My comment didn’t get through because I’ve been blocked following a prior comment. What that comment was is a mystery.
This comment was in response to a story where the left has gone berserk over a Scalia statement. If you read the post you can get the gist.
I thought the left was the party of intelligentsia?
Is it really so hard to comprehend what Scalia said, even after the left REPEATS WHAT HE SAYS?
And Jerk Uygur cuts and pastes exactly what Scalia says and harumphs that Scalia has it wrong.
This is an embarrassment.
Scalia – “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 nonreligion,”
Scalia is saying exactly what the constitution says. The state cannot establish ONE SPECIFIC religion as the “official” religion.
It’s not freedom FROM religion, it’s freedom of your chosen religion, whatever it is.
Here’s Egor –
“The Founding Fathers would be repulsed by people like Antonin Scalia,” Uygur said. “It’s not a theory — they already said they were repulsed by people like Antonin Scalia, who want to put their religion above all of us.”
Yes, dum dum. They were repulsed by the idea that ONE PERSON’S religion, “their specific” religion, be forced upon all, like Jews being forced into Christianity by the state.
Here’s Jefferson –
“State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights,” Jefferson stated.
What’s the “state church”? Where is it? What specific religious tenet is being forced upon anyone? Where is the Jew coming forward with the complaint? Where is the Christian with a complaint? Where is the Hindu with their complaint?
All I see are atheists complaining, trying to strip the government bare of any remnant of any faith whatsoever, which is NOT in the constitution.
“Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state,’ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”
First of all, that is not in the constitution, but let’s fantasize that it is.
Coupled with the establishment clause, that the state cannot establish one specific religion as the state religion, this “wall” would work both sides, no?
The state should be separated from meddling with the church.
I guess “Dum dum” and “jerk” is too harsh. I could stick to the words the left calls us, but my mother would wash my mouth out with soap.