Skip to comments.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Discusses Church-State Separation
ASSOCIATED PRESS / Las Vegas Sun ^
| 1.12.03
| ASSOCIATED PRESS /
Posted on 01/12/2003 6:44:01 PM PST by rface
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
I went to a Scalia event here at U. of Missouri, Columbia a year or more ago. What a guy!
I am surprised that this article hasn't been posted here - I did a check...
Ashland, Missouri
1
posted on
01/12/2003 6:44:01 PM PST
by
rface
To: rface
this event happened at FREDERICKSBURG, Va......
2
posted on
01/12/2003 6:45:27 PM PST
by
rface
(Ashland, Missouri)
To: rface
Thanks for the encouraging post.
4
posted on
01/12/2003 6:50:40 PM PST
by
Faith
To: rface
"That is contrary to our whole tradition, to `in God we trust' on the coins, to (presidential) Thanksgiving proclamations, to (congressional) chaplains, to tax exemption for places of worship, which has always existed in America." Slavery was part of our tradition, too. Should we bring it back? Oh, those good old days, Tony.
5
posted on
01/12/2003 6:52:56 PM PST
by
jo6pac
To: rface
Scalia is interesting. He is an original-intent purist, right down to the last wart, which certainly is a position in favor of preserving robust Christian liberties but also puts him in the position of apologia for some indefensible things in other arenas.
To: jo6pac
WHAT?
To: GatorGirl; tiki; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Askel5; ...
Ping
8
posted on
01/12/2003 7:02:10 PM PST
by
narses
To: rface
"The sign back here which says `Get religion out of government,' can be imposed on the whole country. I have no problem with that philosophy being adopted democratically. If the gentleman holding the sign would persuade all of you of that, then we could eliminate `under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. That could be democratically done," said Scalia.That is a curious thing for an "Original Intent" jurist to say. I wonder what other things he thinks could be done "democratically"? If the majority of the people in this country convinced their reps and senators to ban firearms ownership, would that pass muster with him?
To: jo6pac
Slavery was part of our tradition, too. Should we bring it back? Oh, those good old days, Tony.I guess you are confused.
We should discard those things that are against the constitution, and keep the things that are in the constitution.
Slavery is against the ideals that the Bill of Rights states - and is also against the laws that the Constitution decrees. The separation of Church and State is a "made-up" amendment to the Constitution that has taken root in liberal folklore - and has spread into Libertarian circles. Its time to put this fairytale to bed.....
10
posted on
01/12/2003 7:04:47 PM PST
by
rface
(Ashland, Missouri)
To: jo6pac
THe founding documents of the nation do NOT hinge upon slavery but they do hinge explicitly upon what the very founding documents themselves consider to be God-given freedoms.
11
posted on
01/12/2003 7:06:34 PM PST
by
Notwithstanding
(America: Home of Abortion on Demand - 42,000,000 Slaughtered)
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: Double Tap
The constitution forbids only establishment - which is far far different than the constitutionally permissible government involvement with or promotion of religion.
Since it is permissible, such promotion or involvement can be legislatively required or prohibited.
(Unlike a constitutional freedom or right - such as to bear arms - which cannot be suppressed via legislative act)
13
posted on
01/12/2003 7:11:00 PM PST
by
Notwithstanding
(America: Home of Abortion on Demand - 42,000,000 Slaughtered)
To: Double Tap
I think Scalia is saying that if you want to get rid of "God" in the government, don't try to do it under the guise of a "Separation of Church and State" clause (since there is no such clause) - do it the way the system allows you to do it - at the ballot box.
Scalia would say, "If you want to prevent Christmas Displays on your town square, don't dis-allow it on Constitutional Grounds - pass a law that prevents it by reason of democratic decree.
my humble opinion as a constitutional legal layman
14
posted on
01/12/2003 7:11:29 PM PST
by
rface
(Ashland, Missouri)
To: rface
you are spot on
15
posted on
01/12/2003 7:12:51 PM PST
by
Notwithstanding
(America: Home of Abortion on Demand - 42,000,000 Slaughtered)
To: rface
The recent travesty in Illinois where a Catholic governor knuckled under to the position of the Catholic church and effectively did away with the death penalty should be a wake-up call to all Americans on the importance of the separation of church and state. Not to pick on the Catholics particularly, but religions tend to look for a foot in the door, and when they get it, look out. Religion is a private matter. Our Founders understood that.
16
posted on
01/12/2003 7:14:20 PM PST
by
blau993
To: Notwithstanding
"Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Amendment I, Bill of Rights.
So if congress can make no law respecting any religion, how can they do what he says?
To: blau993
I don't think he did this because he was Catholic - more likely he did it because he saw there were holes in the justice system that a whale could have floated through.
I don't know all the details - so maybe I am just ignorant of some important facts......I suspect that Ryan had some good reasons for doing what he did......hopefully justice was served.
18
posted on
01/12/2003 7:20:19 PM PST
by
rface
(Ashland, Missouri)
To: rface
read later
To: Double Tap
"Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Amendment I, Bill of Rights.So if congress can make no law respecting any religion, how can they do what he says?
You play bad word games....where does it say..."congress can make no law respecting any religion"? It says "respecting an Establishment of religion....(ie. a denomination, a specific religion, a religious point-of-view)
If the 1st stated, "....shall make no laws respecting THE establishING of religion..." then I would give you the point, but that's just not what it says.
20
posted on
01/12/2003 7:27:46 PM PST
by
rface
(Ashland, Missouri)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson