Church\\State separation "gone to far" -Scalia

Post #74,413 by Silverlock 1/14/03 11:28:09 AM Reply	Church\\State separation "gone to far" -Scalia [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/13/scalia.ap/index.html\|CNN] article. Excerpt- "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. Funny, I don't remeber the phrase "under God" being added to the pledge by a vote. How surprising that a conservative bible thumper thinks we need more religion in government. (/sarcasm) Has he ever heard of the term "tryanny of the majority" one wonders? Does he understand why he has a job? Should we do a national vote to determine the outcome of all future Supreme Court cases? I knew he was despicable, I didn't know he was stupid. Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage? -[link\|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107\|Molly Ivins]
Post #74,437 by Brandioch 1/14/03 12:43:43 PM Reply	Same circus, different clowns. As an example, he pointed to a ruling in California that barred students from saying the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "one nation under God." No one can STOP you from saying it. That would be against Freedom of Speech. But they cannot REQUIRE that you say it. In any way. The Constitution says the government cannot "establish" or promote religion, but Scalia said the framers did not intend for God to be stripped from public life. Nor has it been. Anyone can believe in any religion s/he wants to. Even attend churches dedicated to that religion. And so forth. No one has taken it out of "public life". "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." So it is a tradition now?
Post #74,442 by jbrabeck 1/14/03 1:14:38 PM Reply	My comments We are to have freedom OF religion. Not freedom FROM religion. And I believe that the "vocal minority" has pushed us too far. When the town hall cannot have a Christmas display. When public officials must say "Season's greetings" (Guess we should be really polically correct and abolish Christmas as a holiday. After all, it is celebrating the birth of Christ.) Why should I have to pay double school tuition? One for taxes for the public school and again to the (insert religion of choice) school. Why can't our taxes just pay for schooling. It's up to the parents which school to use. The government should not be allow to dictate any religion, but it should not suppress religion. [link\|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com\|Joe]
Post #74,458 by Brandioch 1/14/03 3:47:12 PM Reply	Equal time, baby. We are to have freedom OF religion. Not freedom FROM religion. And no one is telling you you can't belong to whatever religion you want to. When the town hall cannot have a Christmas display. It's the town hall, not your church. Equal time, you get 1 day for your Christmas display, the pagans get 1 day for their display, the Satanists get 1 day for their display, the moonies get 1 day, the buddhists, the muslims, the jews, and so forth. Oh, it's only freedom for YOUR religion in front of YOUR town hall. That's why you have your church. When public officials must say "Season's greetings" (Guess we should be really polically correct and abolish Christmas as a holiday. After all, it is celebrating the birth of Christ.) Ummmm, no. The officials can say anything they want to, just not in an official capacity. I won't even go into whether it is the birth of Christ or not. Why should I have to pay double school tuition? One for taxes for the public school and again to the (insert religion of choice) school. You don't have to. The payment for your religious school is purely voluntary. Just as you are required to pay taxes, and some of these taxes go to welfare programs, but you might also contribute food to a local food bank. That is voluntary. Why can't our taxes just pay for schooling. It's up to the parents which school to use. Some of your taxes do pay for schooling. And you do have a choice of which school to send your children to. This is usually determined by your choice of where you live. You also have the choice to pay more and to send your children to a completely different school.
Post #74,525 by JayMehaffey 1/14/03 8:12:31 PM Reply	Why pay at all Why should I pay for schools at all? I don't have any kids, so why should I pay any school taxes? Oh, those school taxes are for educating other kids, like your kids for example. So what you are asking for is the privilage of spending my tax money on a religion of your choice? Somehow that doesn't seem very fair to me. Jay At least not any that have managed to prove it in a court of law yet.
Post #74,484 by jb4 1/14/03 5:53:30 PM Reply	So when the California Pledge comes to the USSC... ...as it inevitably will, I hope whoever is prosecuting the cas hass the balls to request...no demand that Scalia (and by proxy, his faithful lapdog Clarence) recuse himself (themselves), for clear prejudice in the case. Oh, I forgot, this is Amerika in the 21st century...what was I thinking?!? jb4 "They lead. They don't manage. The carrot always wins over the stick. Ask your horse. You can lead your horse to water, but you can't manage him to drink." Richard Kerr, United Technologies Corporation, 1990
Post #74,560 by Brandioch 1/15/03 12:52:39 AM Reply	I just thought of something. That could be democratically done," said Scalia. So, he's in favour of the majority deciding things? Does anyone remember the 2000 election? I think I'm getting mixed messages here.

Welcome to IWETHEY!