quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

my response addresses:

<UNsnip>

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

my response addresses:

1) Substantively 'everyone' has a religion.

2) The states have established a secular religion.

3) You have no right to 'exercise' your religion.

4) The state has no obligation to protect you or your religion only theirs.


I also believe that religion should be left out of legislation except to protect the freedom to practice or not practice it as one so chooses.

agreed, but its impossible with the exception of incontrovertible facts, therefore its impossible.

Scalia seems to think that the Constitution should not be a progressive document, but should be adhered to in its original form

agreed, instead it should be abolished altogether, there is no need for it if you understand the true relationship between yourself and government.

Otherwise it has provisions for amendments.


should it be followed strictly to the letter of the original document and never change?

its not followed at all, well extremely narrowly to the point you need a microscope to see it, hence if it were the legislatures and 99% of attorneys would be out of business.

Wasn't this country founded on secular principles because of what was happening in England with religion specifically?

It was founded on several business ventures of the king the pope, the french the spaniards etc etc etc. Britain won out winning coast to coast jurisdiction Lousiana excepted.

In so far as rights are concerned, the constitution is an agreement between you and the sovereign to be ruled by the sovereign who made all the rules and created his courts to adjudicate his rules according to the rules he based the constitution on.

All these guys did was transfer and copy existing british law, the british bill of rights, the magna charta in existence for hundreds of years and people here worship it.

It was mainly high taxation and the take over by corporations created under the king.

I believe that the Constitution was designed to protect every citizen regardless of what they did or did not believe.

The constitution was designed to create a perfect union for better imposition of tax collection upon the states.

I tire quickly of religious zealots advocating for religious freedom...

Even atheists have religion. Technically. They seem to be the biggest zealots from what I have seen.


LAKEWOOD, Colo. — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday that secularists are wrong when they argue the Constitution requires religious references to be banished from the public square.

Scalia is correct, letting ALL RELIGIONS display their references and religious activities in public in fact is precisely the beginning steps to freedom of religion.

None of which is the establishment of a certain God based religion, however as I said earlier the state has a well established secular religion.

Justice Scalia, part of the court’s conservative wing, was preaching to the choir when he told the audience at Colorado Christian University that a battle is underway over whether to allow religion in public life, from referencing God in the Pledge of Allegiance to holding prayers before city hall meetings.

the pledge of allegiance is your promise of everything you own or ever will own to the government (sovereign). It should be abolished.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non religion,” Justice Scalia said.

Non religion is not recognized, how do you favor people with no skin when everyone has skin, just different colors.


“Our [the court‘s] latest take on the subject, which is quite different from previous takes, is that the state must be neutral, not only between religions, but between religion and nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said. “That’s just a lie. Where do you get the notion that this is all unconstitutional? You can only believe that if you believe in a morphing Constitution.

This is where it gets sticky. Neutral is the correct position since every living man woman and child has their own personal religion despite what they want to label it. Hence the courts are more correct in one sense and scalia is correct in the sense that non religion is not recognized in the constitution.

the constitution agrees to freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion and that the state NOT establish itself as any particular religion. and as I said it did establish itself as a religion.

The constitution cannot guarantee freedom FROM water either since your body is 95% water.

Just because someone does not have a deity does not mean they do not have a religion. Atheists for some reason desperately want to separate themselves from the concept of religion, the wrong direction imo, they should be fighting for recognition as a religion if the want the alleged protections of the constitution.

Dude, I have no fucking clue what you are on about. Either I am missing something vital, or you are just rambling... and I cannot figure out which it is. I apologize, but I just don't get it.