While I agree that this opinion is that of an asshole, I find it amusing that when it's a right wing judge saying something disagreeable about the intent of the Constitution, the left starts screaming about how he needs to be removed.
But when someone questions a left wing judge on something like the overly broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, those same left wingers start lecturing about how they're Supreme Court judges, and constitutional scholars, and not to be questioned by us mere mortals.
Just thought I'd troll that out there.
Oh, sorry, I don't know. Haven't read much of this stuff yet.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5922944?utm_hp_ref=mostpopularNo, where did Scalia, not the bogger, say this?
Haha. You have a life. What a dork.
The “American tradition” that Scalia refers to doesn’t have much of a history. “Under God” was slipped into the Pledge in 1954 as a slap at godless Communism. “In God We Trust” wasn’t codified for use on paper money until 1956…
since when is a non believer automatically an Atheist??he said that separation of church and state doesnt prohibit government from treating non-believers as second class citizens
Amen!!! Preach it, Brother!!While I agree that this opinion is that of an asshole, I find it amusing that when it's a right wing judge saying something disagreeable about the intent of the Constitution, the left starts screaming about how he needs to be removed.
But when someone questions a left wing judge on something like the overly broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, those same left wingers start lecturing about how they're Supreme Court judges, and constitutional scholars, and not to be questioned by us mere mortals.
Just thought I'd troll that out there.
The "prohibition on prayer" is only on teacher - led prayer.Yes, and the prohibition on school prayer was decided more recently still, in 1962.
Not all non believers are atheists but all atheists are non believers (wrt to Christianity).since when is a non believer automatically an Atheist??
So essentially, Scalia is placing corporations above atheist real American citizens in terms of religious protections. Does anyone really believe that was the Founders' intent?
Actually he does not even believe in the Founders' intents any more. He now is a "textualist," and he has some sort of authority over texts written hundreds of years ago.So essentially, Scalia is placing corporations above atheist real American citizens in terms of religious protections. Does anyone really believe that was the Founders' intent?
He fancies himself a real world Frodo Baggins - is this really who we want interpreting the Constitution?
You had me right up until the last paragraph. It's not faith that makes people kill each other. Because if they really believed, they would never kill even in self-defense.I am glad that Scalia made clear of his view to some people through this episode. The religious are already privileged in our society and people need to know that. When taxation was at issue, the churches got out of it citing the Establishment clause. Of course even before that they received countless government services, e.g. police, fire department, court services, etc.
Once they got what they wanted (tax exemption) through separation-of-the-church-and-the-state doctrine, they then used the Free Speech clause as a reason to be subsidized. The argument goes, if government pays for art education in college why should it be prevented from aiding a priest-in-training? If government officials want to pray, stopping them is a violation of the 1st Amendment!
So the end result is that the churches receive every welfare benefit that secular institutions receive while being exempt from taxes. Isn't that enough? Do we really need to use the government so that we can pray while holding other citizens a captive audience?
I myself do not believe in rigid separation between the churches and the state, but we should remember that human history has been, for the most part, people killing each other in the name of faith. Alienating fellow citizens for being non-believers is a step we do not want to take.
Oh good, more absurdly terrible sensationalized reporting. Here are a few more quotes from his speech:
"No principle of democracy is more fundamental than what has become known as the separation of church and state."
It would be wrong to think, however, that the separation of church and state must mean that the political views of men and women must not be informed by their religious beliefs."
I haven't been able to find a full transcript, but the gist of it seems to be no different than anything he's said for the past 30 years: people are free to practice whatever religion they wish (or none at all) without government interference, but it's acceptable for the government to recognize religion through things like Christmas tree displays, prayers before legislative sessions, voluntary school prayer, statues of religious figures, etc. I rarely agree with his religious rulings and I suspect that he might feel differently if the dominant religion were one other than his own, but his beliefs really aren't that outrageous or dangerous.
From what I can tell, the "favor religion over non-religion" part just meant that he believes it's appropriate for government employees to talk about religion even while serving in an official capacity. He contrasted this to countries that enforce secularism by banning government officials from referring to their religious beliefs.
But I haven't read the whole speech, so maybe it really was part of his master plan to send atheists to death camps.
But there is nothing new about the view he reportedly espoused. It is Scalia's actual view which he stated over and over again in his writing for the past decades. (I can find one if anyone wants to read up)
How can Atheists have religious protection when according to some they are not a religion...hmmmmSo essentially, Scalia is placing corporations above atheist real American citizens in terms of religious protections. Does anyone really believe that was the Founders' intent?
How can Atheists have religious protection when according to some they are not a religion...hmmmm