Antonin Scalia Says Constitution Allows Government To Persecute Atheists

[Oldgamer]

Hayabusa Rider is right.

Before condemning a man, I would like to hear it from him and not his enemies.

This is a direct quote from his speech at the Colorado Christian University:

"that separation of church and state doesn’t prohibit government from treating non-believers as second class citizens and that government can uphold Christianity if it wants to do so.”

So in other words non believers of the christian faith in his view have no protections, that they can be treated like second class citizens and that he thinks Government can uphold Christianity. It doesn't get any clearer or louder than that.

 

[senseamp]

Right wing mouthpiece rag is reporting it too:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...in-scalia-defends-keeping-god-religio/?page=1

“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 nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said.

“That’s a possible way to run a political system. The Europeans run it that way,” Justice Scalia said. “And if the American people want to do it, I suppose they can enact that by statute. But to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”

“Our [the 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,” Justice Scalia said. “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.”

The man has no understanding of the First Amendment.

 

[Venix]

This is a direct quote from his speech at the Colorado Christian University:

"that separation of church and state doesn’t prohibit government from treating non-believers as second class citizens and that government can uphold Christianity if it wants to do so.”

So in other words non believers of the christian faith in his view have no protections, that they can be treated like second class citizens and that he thinks Government can uphold Christianity. It doesn't get any clearer or louder than that.

No, that is not a "direct quote" from Scalia's speech. It's the article author's sensationalized and inaccurate summary of the speech.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is a direct quote from his speech at the Colorado Christian University:

"that separation of church and state doesn’t prohibit government from treating non-believers as second class citizens and that government can uphold Christianity if it wants to do so.”

So in other words non believers of the christian faith in his view have no protections, that they can be treated like second class citizens and that he thinks Government can uphold Christianity. It doesn't get any clearer or louder than that.

So you can't provide the speech? Shall I provide "direct quotes" Obama said that I could (but won't) use to discredit him? It's easily done. Scalia may have done just as people say, but then some took the shooting in Ferguson as proof that a police officer murdered someone before there was any reasonable basis for that claim, so forgive me if I make up my own mind based on more than I see here.

 

[dphantom]

that article is a complete distortion of what he actually said. no surprise coming from our resident statists.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

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.

I love how the author of the blog made the exact logical error that Scalia was critiquing and didn't event notice. That is clearly not an objective paraphrasing of the 1st Amendment.
A lot of people here are making a similar mistake. Just because you, or me, or even 100% of the citizenry thinks something is an important principle or a good policy does not make it a Constitutional requirement.

Further, even the concept of the government being neutral between religions (or non-religion) means different things to different people. For example, in Employment Division vs. Smith the SCOTUS ruled that a state could deny unemployment benefits to someone for using Peyote even though the individual considered it a religious practice. What does it mean for the government to be neutral in this case? I'd argue that exempting one religion from the law is not neutral since would should all be subject to the same laws.

 

[thraashman]

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.

 

[schneiderguy]

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

Rethuglicans make me sick.

Save234

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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

Rethuglicans make me sick.

Save234

Looks to be the opposite. No one can even give a complete and credible transcript. They'd be raising hell if this was done to Obama's in fact they have and were right to do so. Apparently it's a one way standard.

 

[senseamp]

Looks to be the opposite. No one can even give a complete and credible transcript. They'd be raising hell if this was done to Obama's in fact they have and were right to do so. Apparently it's a one way standard.

I posted a link to a Washington Times, a well known rightwing rag, article that quotes Scalia on the subject.

 

[infoiltrator]

Selective interpretation.
Colonists were not particularly liberal about religion, but enough different groups wound up here defacto toleration was necessary.
Catholics and Jews were discriminated against.
Mormons were hounded out of US States to territory they could dominate.
Indian children were required to attend Christian "boarding" schools, to remove pagan faith.
otoh, Ethan Allen, was a notorious Atheist, among others.
Civil rights did not really apply to African Americans till the 1960s.
African Americans were not welcome in many main line churches.
WWII Japanese were "detained."
Hippies were discriminated against.
So yes, some judges are self righteous asses. As are some politicians.

Fundamental truths, conservatives believe in freedom except when it conflicts with their sense of ought to be. Liberals try to stretch law to cover as much choice as society can live with.
Historically, the liberals are more likely to prosper. Belief is harder to alter to present situations than potentials.
Judges tend to be conservative, change entails work and thought. Why bother?

 

[Jhhnn]

I love how the author of the blog made the exact logical error that Scalia was critiquing and didn't event notice. That is clearly not an objective paraphrasing of the 1st Amendment.
A lot of people here are making a similar mistake. Just because you, or me, or even 100% of the citizenry thinks something is an important principle or a good policy does not make it a Constitutional requirement.

Further, even the concept of the government being neutral between religions (or non-religion) means different things to different people. For example, in Employment Division vs. Smith the SCOTUS ruled that a state could deny unemployment benefits to someone for using Peyote even though the individual considered it a religious practice. What does it mean for the government to be neutral in this case? I'd argue that exempting one religion from the law is not neutral since would should all be subject to the same laws.

