my humble encouragement..peace out
Posted on 10/19/14 at 6:10 pm to Rex
No one is forcing you to attend a church or even say a prayer.
But you might want to try it, it just may do you some good.
But you might want to try it, it just may do you some good.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 6:22 pm to Reubaltaich
He is not going to answer my question. You see that requires critical thinking skills and is off the liberal talking points.
What people from both sides of the political spectrum should ponder is this live constitution vs original constitution thinking.
Why would anyone want a "live" constitution. We have seen liberal and conservative courts attempt to read meanings into the constitution that just are not there. They have abused the commerce clause so many times over the years we have all suffered.
Scalia is right. If you want to change the constitution--amend it.
What people from both sides of the political spectrum should ponder is this live constitution vs original constitution thinking.
Why would anyone want a "live" constitution. We have seen liberal and conservative courts attempt to read meanings into the constitution that just are not there. They have abused the commerce clause so many times over the years we have all suffered.
Scalia is right. If you want to change the constitution--amend it.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 6:22 pm to Rex
quote:You left off "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause.
There is no freedom of religion unless there's freedom from it
Why?
Posted on 10/19/14 at 6:23 pm to Reubaltaich
he voted in the minority in kelo ... that trumps any position on religion, which is not material to anyone except atheists who want something to bitch about ... and i'm not religious ...
Posted on 10/19/14 at 6:35 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
He is not going to answer my question.
I answered your question.
quote:
You see that requires critical thinking skills and is off the liberal talking points.
You obviously can't read.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 6:36 pm to Reubaltaich
quote:
No one is forcing you to attend a church or even say a prayer.
That's correct. The Constitution forbids it. Scalia's position is that the government has the power to do such things.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 6:38 pm to Rex
False. That's not his position. You're either stupid, or intentionally misinterpreting it (or you didn't read it at all and you're making biased assumptions.)
This post was edited on 10/19/14 at 6:38 pm
Posted on 10/19/14 at 6:47 pm to genro
Rex your threads descend fast into worthlessness
Posted on 10/19/14 at 6:51 pm to Rex
If a religion includes a duty to prosteletize, then the only way to be free from it is to ban it.
These are incompatible.
These are incompatible.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News