Antonin Scalia Says Constitution Allows Government To Persecute Atheists

[the DRIZZLE]

Apply that to voting rights, & discrimination in housing & employment. Can't force the states to exercise federal standards, by your reasoning.

My reasoning is fine. For example, a state could have more robust rules protecting voting rights then required by the VRA but not less robust. Like I said, the supremacy clause only works in one direction.

Your question? Ask it of people who say that. WTF is "neutral between religions" & what does it have to do with what Scalia said?

That is the subject of the blog post that constitutes the OP. Just because you want this to be an open ended Scalia bashing thread doesn't mean I have to play along.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Federal law demands that Native Americans have access to Peyote for religious purposes. but Scalia ignores that when Oregon bans it.

As far as I know there was no Federal law on the books requiring access at the time of the ruling. Being exempt for prohibition is not necessarily the same thing as requiring access. Admittedly this type of thing is where the supremacy clause get's a bit grey, but as far as I know none of the members of the SCOTUS supported the argument that you are making.

 

[Jhhnn]

My reasoning is fine. For example, a state could have more robust rules protecting voting rights then required by the VRA but not less robust. Like I said, the supremacy clause only works in one direction.

Heh. The Oregon Peyote law does not reinforce rights but rather denies them. The notion that it offers more robust protections is absurd. Native American use of Peyote for religious purposes has been a federal regulation since 1965.

That is the subject of the blog post that constitutes the OP. Just because you want this to be an open ended Scalia bashing thread doesn't mean I have to play along.

The issue isn't that the govt should remain neutral "between religions" but rather that it should not discriminate against non-believers. Atheism is not religion.

The decision was 6-3.

http://www.oui.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl90/uipl_4290a.htm

 

[cubby1223]

I gotta say the recap of the article is not a good one.

Just look at the bare facts:
(1) The U.S. government has always favored Christianity.
(2) The courts have allowed it (even prior to Scalia)

It's entirely reasonable to assume many people believe government can be favorable to a religion.

However, I do find a distinct difference between honoring a religion, versus persecution. The ten commandments on display in a courthouse is not persecuting non-Christians. Judges basing their rulings on Christian moral code versus the written law, or basing their rulings on the beliefs of the people on trial, is persecution.

You can argue the country and the government should not honor any religion over another, but instead of getting all filled with anger and outrage, push for a constitutional amendment enforcing how you believe the constitution should be interpreted.

 

[cubby1223]

As far as I know there was no Federal law on the books requiring access at the time of the ruling. Being exempt for prohibition is not necessarily the same thing as requiring access. Admittedly this type of thing is where the supremacy clause get's a bit grey, but as far as I know none of the members of the SCOTUS supported the argument that you are making.

Never argue drug laws with a politically active stoner And I say that as a compliment. He is well-versed in every drug-related outrage the government has ever done.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

However, I do find a distinct difference between honoring a religion, versus persecution

He can't.

 

[kage69]

I see Tony Scalia isn't done embarrassing himself or his office.

How a man of his position can display such ignorance and bias is pretty damn amazing, someone get that bloated cranium of his a CAT scan.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Heh. The Oregon Peyote law does not reinforce rights but rather denies them. The notion that it offers more robust protections is absurd. Native American use of Peyote for religious purposes has been a federal regulation since 1965.

It doesn't have to be more robust, it just has to be incremental to Federal law. If the Feds ban something, the state can have a more restrictive ban. If the Feds require access, the State can have more robust access requirements. Just because the Feds have exempted something from a ban does not mean they are requiring access. That's the reason that the dissent did not make the supremacy clause-based argument that you are making.

The issue isn't that the govt should remain neutral "between religions" but rather that it should not discriminate against non-believers. Atheism is not religion.

This is a distinction without a difference. The irony here is that decisions like Smith resulted in the bipartisan RFRA because Congress wanted to go beyond the religious protections offered by the First Amendment. Of course, the RFRA that was the basis of the recent Hobby Lobby decision which the Left hates.

So tell me Jhhnn, should people get to disregard laws because of their religious beliefs or not? Personally, I don't think so which is how I define neutrality between religions. However, this seems to be the exact opposite of the way that others are defining it.

 

[kage69]

Never argue drug laws with a politically active stoner And I say that as a compliment. He is well-versed in every drug-related outrage the government has ever done.

You've just touched on one of the more amusing aspects of legalization debate here!

I've noticed that many in favor are well informed and articulate, able to reason away on the issue without sounding like indoctrinated drones or paid shills.

I've also noticed many against it are posters that tend to post inflammatory or ridiculous positions, ignorant of history and law,basically sounding like they're the ones who just burned a brick of hash before giving issues a good think.

A couple exceptions on both sides obviously, but the trend I've noticed makes me smile.

Fwiw, I wish more posters here had Jhnnn's patience and respect for facts and context. I think he riles many social authoritarians here with his opinions because he doesn't seem to conform to convenient stereotypes.

 

[cubby1223]

You've just touched on one of the more amusing aspects of legalization debate here!

I've noticed that many in favor are well informed and articulate, able to reason away on the issue without sounding like indoctrinated drones or paid shills.

I've also noticed many against it are posters that tend to post inflammatory or ridiculous positions, ignorant of history and law,basically sounding like they're the ones who just burned a brick of hash before giving issues a good think.

A couple exceptions on both sides obviously, but the trend I've noticed makes me smile.

Fwiw, I wish more posters here had Jhnnn's patience and respect for facts and context. I think he riles many social authoritarians here with his opinions because he doesn't seem to conform to convenient stereotypes.

Eh, in this instance it is an oversimplification of a very complex issue.

A society/nation must have laws. Different religions have different beliefs and values. Even amongst a single religion there are different beliefs and values. So how do you run a society while respecting every single person's religious beliefs? Should every single person's religious beliefs be respected? I don't believe our laws should be adjusted to respect radical Islam's beliefs of how women should be treated. There are a lot of beliefs written in the Christian bible that I do not believe should be respected in today's world.

There will always be conflict, it cannot be avoided.

That's how I see the overall subject that inspired this thread.

 

[senseamp]

A city or town should troll Scalia and put "There is no god" on a public building. I wonder how quickly he'll flip to saying that atheism is a religion and that such action violates the establishment clause.

 

[ivwshane]

Eh, in this instance it is an oversimplification of a very complex issue.

A society/nation must have laws. Different religions have different beliefs and values. Even amongst a single religion there are different beliefs and values. So how do you run a society while respecting every single person's religious beliefs? Should every single person's religious beliefs be respected? I don't believe our laws should be adjusted to respect radical Islam's beliefs of how women should be treated. There are a lot of beliefs written in the Christian bible that I do not believe should be respected in today's world.

There will always be conflict, it cannot be avoided.

That's how I see the overall subject that inspired this thread.

That's why government shouldn't be making any law respecting any religion. Government should ignore all religions. Religion should be treated like sexual acts, keep them in your own bedroom and don't do it in public and the government should stay out of it except when people are harmed.

 

[Jhhnn]

It doesn't have to be more robust, it just has to be incremental to Federal law. If the Feds ban something, the state can have a more restrictive ban. If the Feds require access, the State can have more robust access requirements. Just because the Feds have exempted something from a ban does not mean they are requiring access. That's the reason that the dissent did not make the supremacy clause-based argument that you are making.

"More Robust" was your term, and I don't disagree with that. Now it's different, now it's "incremental to"- a very nice backpedal indeed.

This is a distinction without a difference. The irony here is that decisions like Smith resulted in the bipartisan RFRA because Congress wanted to go beyond the religious protections offered by the First Amendment. Of course, the RFRA that was the basis of the recent Hobby Lobby decision which the Left hates.

So tell me Jhhnn, should people get to disregard laws because of their religious beliefs or not? Personally, I don't think so which is how I define neutrality between religions. However, this seems to be the exact opposite of the way that others are defining it.

Smith was about OMFG! DRUGS! so the court did a double back flip into its own rectum to rule against the Evil of drugs, any drugs, drugs where the Court has no idea what they're talking about. It's the same with Gonzales vs Raich. By Scalia's reasoning & your own, the supremacy clause holds only when you want it to.

Hobby Lobby? Please. It's the same maneuver. Providing comprehensive health care coverage to one's employees in no way inhibits the practice of one's religion, unless your religion is to make other people's decisions for them. Should we extend the same protection to employers who are Christian Scientists & others who don't believe in Medicine at all? Or is the ruling about something else, about establishing control over people's sex lives?

So tell me, does the law and those who write it have to make sense, or did Oregon have a legitimate interest in forbidding Peyote use in native American Religion in contravention of Federal regulations? Why should Congress have to intervene after the fact when the truth was there for the Court to see in the first place?

 

[cubby1223]

Quote from the article:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

In other words, the government cannot favor one religion over any other belief or lack thereof. The government must be neutral. The Founding Fathers felt this way as well. Just look at their own words.

