Freedoms

[le Voyageur]

Quxiote...

 

since I'm the one that used the disrepectfull term of Supreme let me put it this way....

 

In the 2000 election, the Florida justices invoked the basic democratic principles of popular sovereignty and the right to vote. They asserted, "The right of suffrage is the pre-eminent right contained in the [Florida] Declaration of Rights, for without this basic freedom all others would be diminished."

Antonin Scalia, on the basis of a reactionary interpretation of the US Constitution, one that flew in the face of constitutional jurisprudence since the Civil War, declared that American citizens had no constitutional right to vote for the president of the United States!

 

Direspect for this guy, no, it's much stronger being along the lines of just pure contempt....

[evmori]

littlebillie,

My point is under the Constitution we are guaranteed freedom of religion and the freedom to express it. There is nothing that says we have to get permission 1st! I do agreee that it would be disruptive & I am not saying I condone this type of action. All I am saying is the Constitution guarantees us we can.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Quixote]

lv,

 

"Antonin Scalia, on the basis of a reactionary interpretation of the US Constitution, one that flew in the face of constitutional jurisprudence since the Civil War, declared that American citizens had no constitutional right to vote for the president of the United States!"

 

So, we have a "reactionary" on the USSC I'd agree, but note that from my position on the political spectrum that it's not Justice Scalia

 

Finally, your contempt of conservative values and those who hold them is noted. I would hope however that while you hold Justice Scalia and his legal opinions in contempt, you might at least display a touch of respect for the POSITION which he holds.

 

[le Voyageur]

I can't, and I won't....our position as privite citizens is superior and above the offices of public servants . He is intitled only to the same and equal respect as other citizens, period.....

[NJCubScouter]

Just a note on "Supremes": On a number of occasions I have heard attorneys refer to the U.S. Supreme Court as "the Supremes." I wasn't sure if it was just a New Jersey thing or what. I do not think that it is necessarily a term of disrespect. It is a more of a shorthand; when an attorney says "the Supremes" other attorneys know that he/she is NOT referring to the New Jersey Supreme Court or any other state supreme court; it means THE Supreme Court: the Supremes.

 

Is there a bit of a joke behind it? Sure. To my recollection, attorneys who refer to "the Supremes" are almost always of the generation that grew up listening to the singing group of that name. Perhaps it is a bit sarcastic. But I do not think it necessarily means disrespect.

[pfann]

leV,

 

"He is intitled only to the same and equal respect as other citizens, period....."

 

 

Well then how about showing respect and courtesy to A.Scalia, fellow citizen. It seems as if you show less respect for those who don't agree with you.

 

I still am looking for an answer to my question. Scalia, in the original post said that the government has been too hostile to organized religion, primarily christianity.

 

Where has he advocated for a national religion? Where has he said christianity should be held in higher esteem than other faiths? Where has he stated that christianity is the only religion that should be allowed by law?

 

To the best of my knowledge, Scalia never said any of those things. However, substitute the word Muslim for Christianity and you will find those beliefs in many countries, primarily the Middle East and North Africa.

 

[firstpusk]

"So, we have a "reactionary" on the USSC I'd agree, but note that from my position on the political spectrum that it's not Justice Scalia"

 

Just for grins, who is your pick for reactionary US Supreme Court Justice?

 

"Finally, your contempt of conservative values and those who hold them is noted. I would hope however that while you hold Justice Scalia and his legal opinions in contempt, you might at least display a touch of respect for the POSITION which he holds."

 

I wouldn't class his work as reactionary or conservative. It is better classified as opportunistic and political. He is best identified by the label he has always applied with such contempt to those he opposed. Antonin Scalia is a judicial activist of the first order and as such, he embodies hypocracy on the US Supreme Court. He should be the first to "display a touch of respect for the POSITION which he holds."

[le Voyageur]

pfan

 

It is also my right as a citizen to choose who I will, and will not respect....again, I elect to show no respect for this person since he serves to undermine the Consitution. If you still have a problem with this reason, and my political views thats your problem, not mine.

[pfann]

leV,

 

I disagree with your reasoning and I disagree with your political views.

 

I don't consider this a problem, just a point of discussion be tween all of us. I think it is entirely appropriate to disagree in a civil and respectful manner. Many of my friends are far more liberal than I (and a brother in law more liberal than you, I think!) We have very spirited debates about many issues. Sometimes opinions change sometimes they don't. good and bad points are made on all sides. At the end of the day we are still friends. I do not understand the need to show no respect for a person because they diasgree with you, although you are right that is your choice. What point of the Scout Law does that fall under BTW?

