Justice Scalia, in speech, dismisses concept of governmental religious neutrality

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Explorer, Jan 2, 2016.

  1. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,393
    Likes Received:
    970
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    Scalia dismisses concept of religious neutrality in speech

    To me, it is interesting to have Supreme Court Justice who lacks the knowledge and insight to recognize that there are two religions in the US which have chosen opposing symbols, the Christians and the Satanists (regardless of whether the Satanists in question are atheist or not).

    As soon as you have government siding with Christianity over Satanism, you've violated the Constitution's prohibition of establishing Christianity's god over Satan.

    It's difficult for me to figure out how Scalia could come to his conclusion by using the law as his basis. Does anyone have a good explanation as to how Scalia could have reasonably come to his conclusion which favors Christianity over Satanism, while basing that explanation on actual Constitutional principles?

    If not... is Scalia suffering some form of impairment?
     
  2. AngstRiddenDreams

    AngstRiddenDreams Filthy Casual

    Messages:
    3,469
    Likes Received:
    317
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
    Religion is an impairment
     
  3. Mo Jiggity

    Mo Jiggity 7-string n00b

    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    53
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Location:
    Maryland
    Tell me... have you ever actually read what the Constitution says regarding religion and state? I'm kind of interested.
     
  4. AxeHappy

    AxeHappy SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    2,969
    Likes Received:
    238
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Location:
    Guelph
    Cognitive dissonance mixed with Manifest Destiny and being a religious ....ing asshole.
     
  5. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,393
    Likes Received:
    970
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    I would be most interested in knowing how you would believe the Founding Fathers intended for the First Amendment to be interpreted. Did any of them leave behind any written notes or correspondence dealing with such?

    I'm almost positive that they did leave behind records of such, and that the nation has been using the First Amendment as the Founding Fathers intended, but I'm happy to learn something new, even if the evidence disproves my possibly mistaken understanding of their intentions.
     
  6. Hollowway

    Hollowway Extended Ranger

    Messages:
    11,835
    Likes Received:
    2,369
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Location:
    California
    Scalia is wrong in his interpretation of the constitution, if taken literally. However, the courts do take liberty with deciding how to interpret the law (and constitution) so it's not a huge shocker. I think this is why presidents foam at the mouth when they think they can appoint a new justice. Remember how they decided that corporations were considered people? The supreme court is the last say in what the law and constitution mean. So they get to do whatever they want. And since they cannot be removed from the court, they have no motivation to do anything other than what pleases them.

    As an aside, I remember in a college course where a guest lecturer was discussing oxymorons, and he rattled off a few, including "jumbo shrimp" and then "Justice Scalia."

    I think what is most interesting is that older people tend to me more conservative, in that conservatism results from wanting to keep things the way they are. And older people tend to be those on the Supreme Court, since you need a lot of judicial experience to be considered. Therefore, in general, the Supreme Court will tend to skew toward conservatism, generally speaking. In a lot of ways that is good, so we don't get petulant justices making sweeping changes. But at the same time, there's no denying that it favors the same conservatism that shows up in politics.
     
  7. Grindspine

    Grindspine likes pointy things

    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    123
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2014
    Location:
    Indiana


    That is the only mention of religion in The Constitution proper. Further summary of the implications can be found here.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause#cite_note-1

    The First Amendment to The Constitution, however, continues by prohibiting the making of any law establishing a state-sponsored religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. "Free exercise" of religion does have limits, specifically when a religious practice directly (physically) harms others.

    Explorer, can you elaborate on this? My first reading of this seems to indicate that you believe everyone falls into either being Christian or Satanist and that athiests are of the latter group. Could you clarify your meaning?
     
  8. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,393
    Likes Received:
    970
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    Scalia acknowledges that one cannot favor one religion over another... but then sees no problem with having the christian god in government, said god being the enemy of the satanists' god (the theistic ones).

    And having the christian god acknowledged in government without affirming the satanist god is showing a preference for just one side of that dualism of faiths.

    That was just an easy example. However, the christian god is also a jealous one, while the hindu religion often reveres all gods as containing that essence of the holy, bhagwan. Why would brahma be entitled to less acknowledgement than yahweh in government?

    If the answer is because the majority worship yahweh, and therefore the minority which worships brahma doesn't get to have its deities set on the same level as the majority's, then one treads in directions which run counter to the intent of the founding fathers, and which impose and embrace the tyranny of the majority.

    To avoid that is why we have not just a democratic republic, instead of direct majority rule, but also why there are Constitutional constraints upon the majority, to protect the minorities of the moment.

    Thanks for the chance to clarify!
     
  9. asher

    asher So Did We

    Messages:
    9,033
    Likes Received:
    686
    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Location:
    Oakland, CA
    Scalia is a complete and utter hack, and becoming increasingly unhinged-sounding if you read his more recent dissents.
     
  10. russmuller

    russmuller Cramblin' Contributor

    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    148
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Scalia is reliably unable to see beyond his personal biases. From what I've read and heard from him over the years (especially on controversial topics), his views rarely withstand critical examination.
     
  11. sevenstringj

    sevenstringj Banned

    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    231
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Location:
    ny
    I can't tell if that's Justice Scalia or Caliph Baghdadi.
     
  12. Grindspine

    Grindspine likes pointy things

    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    123
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2014
    Location:
    Indiana
    Explorer, by "Satanists" do you mean non-Christians in general (whether atheist or non-Christian religious follower)? I still miss the meaning on that original post.
     
  13. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,393
    Likes Received:
    970
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    Ah, I see! You don't know about the Church of Satan and the Satanic Temple in the United States.

    I mean Satanists in a literal way.

    I thought my post involving Hinduism showed that I didn't consider them to be Satanists, but I didn't know about that gap in your knowledge.

    There have been topics here on SS.org about lawsuits to allow Satanists the same access to public schools and government property as has been granted to Christians. Just entering the word "satan" or "satanic" into the SS.org search engine will find those for you, if you want to bring yourself up to speed.

    Happy reading!
     
  14. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,579
    Likes Received:
    559
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    Scalia is a filthy little s*** every time I read something that has absolutely anything to do with him. It's a real f***ing shame we can't impeach this bloated f***ing r*tard
     

Share This Page