Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: Government Should Favor Religion Over Non-Religion

  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Jan 03, 2016 6:47 PM GMT
    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: Government Should Favor Religion Over Non-Religion


    http://www.joemygod.com/2016/01/03/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-government-should-favor-religion-over-non-religion/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2016 7:20 PM GMT
    Meh. Pretty tame for Scalia.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jan 03, 2016 7:23 PM GMT
    maybe this political hack judge should peruse the Constitution
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2016 7:30 PM GMT
    theantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    Holy Fuckshit, Fatman

    http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/government_can_should_support.html
    The Constitution's First Amendment protects the free practice of religion and forbids the government from playing favorites among the various sects, Scalia said, but that doesn't mean the government can't favor religion over nonreligion.


    [urlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins#Secular_humanism_as_religion[/url]
    It has occasionally been argued that in Torcaso v. Watkins the Supreme Court "found" secular humanism to be a religion.


    https://richarddawkins.net/2014/11/atheists-score-major-win-in-federal-court/
    A federal district court in Oregon has declared Secular Humanism a religion, paving the way for the non-theistic community to obtain the same legal rights as groups such as Christianity.

    On Thursday, October 30, Senior District Judge Ancer Haggerty issued a ruling on American Humanist Association v. United States, a case that was brought by the American Humanist Association (AHA) and Jason Holden, a federal prisoner. Holden pushed for the lawsuit because he wanted Humanism — which the AHA defines as “an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces” — recognized as a religion so that his prison would allow for the creation of a Humanist study group. Haggerty sided with the plaintiffs in his decision, citing existing legal precedent and arguing that denying Humanists the same rights as groups such as Christianity would be highly suspect under the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which declares that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

    “The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes,” the ruling read.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

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

    The Establishment Clause was written by Congressman Fisher Ames in 1789, who derived it from discussions in the First Congress of various drafts that would become the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. The second half of the Establishment Clause includes the Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees freedom from governmental interference in both private and public religious affairs of all kinds....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2016 8:09 PM GMT
    tj85016 saidmaybe this political hack judge should peruse the Constitution

    He's trying to rewrite the Constitution.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14305

    Jan 03, 2016 8:47 PM GMT
    This Supreme Court judge has really lost his mind thinking that something primitive and unproven like religious beliefs should be given full precedence over our Constitution. This man has no damned business on the U.S. Supreme Court. icon_mad.gif
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Jan 03, 2016 8:52 PM GMT
    I certainly hope that his opinion is never shared by the majority.

    It is unclear how religion could be favored over non-religion without specifically discriminating against those who have no religion.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jan 03, 2016 9:09 PM GMT
    FRE0 saidI certainly hope that his opinion is never shared by the majority.

    It is unclear how religion could be favored over non-religion without specifically discriminating against those who have no religion.


    I'm sure Scalia has considered that, but he really doesn't give a rat's ass
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2016 10:19 PM GMT
    No shock there.
    Look who it was appointed by...that senile moron Reagan. icon_rolleyes.gif
    The same repuke president that allowed that right wing douchebag bigot Jerry Falwell get its feet solidly entrenched in politicsicon_exclaim.gif

    Many, not all, of the bigotry we face from the repukes and their sheep can be attributed back to that fat piece of repuke shit.

    So again, not at all surprised that Scalia feels this way. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2016 11:24 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    tj85016 saidmaybe this political hack judge should peruse the Constitution

    He's trying to rewrite the Constitution.

    No, that particularly peculiar practice was the province of the Earl Warren Court. See e.g., Gideon v. Wainwright: VI Amdt. right to counsel rewritten to require free counsel for criminal defendants at taxpayers' expense. Scalia's trying to undo the Ct's decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, holding that statutes may not advance or inhibit religious practice.

