Scalia says God is "very good" to US because US honors him, dismisses religious neutrality

[chatnoir]

Should not religious neutrality be a framework for the Supreme court?


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/02/scalia-says-god-is-very-good-to-us-because-us-honors-him-dismisses-religious.html

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says the idea of religious neutrality is not grounded in the country's constitutional traditions and that God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him.

Scalia was speaking Saturday at Archbishop Rummel High School in Metairie, Louisiana.

Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, has consistently been one of the court's more conservative members.

He told the audience at the Catholic school that there is "no place" in the country's constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.

He also said there is "nothing wrong" with the idea of presidents and others invoking God in speeches. He said God has been good to America because Americans have honored him.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Doesn't surprise me at all about Scalia.

I notice he wasn't speaking at Archbishop Rumpel's
High School. I wudda given him an earful. I'm not
an archbishop, but I am "His Serenity, Enlightened
Master", which is better.

[mg]

We do have the Christian beast contained in this country (more or
less), but comments like these from a Supreme Court judge and the
realization of what this "Christian" nation has done to innocent
Muslims in the Middle East makes me realize how tenuous that
containment is.

[GLOBALIST]

I thought it was said that religion can NOT be a requirement for
public service. He is totally correct that trying to white-wash
our culture to appeal to some whiners is unAmerican.

[John Q. Public]

Believing in a make believe god is stupid and it doesn't mater if you're
an American or not.

--
John Q. Public

[GLOBALIST]

The billions of people who believe in God are a hell of alot
more intelligent than old dried up dope head

[John Q. Public]

Just because a majority believe something doesn't make it true. Your
thinking it does proves my point that you're fucking STUPID.

--
John Q. Public

[rumpelstiltskin]

Scalia's statement demonstrates (if any further demonstration
were necessary) that he wants special perks for Christian-like
religion and for Christian-like religious people. He's certainly not
alone in that view. The whole tax structure is biased that way.

[mg]

The world is a scary place. Of course, I know that you already knew
that, but I can't help but mention it.


----------------------------
"'Faith' is a fine invention
When Gentleman can see--
But Microscopes are prudent
In an Emergency."
--Emily Dickinson

[GLOBALIST]

I hope you are not going to be one of those who think the "New England Nun"
was an atheist? She was far from it. New England Nun is one of her
many titles

[GLOBALIST]

========================
Lots of commentaries about Emily as the New England Nun
https://www.collegetermpapers.com/viewpaper/1303541364.html

[Bill Bowden]

"John Q. Public" <jo...@public.net> wrote in message
news:n6bebs$m1s$1...@dont-email.me...

Why don't you just explain why God does not exist? Do you have a better
theory of how the universe works? I note you can't even do vector algebra.










--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[John Q. Public]

When you explain why the Magic Pineapple doesn't exist.

Do you have a
> better theory of how the universe works?

Explain "works". I think the universe is alive and we're all a part of
it. I can't conceive that anyone would believe that some supernatural
being planned and created it all. It always was and always will be. I is
infinite and constantly changing. No, I can't give you a vector
algebraic formula but I don't think it covers some guy in the sky
keeping score to decide who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. I KNOW
that you don't have to wait until after you die to go to hell or heaven.

> I note you can't even do
> vector algebra.

So what?

--
John Q. Public

[Bill Bowden]

"John Q. Public" <jo...@public.net> wrote in message

news:n6co0s$8m5$1...@dont-email.me...

