- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 17,873
- Reaction score
- 8,362
- Location
- On an island. Not that one!
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Justice Antonin Scalia dismisses concept of religious neutrality in speech
METAIRIE, La. (AP) — Supreme CourtJustice Antonin Scalia said Saturday the idea of religious neutrality is not grounded in the country’s constitutional traditions and that God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him.
Scalia was speaking at a Catholic high school in the New Orleans suburb of Metairie, Louisiana. Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 is the court’s longest serving justice. He has consistently been one of the court’s more conservative members.
He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is “no place” in the country’s constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.
He may finally have gone too far this time. Probably many will praise him but his supposed 'originalist' legal philosophy seems to be falling apart under the weight of his religious and political beliefs.
I do wonder why the authors of the Constitution wrote the phrase: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. if they didn't favour "religious neutrality"
What Scalia said was absolutely correct. There is “no place” in the actual constitution itself, stating that the government must be neutral between religion and its absence. All the constitution says, is that the state can't adopt one particular religion over another.
The constitution does not state that people have a right to freedom from religion.
.
What Scalia said was absolutely correct. There is “no place” in the actual constitution itself, stating that the government must be neutral between religion and its absence. All the constitution says, is that the state can't adopt one particular religion over another.
He may finally have gone too far this time. Probably many will praise him but his supposed 'originalist' legal philosophy seems to be falling apart under the weight of his religious and political beliefs.
I do wonder why the authors of the Constitution wrote the phrase: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. if they didn't favour "religious neutrality"
He may finally have gone too far this time. Probably many will praise him but his supposed 'originalist' legal philosophy seems to be falling apart under the weight of his religious and political beliefs.
I do wonder why the authors of the Constitution wrote the phrase: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. if they didn't favour "religious neutrality"
He may finally have gone too far this time. Probably many will praise him but his supposed 'originalist' legal philosophy seems to be falling apart under the weight of his religious and political beliefs.
I do wonder why the authors of the Constitution wrote the phrase: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. if they didn't favour "religious neutrality"
No it doesn't. Note:
Amendment I
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.
Your belief then is that the "no religious test" phrase excludes atheists, pagans and polytheists from serving in government offices? How?
:doh splitting hair fallacy.
it says congress but that also applies to the states as well.
Of course. That comes from the Supremacy Clause, which states that Federal Laws trump State Laws.
My argument with Grim is that it wasn't written the way he explained it. :shrug::doh splitting hair fallacy.
it says congress but that also applies to the states as well.
Can you cite any decision during his tenure on SCOTUS where his religious belief system was the basis of his opinion?
Wonder no more.
The authors did not support the establishment of a national religion like those leading to so many wars and pogroms in Europe. Religious tests were used by various European governments to prevent those who were not members of the State Religion from holding public office. The Colonies had large Catholic minorities and a number of different Protestant sects. So, that clause was included to insure such tests would never be used to limit access to office to members of the principal Protestant faith.
It did not mean that elected officials had to act without any reference to their personal religious beliefs. Just that they could not raise any one over all the others.
My argument with Grim is that it wasn't written the way he explained it. :shrug:
did you read what I was responding to though?
Your belief then is that the "no religious test" phrase excludes atheists, pagans and polytheists from serving in government offices? How?
No it doesn't. Note:
Amendment I
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.
The two are different issues. That phrase deals with discrimination based on a persons faith or lack there of, while what I said deals with the government not showing preference for a particular religion over religions.
.
HOW are they different issues? I seem to have read various comments on DP that "atheism is a religion" Basically I find your comment to be nonsensical but that's just my opinion
1. I have never made such a statement.
2. If you find my words nonsensical, then you must have occasional difficulty understanding what you read.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof deals only with religious establishments and people of faith, not atheism and people who do not embrace religion. It's religion "a" vs religion "b".
no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States deals with the equal treatment and opportunities for people, whether they embrace religion or not. It protects the non-religious from being discriminated against by the religious when it comes to obtaining public office or being a public servant/employee.
.
Yup, I did. I was just putting it in the proper perspective, since the same people who want to claim that the Constitution does not allow discrimination against the Christian religion are hot to discriminate against other religions, particularly Islam. Hence my Thomas Jefferson quote, and my mention of the Supremacy clause, which prohibits states from refusing to take in refugees because of their religion. You can't have it both ways. Either the First Amendment works for everybody, or it doesn't work at all.
Referring to 'God' disenfranchises all religions that have more than one or less than one god(s).
Nope it doesn't if that person doesn't believe in those other religions.
that is why the 1st amendment is so cool. it gives you the ability to express whatever religion you believe in.
Lol this isn't a first amendment issue.
LOL you evidently didn't read the OP.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?