    As for that OR DJ's decision in the AHA case, by the same logic it can be argued, and found, that Islam is NOT a religion, but a blueprint for military conquest and oppression, by both its own terms and as acted upon by Muslim terrorists. In fact, given its repeatedly demonstrated clear and present danger, there's even more of a case for denying Islam protection under the I Amdt. than granting it to "humanists" - pace, Petrarch - under that same provision.

    And, whatever one's opinion of President Ronald Reagan, he could never have been described as "fat."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2016 11:37 PM GMT
    icon_rolleyes.gif


    Occult
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult

    The occult (from the Latin word occultus "clandestine, hidden, secret") is "knowledge of the hidden".[1] In common English usage, occult refers to "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable",[2] usually referred to as science. The term is sometimes taken to mean knowledge that "is meant only for certain people" or that "must be kept hidden", but for most practicing occultists it is simply the study of a deeper spiritual reality that extends beyond pure reason and the physical sciences.[3] The terms esoteric and arcane can also be used to describe the occult,[4][5] in addition to their meanings unrelated to the supernatural.

    It also describes a number of magical organizations or orders, the teachings and practices taught by them, and to a large body of current and historical literature and spiritual philosophy related to this subject.

    Occultism is the study of occult practices, including (but not limited to) magic, alchemy, extra-sensory perception, spiritualism, religion, and divination. Interpretation of occultism and its concepts can be found in the belief structures of philosophies and religions such as Chaos magic, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Theosophy, Wicca, Thelema and modern paganism



    169415-christian-religious-symbols.jpg



  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Jan 04, 2016 1:11 AM GMT
    Musclefetish saidNo shock there.
    Look who it was appointed by...that senile moron Reagan. icon_rolleyes.gif
    The same repuke president that allowed that right wing douchebag bigot Jerry Falwell get its feet solidly entrenched in politicsicon_exclaim.gif

    Many, not all, of the bigotry we face from the repukes and their sheep can be attributed back to that fat piece of repuke shit.

    So again, not at all surprised that Scalia feels this way. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Are you sure that it wasn't Nancy Reagan's doing?
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Jan 04, 2016 1:15 AM GMT
    MGINSD said
    Art_Deco said
    tj85016 saidmaybe this political hack judge should peruse the Constitution

    He's trying to rewrite the Constitution.

    No, that particularly peculiar practice was the province of the Earl Warren Court. See e.g., Gideon v. Wainwright: VI Amdt. right to counsel rewritten to require free counsel for criminal defendants at taxpayers' expense. Scalia's trying to undo the Ct's decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, holding that statutes may not advance or inhibit religious practice.

    As for that OR DJ's decision in the AHA case, by the same logic it can be argued, and found, that Islam is NOT a religion, but a blueprint for military conquest and oppression, by both its own terms and as acted upon by Muslim terrorists. In fact, given its repeatedly demonstrated clear and present danger, there's even more of a case for denying Islam protection under the I Amdt. than granting it to "humanists" - pace, Petrarch - under that same provision.

    And, whatever one's opinion of President Ronald Reagan, he could never have been described as "fat."


    More Muslims than non-Muslims have suffered at the hands of radical Islam.
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    Jan 04, 2016 3:35 AM GMT
    Frustrating, but not surprising, from someone with such narrow-minded parochial thinking as Scalia.
  • NerdLifter

    Posts: 1509

    Jan 04, 2016 5:29 AM GMT
    I think the most frustrating thing about Scalia is how inconsistent he can be when it comes to interpreting the constitution, which is what makes him such a loathsome individual.

    He will claim to be an originalist (referring to the interpreting the constitution as it would have been during the era of its adoption), but then go on to make horrendous supreme court decisions that violates originalism, notably corporate personhood and his subjective interpretations on least-restriction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2016 6:01 AM GMT
    Church And State in Bed Together Under Current Majority of Supreme Court

    NYT: The court of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been one of the most religion-friendly Supreme Courts in modern history. Nearly every religious claim presented to the court has emerged a winner, from explicitly sectarian prayer at town board meetings, in last year’s closely divided Town of Greece decision, to beards for Muslim inmates in a prison system that banned facial hair — a unanimous decision that defied the court’s tradition of deference to prison officials and their rules.