> Bill Bowden wrote:
>> "John Q. Public" <jo...@public.net> wrote in message
>>>

>>> Just because a majority believe something doesn't make it true.
>>> Your thinking it does proves my point that you're fucking STUPID.
>>>
>>> -- John Q. Public
>>
>> Why don't you just explain why God does not exist?
>
> When you explain why the Magic Pineapple doesn't exist.
>
> Do you have a
>> better theory of how the universe works?
>
> Explain "works". I think the universe is alive and we're all a part of it.
> I can't conceive that anyone would believe that some supernatural being
> planned and created it all. It always was and always will be. I is
> infinite and constantly changing. No, I can't give you a vector algebraic
> formula but I don't think it covers some guy in the sky keeping score to
> decide who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. I KNOW that you don't have
> to wait until after you die to go to hell or heaven.
>
>> I note you can't even do
>> vector algebra.
>
> So what?
>
> --
> John Q. Public

I can't comprehend your idea of time. If it always was and always will be,
that would mean we are existing at an infinite point in the future relative
to an infinite point in the past. So, how did we get here from an infinite
time in the past? Seems like a long wait to me. What exactly was going on at
some infinite time in the past? Think about it.

[rumpelstiltskin]

That's utterly bizarre IMV. If someone contends that there's
a reality for something that can't be seen, for which there's no
hard evidence it exists, and not even any soft evidence because
even if it did exist that wouldn't shed any light at all on "Why is
there is something instead of nothing", why on earth is it the
duty of anyone else to explain how it doesn't exist? One might
as well demand that anybody who doesn't believe that Peter
Pan exists hiding behind Alpha Centauri prove that it's not true.
It's possible, it can't be disproven! And if they can't prove that
Peter Pan doesn't exist behind Alpha Centauri, then the
possibility has to be included in schoolbooks.

I just don't understand how anybody, anybody, would think
that's a good argument. I never have, for as far back as I
can remember. Even a child should know better, ISTM - I did.
I understand (now) how Natural Selection might have
implanted such a tendency in our brains, but good lord surely
our brains are good for something besides just thinking up
ways to reinforce things that got into our brains one way or
another without any outside evidence, not even an argument
that can stand up to the slightest scrutiny, to support them.

Astrology is better. At least we can SEE stars.

[rumpelstiltskin]

What makes you think that time always existed? I see no basis
for asserting that absolutely. IMO time and space are much
more likely aspects of this universe, just as matter and energy
are. Some people maintain that matter and energy always existed,
and I suppose they have conjectures about how to believe that
despite the Big Bang, if they accept that there was a Big Bang.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 14:24:06 -0700, mg <no...@none.nl> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 12:52:35 -0800, rumpelstiltskin<x...@y.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> Scalia's statement demonstrates (if any further demonstration
>>were necessary) that he wants special perks for Christian-like
>>religion and for Christian-like religious people. He's certainly not
>>alone in that view. The whole tax structure is biased that way.
>>
>The world is a scary place. Of course, I know that you already knew
>that, but I can't help but mention it.
>
>
>----------------------------
>"'Faith' is a fine invention
>When Gentleman can see--
>But Microscopes are prudent
>In an Emergency."
>--Emily Dickinson

Ah, you're quoting Emily - Excellent!
That poem startled me when I first read
it, since "microscopes" is not a word
usually found in poetry. Emily definitely
had a mind of her own, though.

[John Q. Public]

Right now your are the effect of all the causes you've created minus
infinity. Right ow you are the cause for the effects in the infinite
future. Therefore, past, present and future are all happening NOW.

--
John Q. Public

[John Q. Public]

The big bang as been debunked. Never happened.

--
John Q. Public

[chatnoir]

It also begs the question of where did God come from!

[GLOBALIST]

This is pure insanity...Where did GOD come from?
GOD IS. or as it said in the Old Testament
"I am" There can't be anywhere God came from
or he wouldn't be God.

[John Q. Public]

The imagination of some desert dwellers a long time ago who couldn't
explain natural phenomena any other way.

>
> This is pure insanity...Where did GOD come from?
> GOD IS. or as it said in the Old Testament
> "I am" There can't be anywhere God came from
> or he wouldn't be God.
>

What your saying is god is because the bible says he or she or it is.
That's not proof, dumb ass, that's blind faith.

