Making Sense of the Issue of the Day - RBG

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I just reread Article VI. It includes the "several states." Therefore those provisions in the state constitutions are unconstitutional in light of the US Constitution and cannot be enforced.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Also, such a person would have a body of work that would clearly show such rulings and that would disqualify them from being appointed in the first place. They would make rulings out of alignment with US law.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Actually, the Federal Government is charged to enforce that no one is deprived of their right to religion or their right to no religion, and that NO religion is imposed by any State.

See Thomas Jefferson, et. al.

Thanks for your honesty though. May we both live long enough to see the outcome of this madness.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm referencing religious testing. Just like age discrimination, it happens, regardless of whether or not people are getting away with it.

Justice Scalia's words, saying that it's perfectly fine for government to favor religion above secularism is reflected in State constitutions that still have unenforceable and discriminatory laws on their books.

"In God We Trust" was upheld as a US motto for coins and "under God" in the Pledge Of Allegiance was held up and affirmed by a Supreme Court that favors religion over secularism.

In other words Scalia was saying that of course an Atheist can serve in office, but it's okay for government officials to favor believers' nominations over atheists' nominations, or someone sympathetic with your religious beliefs over someone who is not.

originally posted by: carewemust
Dianne Feinstein is promising a huge confirmation hearing fight. She must be bribing someone to say that Amy Coney Barrett raped him or her in the 1990s.

Well, that's the Constitutional power of the Minority, right?

I thought that's what was at stake here ... Constituional rights? The right of 47 Senators elected by Americans to stand against the other 53?

Surely you're not against playing politics....

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Because if you're truly an atheist or an adherent of another religion, such a motto should have no more power over you than when the school teaches your child about Greek mythology. Now when that happened and you kid came home learning about Zeus and Hera and what they were gods and goddesses of, you didn't waste time thinking the school was enforcing Hellenism on your child did you?

a reply to: ketsuko

Also, such a person would have a body of work that would clearly show such rulings and that would disqualify them from being appointed in the first place. They would make rulings out of alignment with US law.

Exactly. Dereliction of duty, which using religious documents to support an official decision in a case would fall under, is a legitimate reason to refuse someone. That's why most Supreme Court Justices are promoted from lower Federal Courts, and why most US judges are promoted from other legal venues.

It is also why I do not like the idea of placing politicians in judicial positions. I was quite relieved when Ted Cruz withdrew his name from the list. I like Cruz... well, most of the time... but not as a Justice. He is too political. The same would go for someone like Michelle Obama.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ketsuko

In God We Trust was a 1950's addition by a country terrified of "godless" Communism. It was a political declaration, not a religious one.

By your logic, however, your faith in God is not threatened by not shoving it down everyone's throats everyday, right?

Why must our national coinage be a declaration of a religious belief? You can get over not seeing God stamped on everything, surely.

Besides, when you truly realize why you discard all conceptions of God except one, you'll realize that you're closer to atheism than you thnk.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Actually, the Federal Government is charged to enforce that no one is deprived of their right to religion or their right to no religion, and that NO religion is imposed by any State.

Correct, sir.

My initial thought was that there might be some legal principles that I was missing... like not considering holding a state office to be a right (although I can't see where it wouldn't be)... but then I re-read the Article and it explicitly specifies it applies to states as well. So Sookiechacha can go ahead and run for state office... her lack of religious leanings are not a hindrance.

As it should be.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ketsuko

Because if you're truly an atheist or an adherent of another religion, such a motto should have no more power over you than when the school teaches your child about Greek mythology.

Why should the USA favor religion at all, whether in its motto or its pledge of allegiance?

a reply to: TheRedneck

OF course.

The historical perspective of a separation between church and state was to protect the churches, not the state.

Folks forget that these days, because they think they are in the unassailable majority.

Yet, if anything history tells us that "things change."



