Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

hschulein

(1,168 posts)
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 09:11 PM Jan 2016

Mike Malloy - Scalia's Views on Religious Neutrality Reveal He Is Neutral on Sanity



Speaking at a Catholic high school in New Orleans recently, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said, "To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another but can't favor religion over non-religion?"

This question is astonishing on many levels, but mostly because it exposes a gross ignorance unbecoming a justice of the Supreme Court. The right not to believe is no less protected by our Constitution than the right to believe in any particular god. If the government cannot favor one religion over another, it cannot favor belief over rationalism. Doing so obviously is in direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Full story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/scalias-views-on-religiou_b_8908588.html

SUBSCRIBE
http://www.youtube.com/MikeMalloyVideo

PLEASE SUPPORT THE MIKE MALLOY YOUTUBE CHANNEL
http://tinyurl.com/MalloyChannelDonations
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mike Malloy - Scalia's Views on Religious Neutrality Reveal He Is Neutral on Sanity (Original Post) hschulein Jan 2016 OP
He's got it floored in neutral. hobbit709 Jan 2016 #1
Scalia is unaware of Everson vs. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)? Fortinbras Armstrong Jan 2016 #2

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
2. Scalia is unaware of Everson vs. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)?
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 08:05 AM
Jan 2016

This is from Justice Black's majority opinion in Everson:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'


Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Mike Malloy - Scalia's Vi...