Heh. Scalia wrote the Majority Opinion in that case, indicating more than a bit of bias wrt free exercise of religion. Which is the whole point of and problem with his stance on Christianity in Govt. That's always the problem with any religion in any govt.

 

[Jhhnn]

Looks to be the opposite. No one can even give a complete and credible transcript. They'd be raising hell if this was done to Obama's in fact they have and were right to do so. Apparently it's a one way standard.

Heh. That's a rather outlandish bit of false attribution & misdirection. You've revealed yourself as a shill or an unthinking dolt.

So, uhh, you won't believe Scalia made those remarks & meant what he said until you see the full transcript? Really?

What context can you possibly imagine that would make them acceptable?

Shee-it, Sherlock. All you have to do is Google "Scalia Religion" to find out that the whole thing is entirely in character.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I posted a link to a Washington Times, a well known rightwing rag, article that quotes Scalia on the subject.

That's good. Now I'd like to read what he said, not selected portions. It seems that someone must have it.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Heh. Scalia wrote the Majority Opinion in that case, indicating more than a bit of bias wrt free exercise of religion. Which is the whole point of and problem with his stance on Christianity in Govt. That's always the problem with any religion in any govt.

I know he did. Do you disagree with that ruling? I think this excert from the ruling is extremely pertinent to this discussion

"It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."

It's similar to the disparate impacts issues that routinely come up in discrimination cases.
So I ask again, what do those criticizing Scalia mean when they say that government must remain neutral between religions?

 

[Jhhnn]

Please. Scalia's principles are situational, non-existent. In the Smith case, he ruled for state supremacy over federal law which protects the use of peyote in Native American religion. Lately, however, he hinted that the supremacy clause should overrule marijuana legalization. Federal law is only supreme when he wants it to be, apparently.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26640941/scalia-talks-about-pot-colorado-appearance

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1996a

He'll promulgate the Conservative line whenever he can, and damn the contradictions.

His self important arrogance knows no bounds-

His playful responses to a handful of questions from the audience also roused laughter. In response to one question about the pressure he is under, Scalia joked that he doesn't feel any.

"What can they do to me?" Scalia said. "It's even better than academic tenure — I get life tenure!"

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26641187/u-s-supreme-court-justice-scalia-give-lectures

Worship him, twits.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Please. Scalia's principles are situational, non-existent. In the Smith case, he ruled for state supremacy over federal law which protects the use of peyote in Native American religion. Lately, however, he hinted that the supremacy clause should overrule marijuana legalization. Federal law is only supreme when he wants it to be, apparently.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26640941/scalia-talks-about-pot-colorado-appearance

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1996a

He'll promulgate the Conservative line whenever he can, and damn the contradictions.

His self important arrogance knows no bounds-




http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26641187/u-s-supreme-court-justice-scalia-give-lectures

Worship him, twits.

How about you address my questions instead of coming up with an alternate line of attack? But I'll address your point anyway. The supremacy clause only works in one direction. Congress can make pot illegal in Colorado. They can't force Colorado to make it legal at the state level.

 

[fskimospy]

How about you address my questions instead of coming up with an alternate line of attack? But I'll address your point anyway. The supremacy clause only works in one direction. Congress can make pot illegal in Colorado. They can't force Colorado to make it legal at the state level.

Yes they can. Well, they could at least make colorado's anti-pot law unenforceable.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Yes they can. Well, they could at least make colorado's anti-pot law unenforceable.

How?

 

[fskimospy]

How?

This is a bit of a stretch for pot, but if some federal law required people to have access to pot that would mean the state couldn't ban it.

It doesn't exactly make sense in this case, but if federal law required something to be effective that would mean the states could not ban it. Or, more specifically, the ban could not be enforced.

 

[Oldgamer]

No, that is not a "direct quote" from Scalia's speech. It's the article author's sensationalized and inaccurate summary of the speech.

Please link me the entire speech then because this isn't the only news article that is saying this is a direct quote from his speech. I would like to read his entire speech then in text format. Have you got a link to back up your claim? If so I would read it.

 

[Jhhnn]

How about you address my questions instead of coming up with an alternate line of attack? But I'll address your point anyway. The supremacy clause only works in one direction. Congress can make pot illegal in Colorado. They can't force Colorado to make it legal at the state level.

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

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

 

[Jhhnn]

This is a bit of a stretch for pot, but if some federal law required people to have access to pot that would mean the state couldn't ban it.

It doesn't exactly make sense in this case, but if federal law required something to be effective that would mean the states could not ban it. Or, more specifically, the ban could not be enforced.

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

 

[Jhhnn]

How?

While the Feds could effectively shut down retail sales, they don't have the manpower or the funding to enforce federal law against personal growing w/o local help. They'd play hell finding a CO jury that would convict, as well. Jury nullification is a prosecutors worst nightmare, & they won't go there.

 

[Ken g6]

This guy is a cancer and needs to be relieved of his duties!

Any 2nd amendmenters up to the task!
I say that jokingly because I'm unaware of any other legal way to remove an SC justice.

I see indications on Wikipedia that they can be impeached. But only the House of Representatives can do that, and I don't imagine they'd be inclined to impeach a conservative justice right now.