Justice Scalia says god is good to the U.S. because it "honors" him

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

Ah, now I understand your point of view. Here is what the Guardian author, says in the last issue of his blog:

http://greensboroguardian.com/

Further, the Guardian author appears to support Fisher Ames who was an opponent of Jefferson. Here are a couple of Ames' quotes:
you can find this by googling "who was Fisher Ames." According to your own source he also called for the Bible to be a textbook in all public classrooms.

And about your second source, written by Tayra Antolick:
about Tayra Antolick

She obviously has some christian "bias." Her belief that the Anglican church was "supported" by the Founding Fathers is clearly false. Patrick Henry argued in his own state for a general tax on the public to rebuild Anglican churches. But Madison wrote his famous treaty and garnered the vast majority of Virginian legislative votes in passing their own "freedom of religion" idea in that state before carrying it to the Constitutional Convention.

Learning Resources from Monticello: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

On the other hand, I recommended James Madison, A Life Revisted by Lynne Cheney. Who is Lynne Cheney? Why none other than the wife of former vice-president DICK CHENEY, so she would hardly be considered a bastion of "liberalism."

You can read (or watch) an interview about her here: Lynne Cheney: On the most underrated president

The best way to undermine an opposite point of view is to find what the proponent of that opposition values, and then use said source to make your own point of view.

You need bad founding fathers in order to support your political views. I maintain that there probably WERE a few bad founding fathers, but Jefferson, Madison, and Washington weren't bad, but they were human, and they were politicians.

They had opposition by those who wished the U.S. to be a "Christian" nation. Read about Luther Martin who refused to sign the Constitution. For notes on some of the actual debates during the Constitutional Convention you can go here:James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 | Montpelier ConText

But there is evidence that if a conspiracy were at work it was far more widespread than just the Founding Fathers. By the late 18th century, the United States was involved in a war with Muslim Tripoli. We won, of course, and negotiated a treaty that was ratified by 100% of the U.S. Senate.
It reads, in part:
Treaty Between the United States and Tripoli - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
It is interesting to note that Art. 11 did NOT appear on the Arabic copy of the treaty. There is no consensus of opinion as to why.

The treaty was negotiated under George Washington, a deist, but was signed by John Adams, a theist. It is almost certain that every member of the Senate was most likely a theist of some sort. Please note that it is unlikely Donald Trump would agree in whole nor in part with article. And I suspect neither would you.

So that you can be sure President Adams was every bit a theist, here is a quote from his essay the Dangers of Atheism:
Adams on the Dangers of Atheism

So here is a THEIST, who agrees with what he read in Article 11 of the Tripoli Treaty, signs it, and sends it on to the Senate for ratification.

Nobody was hoodwinked at the Constitutional Convention, although many were disappointed. Ms. Antolick is quite correct that the term "separation of church and state" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. But she is totally off base when she claims it wasn't the INTENTION of the framers of the Constitution to define such a wall. In the Virginia law (prior to the Constitution) proposed by Jefferson and supported by Madison:

BRIA 26 1 The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom - Constitutional Rights Foundation

It was a six year fight in Virginia and Jefferson was gone for almost all of it, relying on James Madison, his friend to do battle with one Patrick Henry, Revolutionary hero and a fabulous orator, who supported the opposing law submitted by churchmen:
BRIA 26 1 The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom - Constitutional Rights Foundation

Sorry, your view is just as bad as that of Vizio's. It simply isn't founded in facts.

So the separation idea, while not specifically written into the Constitution became an underlying principle by which the U.S. Supreme Court usually supported. The first official use of it as "doctrine" came in 1879 in Reynolds vs. The United States. What was that about? Why something most conservative christians support--Court finds that the federal antibigamy statute does not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.(U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State) You can go to the previous link to read many of the Court's opinions through 1993.

If you wish to live under the kind of government proposed by Fisher Ames, you cannot find it in Western Civilization for they are all democracies. Africa and Asia probably have a few that would fit your bill--but your religion would have to change--because you would NOT have freedom of religion.

You don't understand my point of view...not at all. You seem to have me confused with the Religious. I'm not, and haven't ever been. I never got scammed by that stuff...I'm too smart and wise to be suckered like that.
I'm BLAMING those dudes for making this country religious.
It seems that people all want to hold up what people said or wrote as some kind of proof of how they were. I bet Bernie Madoff had all kinds of stuff he wrote about his company to tell about how good and legit it was.
Actions speak louder than words.
If you are holding church services in the government buildings, printing and distributing Bibles to the schools, sending out missionaries and building churches to teach the Native People, and writing "God" all over everything in the government...you are NOT "separating Church from State", you are doing the exact opposite.

Also...it is completely logical and reasonable to use religious based sources to inform about matters of religion. Why would you think it wouldn't be?
I would never say using science based sources to inform about scientific issues was unacceptable because is was "biased toward science". And it would be foolish and illogical if I did do that.
By that logic...we should only use religious sources to advise about the science behind evolution...to be sure we avoid "science bias".