--
John Q. Public

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 05:51:35 -0800 (PST), chatnoir
<snip>

>It also begs the question of where did God come from!

Yes, I've pointed out often here that postulating a god
just prompts the question of where the god came from,
in place of the question of where physical existence came
from. Thus the concept of god doesn't in any way
relieve the conundrum of existence which was supposedly
the main justification for invoking the god in the first place.

[Emily]

Then, of course, the idea of Heaven or Paradise got added and we'd hit
on a idea that couldn't go wrong. Life suck? Don't worry, you'll get
milk and honey and learn to play the harp, or have 72 olives or
something but it'll be better than the hand you were dealt here.
Praise Jesus!

[Bill Bowden]

"rumpelstiltskin" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:qf2k8b5uefk1s17oq...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 18:58:53 -0800, "Bill Bowden"

>>Why don't you just explain why God does not exist? Do you have a better
>>theory of how the universe works? I note you can't even do vector algebra.
>
> That's utterly bizarre IMV. If someone contends that there's
> a reality for something that can't be seen, for which there's no
> hard evidence it exists, and not even any soft evidence because
> even if it did exist that wouldn't shed any light at all on "Why is
> there is something instead of nothing", why on earth is it the
> duty of anyone else to explain how it doesn't exist? One might
> as well demand that anybody who doesn't believe that Peter
> Pan exists hiding behind Alpha Centauri prove that it's not true.
> It's possible, it can't be disproven! And if they can't prove that
> Peter Pan doesn't exist behind Alpha Centauri, then the
> possibility has to be included in schoolbooks.
>

I think I heard it as a Chinese tea cup orbiting Jupiter, but there's no
evidence, and it's not worth the expense to go looking for it to prove it
exists. .

But Einstein was baffeled by the idea of an original creator and postulated
there must be an original source of the laws of nature, but couldn't
describe it other than it wasn't a sky monster. He was agnostic and left
open the question of god and religion.

"There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look?
Certainly not like a man magnified."

--Albert Einstein

> I just don't understand how anybody, anybody, would think
> that's a good argument. I never have, for as far back as I
> can remember. Even a child should know better, ISTM - I did.
> I understand (now) how Natural Selection might have
> implanted such a tendency in our brains, but good lord surely
> our brains are good for something besides just thinking up
> ways to reinforce things that got into our brains one way or
> another without any outside evidence, not even an argument
> that can stand up to the slightest scrutiny, to support them.
>
> Astrology is better. At least we can SEE stars.
>

[rumpelstiltskin]

And, of course, who would have given the lawgiver his
existence? Himself? One might as well argue that the
Chinese Tea Cup gave itself its existence.

Re Einstein and religion, I prefer the following quotation:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never
denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something
is in me which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the world
so far as our science can reveal it.
(Albert Einstein, 1954)

www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm


How do you pronounce "Einstein" by the way?
I pronounce it with two syllables: "ine-stine", but
many people pronounce it with three: "eye-un-stine".

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 18:15:10 -0500, Emily <Em...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:33:34 -0800, rumpelstiltskin<x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 05:51:35 -0800 (PST), chatnoir
>><snip>
>>
>>>It also begs the question of where did God come from!
>>
>>
>> Yes, I've pointed out often here that postulating a god
>>just prompts the question of where the god came from,
>>in place of the question of where physical existence came
>>from. Thus the concept of god doesn't in any way
>>relieve the conundrum of existence which was supposedly
>>the main justification for invoking the god in the first place.
>
>Then, of course, the idea of Heaven or Paradise got added

That was just wishful thinking run amok.

As Arthur notes, religion is very useful for controlling
the people, which is doubtless why a power elite that's
primarily interested in its own welfare, rather than that
of the people, usually looks on religion favourably.

Seneca said that the wise find religion to be false, the
foolish find it to be true, and the powerful find it to be
useful.

[mg]

You're the one who introduced me to her. I had heard of her, of
course, but I hadn't read any of her quotes before.