1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Scalia agrees with me on Church-State Rulings

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by jamming, Jan 13, 2003.

  1. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Way to go Judge Scalia, one down four to go! :thumbsup:

    Let me predict who is going to go crazy over this - Shinytop, Rredline, and/or Coriolis.
     
  2. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    Exactly the same point I was trying to make in another thread: the courts should not be deciding social issues such as this.

    Although I will grant that every American must act responsibly in order for a just and equitable solution to be reached without judicial intervention. Maybe when Hell freezes over........;)
     
  3. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    If Scalia is your here...

    Oh and you forgot ethics. :)
     
  4. jamming

    jamming Banned

    No I didn't forget ethics, I have no ethics ;)

    I had a moral once, but I traded it for a scruple.:_
     
  5. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member

    Did somebody say scrapple? No wait, that's a Philly thing. Scruple, scruple... Oh yes, I have one or two of those. Most inconvenient. They keep tripping me up at the worst possible time. Like dealing with morals and ethics.

    The courts should stay out of religion and common sense should reign. Some things will offend some people, some of the time. Such is life. However, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs without reserve. Public funds should never be used to espouse private views.
     
  6. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Scalia speaking before a religious conference - a bastion of religious freedom. Cough.
     
  7. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    Justice Scalia is an idiot, Jamming. If you take pleasure in his agreeing with you, then good for you. I'm sure you would love for the entire Supreme Court to be made up of Scalia and his many children so that the USA could be thrown back into the Dark Ages of social development.

    I am very interested to know what exactly he meant by that statement? Is he saying that the Constitution should not be interpreted literally? Or is he saying that only the parts he doesn't like shouldn't be interpreted literally?

    I think he is off his rocker. (For those of you who think like Scalia, I didn't mean that <i>literally</i>. Now THAT would be silly.)
     
  8. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    He may simply be saying that it should be interpreted to please those whose support he might want in the upcoming battle fot appointment as Chief Justice, since the current chief is getting on and is rumored to be retiring soon.
     
  9. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    People keep talking about what the framers meant when they wrote parts of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. I think it is germane but I also think the framers realized that times do not stand still.

    Religious freedom, like most things is relative. In the time of the Constitution religious freedom meant that we would not hang you for not going to church or for being Jewish. And that was about the extent of "religious freedom". Almost all states had laws restricting the right to vote to property holders and nobody allowed women to vote. And blacks were property in a good part of the country.

    Nobody here would argue that our concept of freedom with regards to voting, women, and race have not been broadened and improved. Freedom has evolved and that is a good thing. This was not done by throwing out the Constitution. It was done by law and by interpreting the words of the document. It was done by taking logical steps as people who respected all people realized we had restrictions in place. This was done by the people who did not feel it diminished the majority to acknowledge the rights of the minority, it enhanced them, it glorified them. How can you celebrate the freedom of the vote if you banned half the people from voting?

    This country is a very different nation than 200 years ago. Our concept of religious freedom should have the maturity, the ability to grow, that our other rights and freedoms have. It should be able to encompass not making others mouth words anathema to them in order to pledge their allegiance to our country. It should be able to encompass not using the government to advance the cause for any religion. Is religious freedom the celebration of your religion or the celebration of all and of none? How can you celebrate religious freedom by imposing one on all citizens?

    If a man in a white sheet stands up and preaches slavery most ignore and revile him. If a man stands up and preaches to take away a woman's right to vote we chuckle and dismiss him out of hand. Yet both beliefs were held by the framers and protected by the Constitution. Is religious freedom the only freedom you choose to leave behind?
     
  10. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    Slavery was ended because a bare majority of the populace decided to end it....via a violent civil war, may I add?

    Women's rights were enacted because the majority decide that women should enjoy the same equal rights as men.

    Things do change...via the will of the populace.
     
  11. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    You would prefer another civil war?
     
  12. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    Don't be silly.

    I'm pointing out that the examples you endorse were enabled by majority rule. If majority rule decrees that religion be granted some place in public life, then is majority rule good or bad?

    My point is that the framers of the Bill of Rights were no more able to determine the makeup of this nation 200+ years into the future than we are able to read their minds, 200+ years back.

    The only thing we have to guide ourselves is the principles embodied in the Bill of Rights, common sense, and the understanding that it's impossible to please everyone, all the time.
     
  13. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I agree. But I am at a loss to understand why imposing a belief is pleasing everyone. I do not equate forcing somebody to say "Under God" as neutral. Or is the allegiance of non believers not wanted? Many have died for this country largely because of religious freedom. Now many of those are spinning in their graves to find out they were only fooled by noble words backed by the will of the majority to impose their will. You do understand the difference between passing laws and the bill of rights? The Bill of Rights was added purposely to protect certain rights from the rights of the majority.