    Most famous, of course, was last year’s Hobby Lobby decision, exempting a for-profit company from having to cover contraception in its employee health plan, as otherwise required under the Affordable Care Act, because of the owners’ religious scruples about birth control.

    Now the post-Hobby Lobby cases have, inevitably, arrived at the Supreme Court’s door. Will the Roberts court buy it? The implications are too enormous. As the 10th Circuit observed, “Courts have recognized that, to opt out of military service for religious reasons, a conscientious objector must notify the government of his objection knowing that someone else will take his place.” Complicity? People have to pay their taxes, whether they have objections, religious or otherwise, to the wars they thereby help to finance. Complicity?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/opinion/linda-greenhouse-religion-case-too-far-for-the-supreme-court.html
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jan 04, 2016 7:44 AM GMT
    NerdLifter saidI think the most frustrating thing about Scalia is how inconsistent he can be when it comes to interpreting the constitution, which is what makes him such a loathsome individual.

    He will claim to be an originalist (referring to the interpreting the constitution as it would have been during the era of its adoption), but then go on to make horrendous supreme court decisions that violates originalism, notably corporate personhoon and his subjective interpretations on least-restriction.


    that's because he's not really a judge/attorney, he's a political hack (and I don't care what his JD degree says, he's a hack)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2016 12:14 AM GMT
    Sometimes one really wished there were a term limit on the tenure of Supreme Court Justices. And maybe a little dash of election by the people, like with the Senate.

    The way it stands, Chief Justice Roberts, god willing, will stay on the court for 30 years or so. I am not sure that's a great idea, regardless of his political leanings.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Jan 05, 2016 12:21 AM GMT
    Because I strongly favor complete separation of church and state, I am a member of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. The organization was not in favor of the Hobby Lobby decision.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Jan 05, 2016 12:22 AM GMT
    themachine saidSometimes one really wished there were a term limit on the tenure of Supreme Court Justices. And maybe a little dash of election by the people, like with the Senate.

    The way it stands, Chief Justice Roberts, god willing, will stay on the court for 30 years or so. I am not sure that's a great idea, regardless of his political leanings.


    You might not be happy with term limits if they caused justices who favored church - state separation to be replaced with justices with the opposite position.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2016 12:33 AM GMT
    FRE0 said
    themachine saidSometimes one really wished there were a term limit on the tenure of Supreme Court Justices. And maybe a little dash of election by the people, like with the Senate.

    The way it stands, Chief Justice Roberts, god willing, will stay on the court for 30 years or so. I am not sure that's a great idea, regardless of his political leanings.


    You might not be happy with term limits if they caused justices who favored church - state separation to be replaced with justices with the opposite position.


    Yup. Whatever my feelings about Scalia I have to admit I prefer rules that try and sometimes fail to insulate the court from politics over a system that wouldn't even try.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2016 5:08 AM GMT
    It's for this reason to vote Democratic. If either Hillary or Bernie are the nominee, you know their Supreme Court appointments will be infinitely better than anything Trump, Cruz or Rubio would Bork us with.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2016 5:20 PM GMT
    mickeytopogigio saidIt's for this reason to vote Democratic. If either Hillary or Bernie are the nominee, you know their Supreme Court appointments will be infinitely better than anything Trump, Cruz or Rubio would Bork us with.

    Yes, who gets to make SCOTUS appointments definitely figures in my voting decision, which is precisely why I would never vote for Billary or Burned-Outie.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2016 4:37 AM GMT
    We have a hard enough time as it is agreeing on interpretations of the constitution. And religious people have a hard time agreeing on interpretations of the bible (hence the million versions of the bible and the many denominations of Christianity). How in the world would we agree on interpretations of the constitution AND interpretations of the bible?icon_rolleyes.gif