Should the U.S. respect and allow honor killings in the name of religious freedom? I think we all agree the answer is "no".

Therefore, government can create laws that "persecute" people based on religion.

End of discussion on that topic.

If anyone would like to pick specific issues and argue those individually, that is a worthy topic of discussion. This thread? No.

 

[Jhhnn]

Quote from the article:


Should the U.S. respect and allow honor killings in the name of religious freedom? I think we all agree the answer is "no".

Therefore, government can create laws that "persecute" people based on religion.

End of discussion on that topic.

If anyone would like to pick specific issues and argue those individually, that is a worthy topic of discussion. This thread? No.

Except that's not what Scalia offered- he said the govt had the right to discriminate against non-believers, where no such moral issues arise.

Well, unless you think that lack of belief is a moral issue.

 

[ivwshane]

Quote from the article:


Should the U.S. respect and allow honor killings in the name of religious freedom? I think we all agree the answer is "no".

Therefore, government can create laws that "persecute" people based on religion.

End of discussion on that topic.

If anyone would like to pick specific issues and argue those individually, that is a worthy topic of discussion. This thread? No.

On the contrary. Government has the duty to protect everyone's rights. You violating someone else's rights for religious reasons isn't allowed, period. So no honor killings wouldn't be allowed and yet not allowing it isn't a form of persecution.

Like I said, keep your religion to yourself and the government will stay out of your business so long as you are violating anyone else's rights.

 

[piasabird]

I did not hear the speech and this article seems a little fishy to me. Anyone can say some judge said something or take words out of context.

The actual constitution only protects religious speech and religious followers from prosecution do to their religious affiliations by the government. It says nothing about Atheism, which is the absence of religion or the doubt or disbelief in a supreme god. However, people still have freedom of speech. On the other hand if you try to harass or defame someone because of particular religion, that could be considered on par with a hate crime similar to burning a cross on their lawn.

At the present time, in the USA the press and the media are given a lot of lee-way in criticizing what people believe. However, in some countries this may be considered illegal to blaspheme someone's religion. You could say people in America consider the insults trivial unless you are gay, Lesbian, or African American. Then it is blown out of proportion.

Feel free to say what you want. Maybe religious groups should start suing the media for defamation.

 

[justoh]

What do you expect from a Christian?

 

[Jhhnn]

I did not hear the speech and this article seems a little fishy to me. Anyone can say some judge said something or take words out of context.

Yes, Denial is a standard feature of the conservative headset. It's a shitty & stupid way to resolve cognitive dissonance, to avoid examining what one believes & why.

Rather than discounting the multiple articles offering the same thing, see what you can find on the subject from another perspective.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-scalia-defends-keeping-god-religio/?page=all

There hasn't been much, because there's really no way to put much favorable spin on it.

 

[Jhhnn]

What do you expect from a Christian?

That's not true of all Christians, but rather of some militant & authoritarian factions.

More than a few people of Faith disagree with Scalia, I'm sure.

 

[alzan]

What do you expect from a Christian?

I expect justices, Supreme or otherwise, to put aside their personal beliefs when adjudicating cases that affect the citizens of this country.

 

[BoberFett]

I'll bite.

Is the right to interstate trade really as important as the right to freedom of belief?

Freedom of belief is the cornerstone of our democracy. Once a government finds the power to tell people what they must or must not believe, every other right is sure to fall as well.

The government tells people what to believe all the time. That's what a hate crime law is, and the left vociferously defends that practice. Beat someone up because you're a jerk it's a crime, beat someone up because you don't like their color it's a doubleplus ungood crime.

 

[fskimospy]

I expect justices, Supreme or otherwise, to put aside their personal beliefs when adjudicating cases that affect the citizens of this country.

Scalia's rubric for this is pretty obvious.

If the topic in question is about greater rights for ethnic, sexual, or religious minorities he will rule against it.

If the topic in question is about restricting rights for ethnic, sexual, or religious minorities he will rule for it.

If the topic in question is about greater rights for ethnic, sexual, or religious majorities he will rule for it.

This may sound overly simplistic, but it holds up remarkably well when looking at his judicial record. He's a culture warrior.

 

[BoberFett]

He has consistently proven to be the WORST justice in the history of the USSC. I will honestly hold a parade the day this man dies.

Ah, there it is. You can always count on trashman to shift into full on loony lefty.

 

[BoberFett]

Looks like the Right Wing Media is whipping up their supporters into a frenzy over misleading/false information again.

Rethuglicans make me sick.

Save234

Sock puppet account, Craig?