Author Topic: Scalia: US Should Privilege Religion (Read 5672 times)

Redfaery · « **Reply #15 on:** January 04, 2016, 04:07:43 pm »

Quote from: Castus;184483

Okay. I don't really mind that.

How odd. Just a couple of posts ago, you found it "sick and disturbing."

But hey, whatever.

Castus · « **Reply #16 on:** January 04, 2016, 04:23:55 pm »

Quote from: Redfaery;184485

How odd. Just a couple of posts ago, you found it "sick and disturbing."

But hey, whatever.

No no, not at all. Strange and disturbing were the words I used; substituting 'sick' for 'strange' gives it an entirely new tenor; hitherto absent. And as I said, I support mandated prayer (i.e. prayer in schools, government meetings, etc) with an opt-out provision. Forcing people to pray, which you initially brought up, is something which I would indeed find strange and disturbing; there implicitly being no opt-out function. The second point you made -- that mandated prayer was ipso facto prioritising the rights of believers above nonbelievers -- is entirely separate from forcing people to pray, and is not something I have an issue with.

To make myself entirely clear, so that no future misunderstandings arise re: this particular issue:

-- Prayer in schools, before or after public or government functions, and at similar events, which I referred to as mandated prayer, is not something I oppose.

-- Refusing to allow people who aren't religious or aren't comfortable with the prayers used at such times to opt out is something I oppose.

Ferrous · « **Reply #17 on:** January 04, 2016, 06:34:46 pm »

Quote from: Castus;184486

No no, not at all. Strange and disturbing were the words I used; substituting 'sick' for 'strange' gives it an entirely new tenor; hitherto absent. And as I said, I support mandated prayer (i.e. prayer in schools, government meetings, etc) with an opt-out provision. Forcing people to pray, which you initially brought up, is something which I would indeed find strange and disturbing; there implicitly being no opt-out function. The second point you made -- that mandated prayer was ipso facto prioritising the rights of believers above nonbelievers -- is entirely separate from forcing people to pray, and is not something I have an issue with.

To make myself entirely clear, so that no future misunderstandings arise re: this particular issue:

-- Prayer in schools, before or after public or government functions, and at similar events, which I referred to as mandated prayer, is not something I oppose.

-- Refusing to allow people who aren't religious or aren't comfortable with the prayers used at such times to opt out is something I oppose.

I think you are undermining the usual definition of "mandated". According to a basic search and the context of this conversation, it should mean "an authoritative command or instruction", or "to make mandatory". The term "mandatory" should mean "obligatory". Therefore, "mandated prayer" should roughly equate to "prayer made obligatory", which seems to contradict what you have written.

One of the important problems with these ambiguities is that they can be used to deceive whoever is being "mandated" in believing one definition (it's not really mandatory because there are opt-out provisions) or the other (it is mandatory and thus there are no opt-out provisions).

RandallS · « **Reply #18 on:** January 04, 2016, 07:56:24 pm »

Quote from: Altair;184448

"To tell you the truth there is no place for [treating religion and non-religion equally] in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?" he said. "To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another but can't favor religion over non-religion?"

Scalia might be technically correct. However, in order to favor religion over non-religion othe government would have to decide what qualifies as a religion and what does not. As soon as the government starts doing that it is effectively establishing those belief systems it defines as religion and disestablishing those belief systems it does not define as religion -- which is forbidden by the First Amendment. So while the First Amendment may not directly require treating religion and non-religion equally, it effectively prevents the government from actually doing so in an meaningful manner as the government still is not allowed to decide what belief systems are a religion and which aren't. Remember Atheism has to be a religious belief according to some TV preachers.

Castus · « **Reply #19 on:** January 04, 2016, 08:04:02 pm »

Quote from: RandallS;184511

Scalia might be technically correct. However, in order to favor religion over non-religion othe government would have to decide what qualifies as a religion and what does not. As soon as the government starts doing that it is effectively establishing those belief systems it defines as religion and disestablishing those belief systems it does not define as religion -- which is forbidden by the First Amendment. So while the First Amendment may not directly require treating religion and non-religion equally, it effectively prevents the government from actually doing so in an meaningful manner as the government still is not allowed to decide what belief systems are a religion and which aren't. Remember Atheism has to be a religious belief according to some TV preachers.

The IRS does it all the time.

Altair · « **Reply #20 on:** January 04, 2016, 08:27:26 pm »

Quote from: Castus;184486

-- Prayer in schools, before or after public or government functions, and at similar events, which I referred to as mandated prayer, is not something I oppose.

-- Refusing to allow people who aren't religious or aren't comfortable with the prayers used at such times to opt out is something I oppose.

How generous of you. Fortunately, since about 1962 the Supreme Court has recognized that mandated school prayer--even with "opt-out" provisions--is coercive. A 10-year-old shouldn't be subjected to the group-think of other people's religion, imposed with all the force of teachers and administrators and nearly all their classmates, and be expected to buck the trend.

Whether you and Scalia are happy with that or not.

Castus · « **Reply #21 on:** January 04, 2016, 10:21:41 pm »

Quote from: Altair;184513

How generous of you. Fortunately, since about 1962 the Supreme Court has recognized that mandated school prayer--even with "opt-out" provisions--is coercive. A 10-year-old shouldn't be subjected to the group-think of other people's religion, imposed with all the force of teachers and administrators and nearly all their classmates, and be expected to buck the trend.

Whether you and Scalia are happy with that or not.

Ah well, there's only so many policy battles we can win from our offshore volcano lair.

Juniperberry · « **Reply #22 on:** January 04, 2016, 11:23:16 pm »

Quote from: Altair;184448

No doubt his personal echo chamber--oops! I mean, Clarence Thomas--agrees.

Scalia Dismisses Concept of Religious Neutrality in Speech

"To tell you the truth there is no place for [treating religion and non-religion equally] in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?" he said. "To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another but can't favor religion over non-religion?"

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCALIA_RELIGION_SPEECH

From what I understand, Scalia isn't talking about constitutional law, but specifically about constitutional tradition in that no one ever truly separates their beliefs from their ethics 100%, and that it's one thing to expect judges be religiously unbiased (unprejudiced), and another to expect them to be religiously neutral (indifferent).

sailor · « **Reply #23 on:** January 05, 2016, 02:05:18 am »

Quote from: Castus;184512

The IRS does it all the time.

Only sort of. The IRS is looking at the organizaitonal side, not what people belive. It doens't matter what you believe, just that you follow your own rules and don't steal the money or abuse the financial status.

Castus · « **Reply #24 on:** January 05, 2016, 10:36:14 am »

Quote from: sailor;184540

Only sort of. The IRS is looking at the organizaitonal side, not what people belive. It doens't matter what you believe, just that you follow your own rules and don't steal the money or abuse the financial status.

Fair point.

Darkhawk · « **Reply #25 on:** January 05, 2016, 10:52:33 am »

Quote from: Castus;184512

The IRS does it all the time.

Castus, I know you're smarter than that.

The IRS determines who has filled out its paperwork properly. If you think "filling out IRS paperwork" is a religious determiner, I'm sure the Discordians will have you in to celebrate the season of Bureaucracy.

Castus · « **Reply #26 on:** January 05, 2016, 11:11:49 am »

Quote from: Darkhawk;184566

Castus, I know you're smarter than that.

The IRS determines who has filled out its paperwork properly. If you think "filling out IRS paperwork" is a religious determiner, I'm sure the Discordians will have you in to celebrate the season of Bureaucracy.

It was, admittedly, not my most intelligent post; but at the time it felt reasonable >_>

The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

News:

Recent Posts

Author Topic: Scalia: US Should Privilege Religion (Read 5672 times)

Redfaery

Re: Scalia: US Should Privilege Religion

Castus

Re: Scalia: US Should Privilege Religion

Ferrous

Re: Scalia: US Should Privilege Religion

RandallS

Re: Scalia: US Should Privilege Religion

Castus

Re: Scalia: US Should Privilege Religion

Altair

Re: Scalia: US Should Privilege Religion

Castus

Re: Scalia: US Should Privilege Religion

Juniperberry

Re: Scalia: US Should Privilege Religion

sailor

Re: Scalia: US Should Privilege Religion

Castus

Re: Scalia: US Should Privilege Religion

Darkhawk

Re: Scalia: US Should Privilege Religion

Castus

Re: Scalia: US Should Privilege Religion

Related Topics

Who's Online

Please Donate!

Shop & Support TC

In Memoriam

Cauldron Staff