Anybody that wants to put credence in the speech and writings of people known to proclaim "all are equal"...while they owned slaves, oppressed a gender, and committed a genocide against a entire race of people, can go ahead and do so. But they do so in the light of the glaring evidence of what incredible liars those vermin were.
I submit: Those plagues on humanity were so good at conning people...they are STILL able to do it two and a half centuries removed!

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

You don't understand my point of view...not at all. You seem to have me confused with the Religious. I'm not, and haven't ever been. I never got scammed by that stuff...I'm too smart and wise to be suckered like that.
I'm BLAMING those dudes for making this country religious.
It seems that people all want to hold up what people said or wrote as some kind of proof of how they were. I bet Bernie Madoff had all kinds of stuff he wrote about his company to tell about how good and legit it was.
Actions speak louder than words.
If you are holding church services in the government buildings, printing and distributing Bibles to the schools, sending out missionaries and building churches to teach the Native People, and writing "God" all over everything in the government...you are NOT "separating Church from State", you are doing the exact opposite.

Also...it is completely logical and reasonable to use religious based sources to inform about matters of religion. Why would you think it wouldn't be?
I would never say using science based sources to inform about scientific issues was unacceptable because is was "biased toward science". And it would be foolish and illogical if I did do that.
By that logic...we should only use religious sources to advise about the science behind evolution...to be sure we avoid "science bias".

Anybody that wants to put credence in the speech and writings of people known to proclaim "all are equal"...while they owned slaves, oppressed a gender, and committed a genocide against a entire race of people, can go ahead and do so. But they do so in the light of the glaring evidence of what incredible liars those vermin were.
I submit: Those plagues on humanity were so good at conning people...they are STILL able to do it two and a half centuries removed!

Well those dudes were products of their time. I suggested reading Lynne Cheney's book, James Madison, A Life Revisited. He was always suspicious of a religion that said he was demon possessed for his epileptic fits. Toward the end of his life he had to sell some of this five score slaves. He asked for volunteers. When a couple of families said they would go, he kept them all together and sold them to his cousin whom he trusted to take care of them. (response to your post #37). In his will he requested that Dolly, if she were forced to sell any slaves, keep them in families and sell only to those she trusted to care for them. And he asked her to free those remaining upon her death---she did.

While from a 21st century perspective that's just not good enough--it was very progressive for that day and age.

So was the "pretend" religion a number of the politicians of the day were forced to engage in. They wanted to be elected. Look no further than some of our politicians today who try to "out-God" one another. Yet once elected, do they really make any changes? Bush had a period of time with both houses controlled by Congress. Did they pass an anti-abortion bill? Of course not, they know the split in the nation is too severe and any sudden change would result in years of court battles, people defying any law passed, and complete distraction from far greater issues plaguing the nation.

To give a personal example of how someone can be a bigot but feel enlightened was my own paternal grandfather, a native of Louisiana. I asked him once if blacks were going to get into heaven. He said, "Of course! God is going to give them their only little spot in Heaven." He told me about feeding poor blacks that came to their back door. They would give them a plate of food to eat on the back porch. I asked why he didn't invite them in the screen door where the kitchen table and a floor fan were available. He said, "Son, now that wouldn't be right."

Grandpa was a bigot and didn't know it. He viewed himself as a kindly man. We know different from our perspective now--but we can't throw our knowledge and culture back 200+ years. When we do, we do what the fundamentalists are doing in reverse--taking the culture and context of 2000 years ago and trying to make it applicable in the 21st century.

What you've done is make yourself into a fundamentalist in reverse rather than taking an historical perspective to see the conflicts and social mores of that day and age. Those traits worked for those people. Eventually many discovered they were wrong because we fought a bloody civil war over freeing slaves. In that respect Madison was ahead of his time. Jefferson had a long term liaison with one of his own slave women--and it appears to be more than a "master/slave" relationship.

Many, many Christians felt slave-owning was "biblical." Not many do today, they've moved on to persecuting homosexuals and fighting atheists over the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse steps or prayer in schools.

As a theist myself, I am one completely opposed to any government involvement in religion and vice versa. I don't even believe tax breaks should be allowed for those giving to the church. Nor should churches themselves receive tax breaks for income earned (not necessarily for donations received).

[denverian]

Originally Posted by mordant

I realize Scalia is pandering to a Catholic audience here, but seriously?



I see quite a Freudian slip here. "You can't favor one denomination over another" suggests to me that not only should religion be favored, but a particular one (Christianity) so long as all denominations are treated equally.

Am I imagining this or did one of our Supreme Court justices just endorse Christianity as our state religion? And in basically the same breath, say that non-belief has no standing?

I am not surprised that this guy thinks that god tipped the scales at the Battle of Midway but I thought he would at least have a pragmatic grasp of how religious freedom works for all.

Well, the big problem here (besides Scalia seems to be suffering from dementia), is that all Christian denominations, according to other Christian denominations, are wrong and going to hell.