Making Sense of the Issue of the Day - RBG

a reply to: Annee

Scalia’s decisions were influenced by his religious beliefs.

Annee, put up or shut up.

One decision where religious doctrine was used by Scalia. One. Otherwise, you're full of crap.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Antonin Scalia Says Constitution Permits Court To ‘Favor Religion Over Non-Religion’ www.huffpost.com...

Defending his strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution, Scalia knocked secular qualms over the role of religion in the public sphere as “utterly absurd,” arguing that the Constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion — not freedom from it.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” the Reagan-appointed jurist told the crowd of about 400 people.

“We do Him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” the conservative Catholic justice continued. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

Not if it takes precedence over freedom from [religion].

Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. Who is forcing you to worship anyone or anything?

Seeing someone else worship in their own way is not harming you.

TheRedneck

The current Supreme Court is already pushing its limits on separation of church and state.

It’s gone beyond personal belief.

I'd wager that Amy Coney Barrett will be a much better Justice than RBG, so relax, she'll uphold the constitution.

I seriously doubt that.

When you’re a member of a religious group that the Handmaid’s Tail is based on — your decisions are going to be influenced by that.

Scalia’s decisions were influenced by his religious beliefs. She worked as his clerk. She was his “heir”.

Dominionism is a real threat to America.

Hahaha
Freedom to worship as you like, except if you are a scotus justice?
Lol
Ridiculous

BS Express!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Thank you for actually providing something to discuss.

I, however, agree with Scalia. The Constitution says, in the First Amendment:

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.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" sounds pretty clear. Congress cannot stop anyone from practicing their religion freely, nor can Congress demand that anyone practice any religion. Religion in any form is a hands off subject, including but not limited to the absence of religion.

That is not "separation of church and state"... it is separation of church from state. Trying to prohibit anyone from practicing their personal religious values, even a government official, is a power that is strictly prohibited to the government. That means there can be no law telling you to join a religion or practice a religious ceremony, but there can also be no law preventing me from practicing my religious ceremonies or preventing me from holding to a religion.

It is simply not possible to forbid government officials and employees from holding to religious values and still abide by the Constitution. The second one tries to establish a barrier between a person's religion and their opportunity to become an official or employee, one has violated the letter of the First Amendment by prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Now, should Scalia have based a decision, say abortion, on whether or not abortion is considered proper in the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, or any religious writings, that would be a violation of the First Amendment. He never did so. Even this statement was not part of any official decision on a case; it was a statement made during a speech to the Colorado Christian University. That is not a Supreme Court decision.

I love it - you are so terrified that someone might someday mention religion that you would violate the very clause in the Constitution that protects you from religious laws!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

Not if it takes precedence over freedom from [religion].

Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. Who is forcing you to worship anyone or anything?

Seeing someone else worship in their own way is not harming you.

TheRedneck

The current Supreme Court is already pushing its limits on separation of church and state.

It’s gone beyond personal belief.

I'd wager that Amy Coney Barrett will be a much better Justice than RBG, so relax, she'll uphold the constitution.

I seriously doubt that.

When you’re a member of a religious group that the Handmaid’s Tail is based on — your decisions are going to be influenced by that.

Scalia’s decisions were influenced by his religious beliefs. She worked as his clerk. She was his “heir”.

Dominionism is a real threat to America.

Hahaha
Freedom to worship as you like, except if you are a scotus justice?
Lol
Ridiculous

BS Express!

Are you that lame?

Can she separate personal from Constitutional decisions.

I doubt it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

Antonin Scalia Says Constitution Permits Court To ‘Favor Religion Over Non-Religion’.

Exactly!

Blinded by God.

And “they” refuse to see that it’s an issue.

Dp

Dp

a reply to: TheRedneck

Religion in any form is a hands off subject, including but not limited to the absence of religion.

That's not at all what Scalia said. He is arguing that the rights of the religious supersede the rights of the secular. He seemed to think that it was his duty to fight against secular influence in the public square.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,”

That is, in essence, Supreme Court Justice Scalia respecting an establishment of religion, by favoring religious influence above secular influence, even declaring a righteous fight against secular influence, in the public square.

