Making Sense of the Issue of the Day - RBG

Religious freedom is not America’s first freedom. Christian Nationalists love this line, but it simply reflects a lack of reading comprehension. The First Amendment does not begin by guaranteeing a right to religious worship, but a right to a secular government: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The two rights are intimately connected. There is no such thing as the freedom of religion without a government that is free from religion.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Wrong, on all counts.

Then I am confused why you are so angry when the US Constitution specifically says religion can not be a disqualifier for public office. Those state constitutions aren't worth the paper they're printed on when it comes to religious qualifications for office.

As proof that religious tests exists I presented Scalia's own words, in which he asserts that the government should favor religious ideals and influences over secular, non-religious influences and ideals, like same sex marriage and LGBT rights, for example.

You presented one paragraph without context.

I tried to look up that speech myself and found no indication of that paragraph in the Denver Post. You reposted the link above to the Huffington Post where that paragraph was mentioned. As I said before, if he said that in the context it seemed to include, then I vehemently disagreed with him and felt he was misinterpreting the Constitution. But in your link I found another link to the Washington Times. That gave some context:

LAKEWOOD, Colo. — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday that secularists are wrong when they argue the Constitution requires religious references to be banished from the public square.

Justice Scalia, part of the court’s conservative wing, was preaching to the choir when he told the audience at Colorado Christian University that a battle is underway over whether to allow religion in public life, from referencing God in the Pledge of Allegiance to holding prayers before city hall meetings.

“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 nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said.

In short, this was not about preferring religious over non-religious ideals. This was about the people of an area wishing to erect monuments to their religious leanings on government property! Nothing more than that. The secular persuasion was that no religious symbolism of any kind can ever be allowed on government property, and that is wrong!

You tried to twist the context and meaning of Scalila's words around.

I started this thread with a simple request: be nice. I specified twice in the OP that such was the reason I did not place it in the Political Mud Pit. And here you have come in and lied to every reader of this thread about what a man who is long dead and can't defend himself said.

Have you no shame?

Scalia was saying that public monuments to religious ideals are allowed in public by the Constitution. That's all. The only requirement is that all religions who wish to place a similar monument must be allowed to do so (to prevent the appearance of establishing a state religion) and non-religious organizations who wish to place similar monuments can do so (same reason). The opposing view is that no one can place any monuments and while that can be accomplished by statute, it is not specified nor implied in the US Constitution. that would in effect be favoring secular over religious ideals in itself, since secular implies no religious leanings and thus nothing to erect a monument to.

It has nothing to do with religious qualifiers for public office!

So, once again, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and have a reasonable conversation with you. And once again, you went off on a tear and tried to inject meaningless trivia disguised as factual data. When will I ever learn?

I hope you're proud of yourself. You just made your opinions irrelevant... again.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Annee
The First Amendment does not begin by guaranteeing a right to religious worship, but a right to a secular government:

No.

It just means government cannot mandate a religion.

a reply to: Annee

There is no such thing as the freedom of religion without a government that is free from religion.

There is no such thing as freedom of religion under a government that openly opposes religion.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

There is no such thing as the freedom of religion without a government that is free from religion.

There is no such thing as freedom of religion under a government that openly opposes religion.

TheRedneck

What?

a reply to: Annee

The post is still there; go back and read it again.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

It says nothing about disqualifications. If those Senators determining whether or not to consent to a certain nominee, believes that the person's religious beliefs will prevent them from doing their job, they maybe disqualified. As the President and the GOP Senators are clearly stated that their power allows them to decide what qualification they want in a SCOTUS justice. In this case they all want a pro-life Christian, that will favor evangelical Christian values over secular values.

In short, this was not about preferring religious over non-religious ideals. This was about the people of an area wishing to erect monuments to their religious leanings on government property! Nothing more than that.

Even your own link says that Scalia was talking about the separation of church and state. He's clearly talking about the courts.

The high court’s longest-serving justice, Justice Scalia said that even President Thomas Jefferson, who’s credited with creating the concept of separation of church and state, wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Religious Freedom that, “God who made the mind of man made it free.”

“Our [the court‘s] latest take on the subject, which is quite different from previous takes, is that the state must be neutral, not only between religions, but between religion and nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said. “That’s just a lie. Where do you get the notion that this is all unconstitutional? You can only believe that if you believe in a morphing Constitution.”
.....
“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 nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said.

Scalia thinks that because Thomas Jefferson believed in God, American government should favor religion in their laws and courts over the secular.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

The post is still there; go back and read it again.

TheRedneck

I don’t need to read it again.

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with opposing a persons choice of religion.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

It says nothing about disqualifications.

