Scalia: It Is A Lie That Gov't Cannot Favor Religion Over Secularism

[davidthegnome]

70. Hmm.

You know, I understand that the constitution is something considered to be sacred by many Americans. In many regards, I do not disagree. Yet, there are some things that should come down to human rights, and simple common sense, which in some cases I do feel should prevail over even a seemingly sacred document.

Regardless of whether or not the constitution, or anything our "Framers" did put "separation of church and state" down on paper... it is something that should come as a simple common sense matter of how to run a government. In essence - NOT based on religious dogma would be a good place to start. Further, it is not only a question of whether a government "CAN", but whether a government "SHOULD".

Generally speaking, mixing religion and government is insane (if you don't think so, examine Egypt, Israel, Iran, Iraq - and so on) except for in the event that government protects the right to religious freedom. I am not a practicing anything, but I would gladly defend anyone's right to believe in whatever particular version of spirituality or God or afterlife, or grand scheme that they please. I would, on the other hand, also defend anyone's right to NOT believe certain things, nor to base their lives upon them, nor to be told that they must behave in specific ways due to religious writings.

How literally should it be taken? The old testament or the new? Should we forgive seven times seven times? Let he who has not sinned be the first to cast the stone? Should we suffer not a witch to live? Should we smite those the old testament tells us to smite? Should Mr. Scalia pluck out his right eye and cast it from himself if it leads him to sin? No more porn for you, Mr. Justice.

Which particular "traditional Christian values" is this imbecile referring to?

The true absurdity, Mr. Scalia, is the notion that we require God or religion to tell us the difference between right and wrong. That we need some kind of mythical being to tell us how to live, what to think, or how to treat others. That we should behave in such a way in the hopes of a spiritual reward... rather than do so just because it's the right thing to do. Or that a book written many centuries ago, should serve as a "how to" guide for modern governance or life in general.

Humanity evolves - society evolves, or at least it should, and would, if we did not have to suffer the idiocy of Neanderthals like yourself.

By all means, believe whatever you please. Believe in stones - that is your right. You do not have the right to throw stones at me if I do not. The rest of us have the right to NOT be held prisoner either literally or figuratively by the writings of ancient scholars.

The separation of church and state should be, and indeed must be, a reality. In order for us to have any claim to democracy, to freedom, to higher nobility, or respect for free will and human rights, we must not place one particular religion or philosophy on a pedestal above all others.

I like Christ, but some of his Christians (and self proclaimed "Christians&quot really frustrate me at times.

Traditional Christian values brought about the crusades. Traditional Christian values brought about the witch hunts and the burning of innocent women. Traditional Christian values gave us the Inquisitions. Traditional Christian values brought about the torture and slaughter of many thousands, the extermination of entire peoples and cultures. So did traditional Roman values - and many, many other values that could certainly be referred to as traditionally a part of a specific religion.

Is the golden rule not simple enough? Are human rights and freedom not basically notions that are self explanatory? Should your freedom include the right to tell my kids that they have to praise a God their family does not believe in?

Mr. Scalia, Sir. I am afraid you missed your calling. You should immediately resign from your current position and apply to your local seminary. There, you may promote your theology as much as you like. As a Supreme Court Justice, however, you are an absolute shame, a mockery, a joke that is no longer funny.