 

I do not see how Scalia's viewpoints undermine the Constitution.

 

I repeat my questions again,

Where has he advocated for a national religion? Where has he said christianity should be held in higher esteem than other faiths? Where has he stated that christianity is the only religion that should be allowed by law?

 

[packsaddle]

le Voyageur, Interesting contrast, the thing about the 'dark ages'. However, while Christians were living in pig stys in Europe, they hardly ruled the world. There was advanced culture, science, mathematics in the Islamic world, for example, and China with its great civilization vastly exceeded Christianity in numbers.

 

Pfann, I was once denied voter registration because I refused to state my religious beliefs (they changed their minds after I explained a few things). I was told, "In 'this state' you can't vote if you don't believe in God." This presumed a fact not established and I objected. I shouldn't have had to. I would be happier for government to keep its nose out of my beliefs and I would be happier for other persons not use government to impose their beliefs on me. Scalia disagrees. You may not feel that way. I do.

 

[mk9750]

packsaddle,

 

Your rights were absolutely violated when you registered to vote, but it certainly wasn't because government (and in this case, if your state is like mine, it wasn't even the federal government, it was a county) was establishing a religion, it was the ignorance of the local elections official(s). You certainly should have argued about this, and brought suit if denied. But I don't see this as evidence of a right wing conspiracy theory to overthrow the citizen's government and establish a theocracy. Nor is the position of Justice Scalia. He is attempting to do his best to defend the intent of the Constitution: That Governement will not establish a national religion.

 

A long time ago I heard this definition of conservatives. They are the people who defend what the liberals of 225 years ago envisioned. This sounds like an issue where this definition is right on the mark.

 

Mark

[packsaddle]

MK9750, I liked that last line about conservatives. I wish I knew who they are (Scalia isn't and he's not alone).

 

I guess my rights technically were not violated because my immediate threat to take the action you suggested caused them to cave (and I was able to waste a vote on Richard Nixon). But the registrar wasn't ignorant, it was a state law that I later learned actually WAS on the books. It has been thrown out more recently. In this case I suggest that the state HAD established a religion in the loose sense that one had to publicly profess belief in God in order to vote. And I am glad that regardless of what label you would apply to them, the legislature threw out that law. The 'conservatives' you hold dear fought hard to resist that change (not to mention poll taxes and Jim Crow laws).

[ASM1]

pfann, *"I still am looking for an answer to my question. Scalia, in the original post said that the government has been too hostile to organized religion, primarily christianity."* (your statement)

 

How is this? The moment "organized" religion is allowed in public schools is the moment I convert to home taught learning. The statement "organized relligion" should be scary to any God fearing person. Who's religion? Yours? Mine? or theirs? Who will decide what ALL children in public schools will worship?

 

If we make it a Cristian prayer, what about the Jewish children in that school? Or Muslim, or Budist? Are they to be looked down on because they are not Christian? And what Christian prayer? Luteran? Catholic? Metodist? Babtist? Mormon? Get real folks! You all want it, but none of you have a clue on how to mange it so it is fair to ALL religions. Geeesh!

 

AMS1

[packsaddle]

ASM, I have Jewish friends who suffered the answer to your hypothetical. At first their boys, each morning at school, were made to pray to Jesus during a class devotional. The father made an official objection. The boys were then encouraged to sit in the hall during the prayer. Then they were no longer chosen for the sports teams. Then the mom, who had been a substitute teacher, no longer was called to substitute. The family got the message and moved. I suppose this is OK for those who think THEIR religion is the only true one but it was unAmerican as far as I am concerned.

[pfann]

ASM1,

 

I would not look so much for an organized religion in a school setting because that may imply an endorsement of a particular faith. I think of this in terms of not discouraging the individual display of faith.

 

For example, I have seen many stories where children were assigned book reports, learning a song, etc. A student selects something relevant to their faith such as a book report about a book in the bible or a religious song. The student is then told that he/she can not submit their choice of project. Other examples I have seen were in schools where students were not allowed to wear a shirt with a religious saying or were not allowed to have a religious style after-school group. These individual displays if allowed do not in my opinion constitute an endorsement of any religion nor does it encourage/require displays of faith by the school/government. These things merely ALLOW individuals to display their faith.

 

I also understand that these types of situations don't happen all over. There are many schools/principals/teachers who handle these things with a great deal of common sense