A THEOLOGY OF POWER: MIKE PENCE AND DOMINIONISTS

Those involved in what’s become a major component of the evangelical right in the United States call themselves “dominionists.” They follow “dominion theology.” Pointing to the Bible, they emphasize that in it God gave humans “dominion” over the natural world and life in it. This, they believe, gives them license to exploit the earth. Further, the “dominionists” have expanded this to justify theocratic rule of society.
It is an evangelical segment that Donald Trump has sought to attract. They constitute a significant portion of his so-called “base.” www.counterpunch.org...

a reply to: Annee

Article VI
Clause 3
US Constitution


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Annee

Article VI
Clause 3
US Constitution


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

That doesn't mean that religion can't be a Disqualifyer".

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Annee

Article VI
Clause 3
US Constitution


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

That doesn't mean that religion can't be a Disqualifyer".

Yes. Yes it does.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

Not if it takes precedence over freedom from [religion].

Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. Who is forcing you to worship anyone or anything?

Seeing someone else worship in their own way is not harming you.

TheRedneck

The current Supreme Court is already pushing its limits on separation of church and state.

It’s gone beyond personal belief.

I'd wager that Amy Coney Barrett will be a much better Justice than RBG, so relax, she'll uphold the constitution.

I seriously doubt that.

When you’re a member of a religious group that the Handmaid’s Tail is based on — your decisions are going to be influenced by that.

Scalia’s decisions were influenced by his religious beliefs. She worked as his clerk. She was his “heir”.

Dominionism is a real threat to America.

Hahaha
Freedom to worship as you like, except if you are a scotus justice?
Lol
Ridiculous

BS Express!

Are you that lame?

Can she separate personal from Constitutional decisions.

I doubt it.

Lol
NO ONE has to give up rights here!
You are full of crap!!!

Your jacked opinion is less than the law fortunatly.
Oh how the "tolerant" are anything but.

originally posted by: Annee
A THEOLOGY OF POWER: MIKE PENCE AND DOMINIONISTS

Those involved in what’s become a major component of the evangelical right in the United States call themselves “dominionists.” They follow “dominion theology.” Pointing to the Bible, they emphasize that in it God gave humans “dominion” over the natural world and life in it. This, they believe, gives them license to exploit the earth. Further, the “dominionists” have expanded this to justify theocratic rule of society.
It is an evangelical segment that Donald Trump has sought to attract. They constitute a significant portion of his so-called “base.” www.counterpunch.org...

Childs play compared to blm.

a reply to: DBCowboy

No. No it doesn't.

Religion can be a disqualifier of public trust and/or public office.

It is incumbent upon all those in public office or of public trust to do their jobs with impartiality and equality. If they can't, because of their religious beliefs, then they can be denied or removed from office.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
Wow
Discrimination because of religion.
Where did I put that turban???

How "tolerant "....

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You are wrong.

Here is proof.

Article VI
Clause 3
US Constitution


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Bold is mine.

Now if you can show me proof, evidence, other than your opinion, you might have a point.

I can only offer what is written in the Constitution.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Religion can be a disqualifier of public trust and/or public office.

No, it cannot. That's as plain as day. Read the document. No public office can be denied on the basis of religion.

It is incumbent upon all those in public office or of public trust to do their jobs with impartiality and equality. If they can't, because of their religious beliefs, then they can be denied or removed from office.

That part is true. No public official can foist their religious views on others from their office. But that does not mean they can be disqualified because they might do so.

In this country, we do not punish people because they might do something wrong. We punish people when and if, only when and if, they actually do something wrong. You, Sookiechacha, might rob a bank some time in the future. You cannot be sentenced for bank robbery until and unless you do rob a bank.

Antonin Scalia had every right to hold to his religious views while Associate Justice. He did not have the right to use them to support a decision, and he never did so. Neither you nor Annee could provide a single case where he did. The same goes for Associate Justice to be Amy Coney Barrett.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Now, should Scalia have based a decision, say abortion, on whether or not abortion is considered proper in the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, or any religious writings, that would be a violation of the First Amendment. He never did so. Even this statement was not part of any official decision on a case; it was a statement made during a speech to the Colorado Christian University. That is not a Supreme Court decision.

Now we did have one of the left leaning justices, might even have been RBG, say that they looked to foreign law for precedent on rulings as much as if not more than COTUS, and that should be every bit as much of an anathema as saying one looks at the Bible, Quran, or Torah ... or the Veda for that matter. The only writ for SCOTUS judges would be the COTUS and possibly the other writings of the Founders much like Imams only consider the Quran and Hadith.