A disqualification is a lack of a qualification. No being a negative, it does indeed state that a religious test may not be used as a disqualification. You're trying to redefine words.

Even your own link says that Scalia was talking about the separation of church and state. He's clearly talking about the courts.

He's talking about monuments erected on public property. Period.

Scalia thinks that...

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Antonin Scalia thinks nothing. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Antonin Scalia is dead. Unless you're channeling his ghost, you are full of crap.



TheRedneck

a reply to: Annee

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with opposing a persons choice of religion.

What about their choice to be religious in the first place? What rights do you think should be denied Christians because of their religion?

Sookiechacha has a whole list going that she refuses to acknowledge while stating them pretty plainly.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with opposing a persons choice of religion.

What about their choice to be religious in the first place? What rights do you think should be denied Christians because of their religion?

Sookiechacha has a whole list going that she refuses to acknowledge while stating them pretty plainly.

TheRedneck

In a large society of diversity — laws based in logic and reason should be equal to all inhabitants.

Individual beliefs should stay with the individual or like kind.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with opposing a persons choice of religion.

What about their choice to be religious in the first place? What rights do you think should be denied Christians because of their religion?

Sookiechacha has a whole list going that she refuses to acknowledge while stating them pretty plainly.

TheRedneck

In a large society of diversity — laws based in logic and reason should be equal to all inhabitants.

Individual beliefs should stay with the individual or like kind.

You cannot mandate what or how people believe. That is authoritarian.

a reply to: TheRedneck

A disqualification is a lack of a qualification.

Nope. It could be a conflict of interest. It could be citations of support of causes that don't resonate well. It could a display of bias. It could be any number of things that the President or Senators see as disqualifying.

He's talking about monuments erected on public property. Period.

Nope. Not even close.

LAKEWOOD, Colo. — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday that secularists are wrong when they argue the Constitution requires religious references to be banished from the public square.

Justice Scalia, part of the court’s conservative wing, was preaching to the choir when he told the audience at Colorado Christian University that a battle is underway over whether to allow religion in public life, from referencing God in the Pledge of Allegiance to holding prayers before city hall meetings.

“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 nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said.

www.washingtontimes.com...

There is absolutely no mention of monuments, public or otherwise.

Scalia thinks that...

Scalia thought that, and so do his acolytes, one of which is most likely Trump's nominee.

a reply to: Annee

The First Amendment does not begin by guaranteeing a right to religious worship, but a right to a secular government

THIS!

a reply to: DBCowboy

You cannot mandate what or how people believe.

We can mandate how government behaves, regardless of a person's beliefs.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with opposing a persons choice of religion.

What about their choice to be religious in the first place? What rights do you think should be denied Christians because of their religion?

Sookiechacha has a whole list going that she refuses to acknowledge while stating them pretty plainly.

TheRedneck

In a large society of diversity — laws based in logic and reason should be equal to all inhabitants.

Individual beliefs should stay with the individual or like kind.

You cannot mandate what or how people believe. That is authoritarian.

That that is what you think I said — mind blowing.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DBCowboy

You cannot mandate what or how people believe.

We can mandate how government behaves, regardless of a person's beliefs.

No. Again.

The US Constitution limits government control, oversight, authority.

Government behavior?

What in the ever loving hell is that?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with opposing a persons choice of religion.

What about their choice to be religious in the first place? What rights do you think should be denied Christians because of their religion?

Sookiechacha has a whole list going that she refuses to acknowledge while stating them pretty plainly.

TheRedneck

In a large society of diversity — laws based in logic and reason should be equal to all inhabitants.

Individual beliefs should stay with the individual or like kind.

You cannot mandate what or how people believe. That is authoritarian.

That that is what you think I said — mind blowing.

It is what you said. when you said, "Individual beliefs should stay with the individual or like kind."

a reply to: DBCowboy

Government behavior?

What in the ever loving hell is that?

LOL

Yeah, that's what the Constitution is all about...what government can and cannot do, and under what circumstances. In other words, it dictates government's behavior.

a reply to: Annee

In a large society of diversity — laws based in logic and reason should be equal to all inhabitants.

Individual beliefs should stay with the individual or like kind.

Quite the vague answer. Let's see what I can infer from the vagueness.

Should I be allowed to say a prayer within earshot of another person?

Should I be allowed to congregate with others in a church?

Should I be allowed to use the words "God," "Jesus," etc., in public?

I'm pretty sure I should never be allowed to hold any kind of public office in your world.

Should I be allowed to send my children to a religious school?

Sounds like you have a pretty good list going yourself. Maybe just exile all Christians and be done with it. Or, we could always toss them in ovens...

TheRedneck