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
Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumMike 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
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1175 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
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
Scalia is unaware of Everson vs. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)?
Fortinbras Armstrong
Jan 2016
#2
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)1. He's got it floored in neutral.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)2. Scalia is unaware of Everson vs. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)?
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.'