    The term "you cannot please everybody" is nothing more than an excuse to say "so we will please ourselves and screw the minority with no attempt to reach middle ground." Middle ground like letting everybody practice their own religion and keeping the government out of it.
     
  14. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    You've almost got it correct:

    "The term "you cannot please everybody" is nothing more than an excuse to say "so we will please ourselves and screw the minority with no attempt to reach middle ground."

    makes perfect sense reworded to say:

    "The term "you cannot please everybody" is nothing more than an excuse to say "so we will please ourselves and screw the minority <u>that will never be pleased until they have their way with no attempt to reach middle ground."
     
  15. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Now you have highlighted the differences between the two sides. I define middle ground has everybody practicing as they wish without governmental influence. The other definition of middle ground is believe as you wish but let me keep my preeminent position so I can impose mine. Nice middle ground.
     
  16. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    "...practicing as they wish..." according to <u>your</u> terms.

    How is that any closer to a middle ground?
     
  17. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Because everybody practicing as they wish (and I will complete the quote, if you please) without governmental influence means you can pray, you just can't over a microphone imposed on everybody. It means you can believe, you just can't impose your religion on my ability to pledge my allegience. It means you can do everything you do now, but use the government to further your beliefs.

    But in every thread regarding religion in this forum we have asked "how does it diminish your rights to not have the words in the pledge, how does it diminish your rights to not have "In God We trust" on every building or bill? " The dimishment of the rights of other religions is evident. I still want to know how your rights are diminished by respecting other people's rights.

    You are not arguing for equality, you are arguing for the status quo, just as slave owners, male voters, and the landed wanted to restrict the freedom of others. Did not work then and will not work now. Just as those acts extended freedom, not diminish it, so will acceptance of all people's rights to believe extend this country's freedom, not diminish it.
     
  18. jamming

    jamming Banned

    I love it when a plan comes together:happy: :happy: :happy:

    Yes, let the courts interprete the Consitution to mean things not in it, instead of applying the Consitution as it is. It is too terrible of an idea for people who oppose this to have to have their ideas prevail or even be discussed to the point where it is done Consitutionally. Let's let the Courts do it for them by fiat, by making the Consitution into a Plasticman. It's obvious that the average person is not capable of making this decision by an expression of their will in the Democratic method. Someone smarter has to do it for them, (sorry to borrow these words Haywire), typical Liberal claptrap in the people are only right when it supports the Liberal point of view.

    Now why did we include these things called amendments? Oh yes to change the Constitution, but I guess we don't have to do that anymore of course. The Courts are quite willing to do it for us without any fuss with this Democracy crap and it is just fine if other's don't have any say as long as it is not us.

    :haha: :haha: :haha:

    You are officially :_ 'd
     
  19. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    There is a quantifiable difference, as well as qualitative, between advocating for slavery or the inequality of women, versus supporting the free exercise of religion in a public setting.

    I personally, as you know, do support the rights of everyone to believe, or not, as they choose. It matters not to me if an athiest chooses shout from the courthouse steps the non-existence of God. It matters not to me if a Satanist desires exercise their religion in a public setting (as long as no blood is involved ;)).

    And believe, me I understand fully your argument that your rights are somehow diminished by a word on piece of paper, or inserted into a pro forma pledge. I understand, but I do not feel that way.

    My personal tolerance level allows for all sorts of beliefs, or none, as society may dictate - short of the point of official sanctions of particular religions or religious practices.

    I guess what I'm saying is that I don't sweat the small stuff; there is far more, of more serious concern, in this whole issue of separation of church and state, to be worried about. Ultimately what I'm saying ShinyTop, and please take this in the frank spirit intended, not as a personal slander or anything (for I do respect you), is that I just don't care about your concerns in these narrowly-defined areas because I think there are more important things to worry about. That's the only reason I argue with you, in particular, on this issue, is because I really think that energy could be beter used fighting real threats.

    Preemption of the government isn't going to come about from pervasive little culturally inherited things like mottos or pledges. It's going to come about from the slow erosion of our basic rights, all for purported good causes until, one day, we find ourselves so circumscribed by what we can say and do that anything not sanctioned by the State will be proscribed.
     
  20. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    So what are you saying, Jamming? Are you suggesting that it is okay to ignore the Constitution, as long as it's done <i>democratically</i>? Would you suggest that slavery was okay because it was done <i>democratically</i>?

    I'm sorry, but Scalia is just saying, "Majority rules whether you like it or not and nevermind the Constitution."

    And puh-leeeze. Nobody's been " :_ 'd." Grow up.
     

Share This Page