Personally I prefer that government stay out of religion completely and protect all American's civil rights equally.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm referencing religious testing. Just like age discrimination, it happens, regardless of whether or not people are getting away with it.

Bank robbery happens too. Rapes happen. Murders happen. Arson happens.

What would you have us do? Make more laws because we are not enforcing the ones we have? Religious tests are illegal when considering appointment to government offices. But I promise you, Diane Feinstein will find a way to push a religious test anyway. She has already said so.

Justice Scalia's words, saying that it's perfectly fine for government to favor religion above secularism is reflected in State constitutions that still have unenforceable and discriminatory laws on their books.

Judge Scalia was speaking of personal preferences, not disqualifying tests. If two identically qualified people are being considered and one is an atheist while the other is a Christian, the final decision will likely come down to whether the one making the choice is atheistic or Christian. Now, you can scream all day that it isn't "fair," but it is also not something we can change. That's just life. Come November 3rd, you get to use whatever metric you want when marking a ballot. You can vote for the guy who has the most chest hairs if you want. I oppose any law that says otherwise.

If someone is devoutly religious, their religion will be known. It should go no farther than that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Why would any good Christian "pledge allegiance" to a flag.

That's awfully close to worsipping a graven image ... ain't it?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, that's the Constitutional power of the Minority, right?

Yes, as long as that power is wielded legally. A religious test is not legal.

If Diane Feinstein has information that could indicate the nominee is not worthy of the appointment, she should by all means present it in the best light she can legally. If she just wants to blow off steam because a Catholic is being considered, she should go back and re-read the Constitution she is violating.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I find it odd that you're concerned about anything Diane Feinstein is doing. At best, whatever she does is a delay tactic. Stating that she will do something is not "violating the Constitution" unless you believe in thought-crime. Do you?

Besides, the current Democratic leadership has proven time and time again they will claim defeat out of the jaws of victory.

America is divided. Let's accept it and move on.

a reply to: ketsuko

I suppose, being a "good Christian," I should have been offended when Cher threatened to go to Jupiter. After all, Jupiter was the name of the king of the gods in Roman mythology, analogous to Zeus in the Greek mythology.

The fact is that history is full of twists and turns that have lent themselves, right or wrong, to implementing cultural norms. The oft-touted "Golden Rule" is paraphrased from the New Testament, but it certainly gets applied secularly.

Personally, I think we've done a pretty good job keeping religion and government from intertwining in the US. We haven't had a theocracy for almost 250 years, after all... despite people screaming we are going to. England, now... yeah, they have been theocratic during a large part of their history.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Judge Scalia was speaking of personal preferences, not disqualifying tests.

He was speaking of judicial rulings and the separation of church and state. If there is no separation of church and state, then there are religious tests. If the standard that applies is that justices can favor religious stances over secular stances, then religion is established as favorable over secular influence.

This opinion is evident in the push to allow church's to open, without restrictions, while graduations, sporting events, concerts and movie theaters cannot, because shutting churches down is a violation of freedom of religion. This is an argument that President Trump pushed. So, I have no doubt that he would appoint judges that place their religious beliefs and dogma above those of others, as superior.

a reply to: TheRedneck

... and the Englishmen that Founded this Country did everything they could to ensure that it wouldn't happen here.

They knew what it was like to live under a State-sponsored Church. They were ALL against it in the USA.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No, Diane Feinstein has done nothing illegal. I hope she doesn't. My biggest concern there is that such may become accepted by those who do not understand law or the Constitution. It's happened before.

But until and unless she does try to implement a religious test during the hearings, no, she is guilty of nothing other than being irritating. If that were illegal, Washington DC would be a maximum-security prison instead of a city.

Besides, the current Democratic leadership has proven time and time again they will claim defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Quoted for truth.

America is divided. Let's accept it an move on.

God, I hate that phrase! Can we compromise and instead of "moving on," "move forward"?


TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

How can we argue that anyone can be selected or refused due to their religion?

Isn't it the same either way?