Sunday, January 03, 2016

Justice Antonin Scalia believes that the government should favor the religious over the non-religious.

Courtesy of NOLA: 

Government support for religion is not only justified by the Constitution, it was the norm for hundreds of years and it helped the United States become a free and prosperous nation, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday in Metairie. 

Speaking before a small crowd at Archbishop Rummel High School, Scalia delivered a short but provocative speech on religious freedom that saw the conservative Catholic take aim at those who confuse freedom of religion for freedom from it. 

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.

 Scalia goes on to suggest that when Thomas Jefferson first invoked the idea of the "wall of separation between church and state," that he did not intend for it to be taken literally since he also mentioned God in the Declaration of Independence, and penned Virginia's religious freedom law.

However it is within that Virginia religious freedom law that Jefferson wrote the following:

That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right.

You know to me that sounds very much like a man who absolutely does not want special privilege provided to those who profess a faith in any god or adherence to any particular religion.

And that is even before taking into account the Jefferson Bible, where he methodically removed all mentions of miracles and left only the words ascribed to Jesus that he felt reflected his moral teachings.

No Scalia is wrong, dead wrong.

But even if he is right about the "common practice" of Christianity during the time when the country was formed, that time is long past and if we as a nation to not progress past the superstitions and ignorance of our forefathers we will find ourselves left in the dust by the rest of the world.

In fact in many ways, we already have.

36 comments:

  1. Anita Winecooler2:59 PM

    I agree, he's dead wrong. And the only way to fight this mindset is to gotv as if your life depends on it, because it does.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yet another Republican who can't believe or read statements by the Founding Fathers' insisting on a separation of church and state.
    But as a Supreme Court judge -- he should know better.
    Disgraceful. He is a real blight on the "justice" system in America that this narrow-minded man can vate to undo laws (like Roe v. Wade).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous3:14 PM

    Surely the man has read James Madison. You can't be a constitutional scholar and not have read the writings of "the Father of the Constitution". Madison was absolutely adamant that government and religion should not mix in any way, shape, or form, and he based that opinion on the evidence of history, which pretty clearly shows that mixing religion and government leads to death and destruction and the loss of civil liberties. What a disastrous little man Scalia is.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous3:16 PM

    Scalia needs to read the Jefferson Bible and Stephen Mitchell's Gospel According to Jesus. Jefferson hated the way the Bible was used and pieced together to play "tricks" on people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous3:24 PM

    There should be some way to get Scalia off of the Supreme Court. He and Clarence Thomas are embarrassments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:06 PM

      There is... they'll both be dead soon.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous8:19 PM

      @4:06- Scalia will more likely be drooling in a care home than deceased any time soon. Dude is behaving/ offering utterances that do not befit his station, making me think he is becoming demented, i.e., dementia senilis.

      Delete
    3. Can he be forcibly removed when it's clearer than now that he's suffering from Dementia?

      Delete
  6. Anonymous3:33 PM

    Scalito likes to use phrases like "common practice".

    "Common practice" until recently was to let child abusers and run loose re-offending with as many victims as they wanted.

    Child abusers and rapists in positions of power (I'm particularly talking about priests and higher up in the Catholic heirarchy) had a continual supply of believers/victims to victimize.

    Common practice in certain southern states until the Civil War was that slavery was legal and desirable. Further, many influential religious leaders in the south insisted that slavery was ordained by the bible and god.

    Scalito should remember that "common practice" in the United States was to discriminate against both Catholics and Southern-European immigrants. Scalito might remember Congress passing both the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and Immigration Act of 1924. Then again, since he doesn't acknowledge facts which don't support his preconceived activist positions, maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous3:34 PM

    OT but thanks for linking Casey Reynolds blog in your Alaska blogroll. He is a lot right of where I stand on politics but he isn't a crazy tea-bagger, at least, and I do like to see a smattering of different opinions on your blogroll. He does take time to parse out the various local and state candidates and is a welcome voice in the Alaskan blogosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous3:34 PM

    There is absolutely nothing about this man that makes him fit to serve as a justice on the US Supreme Court. He, along with Clarence Thomas, are owned lock-stock-and-barrel by the Koch brothers. They both lack the intellect and the ability to understand the US Constitution and I doubt if either of them has ever read a history of this country. How did they ever graduate from law school?
    Beaglemom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only qualifications are to be nominated by a president and confirmed by Congress.

      I think that explains Scalia very well. Ronald Reagan having Alzheimer's for most of his terms. Or just plain stupid. Scalia's appointment was probably some sort of quid pro quo to the Kochs or Karl Rove or someone.

      Clarence Thomas can be blamed on Bush Sr. I don't think we need to say anything more.

      Georgie Helluva Job Bush is responsible for Alito and Roberts. We'll be stuck with Roberts as Chief for decades. Even though he's gone his "legacy" will continue to fuck this country. When he dies I will go dancing in a red dress.

      This is why is it imperative that we keep Democrats in the White House for the next 2-4 terms and that we regain a majority in at least one house of Congress.

      Delete
  9. Randall3:39 PM

    Not only is belief in nonsense unhealthy...
    Over an extended time it eats little holes through the brain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leland2:36 AM

      LITTLE holes?

      Delete
  10. Anonymous3:43 PM

    SCOTUS is he wrong place for this 'wrong' man.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Who appointed this fool?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous8:17 PM

      Rhetorical question, right??

      Delete
    2. Ronald Reagan.

      Delete
  12. Anonymous3:44 PM

    Scalia is one that will retire during the next Presidential administration, making it that much more important that we have a POTUS in place that can replace this simple-minded idiot with a person that respects the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, he won't. He'll keep going until he dies. So will Thomas.

      I understand why O'Connor wanted to retire, but I wish she had waited until Obama took office.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous4:12 PM

    When a Supreme Court Justice has this personal opinion and it come into his case decisions I have no faith for a correct ruling. Impartial court my lily white transgendered ass!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous4:13 PM

    No surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous4:16 PM

    O/t but go to this site and scroll to Ashley Morgan photos posted and tell me that BI racial baby doesn't look like sailor!!!

    http://community.babycenter.com/post/a21291773/then_and_now_pics?cpg=2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:22 PM

      PLEASE take to another thread.
      Enough....adults talking now......

      Delete
    2. Anonymous5:02 PM

      PLEASE take to another thread.
      Enough....adults talking now......

      Simply ignore this type of comment when it is clearly out of place.

      Delete
    3. Totally off track. Please find an appropriate post to use. This one isn't it.

      Delete
  16. Anonymous4:21 PM

    As a horrible "practicing" Christian, he is dead wrong.I know what the Bible says and none of them follow any of it, let alone their blessed Constitution. That should have been evident when they allowed "Citizens United." The last straw for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sassa8:15 PM

      "Corporations are people, my friend."

      Delete
  17. @Anon 4:16 PM: Give it a rest. You're despicable.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous5:03 PM

    4:22 and 4:16 "adults talking now" ? "Give it a rest. You're despicable"? So according to you two those of us trying to prove the birthdate of and race of Bristol's latest baby are despicable and not adult? Well considering the comments number well over 200/250 on the posts about Bristol and Sailor Palin I guess the majority of us are immature. The b&g owner posts Bristol and Sailor and his own speculation about this baby so do you skip gryphen's post that include the baby? I assume so since it is beneath you two.

    Oh and 4:16 you are not at all indicative of Washingtonians who tend to live and let live- unlike you and your name calling self who obviously woke on the wrong side of the new year. Next time just don't read the comment!!!! Namaste grumpy old lady.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:14 PM

      I agree with 5:03 this blog following was built on the lies of the palins and continues to crease readers and comments predominantly because of the paln posts by a Gryphen. If gryphen allows o/t comments it is not up to you to attack the person commenting.

      If you are so above it all then perhaps YOU are in the wrong place...?
      Regardless, callng a commenter despicable and insinuating he/she is not an adult because a comment with a link is posted here is simply rude and deplorable behavior from you. Your comments only serve to prove what intolerant and hypocritical people you are.

      You are probably the same ones who attach Janice too- and she has been here a LONG time.

      You two get over yourselves and give it a rest.

      Delete
  19. Anonymous6:20 PM

    Is this the first member of SCOTUS who was clearly insane? Regrettably, my intense and obsessive interest in politics didn't really begin until I developed a white hot burning hatred for George W Bush. Keith O got me started, before he completely went off the rails. I do believe I've made up for lost time, and I also believe that in this case, ignorance really was bliss.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous6:47 PM

    Time to dump ALL of these Theocracy freaks from any office, local, state, national, and SCOTUS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leland7:24 AM

      Any legal ways YOU can think of for the removal of a Supreme Court Justice?

      Of course, there is the clause that states "...shall hold their offices during good behaviour..." but who will you be able to convince he has done something NOT "of good behaviour"?The Congress? Like THAT'S gonna happen with the repubes control!

      The rest you name? Yes, there is a way, but then you'd have to convince the idiots who initially put them INTO office.

      I agree with your sentiment, but question the actual doing of such.

      Delete
  21. This guy should NOT be a Supreme Court Justice as he obviously doesn't even have a basic grasp of the Constitution.

    Now, should Dementia set in even further, is there a way to recall him before he drools all over himself? We can't have a crazy making decisions on U.S. law.

    ReplyDelete
  22. After 6 moths of Broken marriage, my husband left me with two kids, I felt like ending it all, i almost committed suicide because he left us with nothing, i was emotionally down all this while. Thanks to a man called Dr Aisabu of Aisabu temple which i met online. On one faithful day, as I was browsing through the internet, I came across several testimonies about this particular man. Some people testified that he brought their Ex lover back, some testified that he restores womb,cure cancer,and other sickness, some testified that he prayed to stop divorce and get a good paid job so on. He is amazing, i also come across one particular testimony, it was about a woman called Shannon , she testified about how he brought back her Ex lover in less than 2 days, and at the end of her testimony she dropped his email. (aisabulovespell@gmail.com) After reading all these, I decided to give it a try. I contacted him via email and explained my problem to him. In just 48hours, my husband came back to me. We resolved our issues, and we are even happier than ever. DR Aisabu you are a gifted man and thank you for everything you had done in my life. If you have a problem and you are looking for a real and genuine spell caster, Try him anytime, he is the answer to your problems. you can contact him on aisabulovespell@gmail.com !

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.