<p>Great article reprinted from TomPaine about Alito and religion and the constitution. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051210/church_state_and_alito.php[/url]”>http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051210/church_state_and_alito.php</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>considering the source, this is encouraging!</p>
<p>He’ll get well over 60 votes, and I think any fillibuster attempt will be nuked.</p>
<p>Ditto. Mortal lock.</p>
<p>It’s not really about Alito, though - in fact, the author never even mentioned any of Alito’s religion jurisprudence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For those who care, here is Scalia’s dissent:
<a href=“http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1693#dissent1[/url]”>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1693#dissent1</a></p>
<p>I am all for getting religion out of gov’t… but still agree with Scalia. There is a huge difference, IMO, between state establishment of religion and forbidding any public figure to publicly express his beliefs. </p>
<p>Here is the more full quote from what was excerpted in the article: </p>
<p>“If religion in the public forum had to be entirely nondenominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all. One cannot say the word “God,” or “the Almighty,” one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs. With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.”</p>
<p>…in short, I’m not sure what that article says about Alito; I am sure that it says that its authoress is a little biased against Scalia.</p>
<p>I agree. Re-establishing a sane and responsible Supreme Court will be among this administration’s most important legacies. Scalia. Thomas. Roberts. Alito. One more and we’ll demonstrate seriousness about American government once again.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, are you all saying that the framers of the constitution were wrong in what they intended and that the Supreme court should be ACTIVIST and change it to mean what they would prefer it meant???
We are a secular government from the beginning, no matter what customs were added later. Is that not good enough for you??? I thought all you conservatives wanted to stick by what the constitution said, not what activist judges interpret it to mean today. Did I get that wrong?</p>
<p>They left God out of the Constitution - the first national foundation document in the history of the world to do so - and they knew precisely what they were doing.</p>
<p>Religion in the public forum does not have to be non-denominational. God in matters of the Constitution should be non-existent, just the way the framers intended.</p>
<p>I,m sorry but for many conservatives religion is not a big issue. More concerned with things like private property rights, criminal rights, etc. Whether or not a city or scholl can put up a Christmas tree or needs to call it something else is not a big deal.</p>
<p>Many things are not mentioned in the constitution, and yet, I do not take from this fact that they are wrong, restricted or regulated in the public forum. The framers of the constitution wrote in a different atmosphere and intellectual climate than do the brave freethinkers of our indignant time; much need not be uttered. Of course, clarifications were occasionally made for the tourists and immigrants seeking our kind of liberty:</p>
<p>
Benjamin Franklin, Information to those who would remove to America September, 1782.</p>
<p>No pouting amongst the fundamentalist-atheists, if you please.</p>
<p>“The framers of the constitution wrote in a different atmosphere and intellectual climate than do the brave freethinkers of our indignant time; much need not be uttered.”</p>
<p>You’ve obviously never read The Federalist Papers, the debate around the Virginia Remonstrance, the opposition of Patrick Henry to ratification of the Constitution, or the foundation documents of the 13 colonies, or the ratification debates in the former colonies, in which divines railed against the absense of God in the document. The framers new exactly what they were doing - in 1787 (these very same people would likely have done differently in 1776, and definitely would have done so in 1802); they left God out because they wanted to make clear that the Constitution was a man-made rather than divine construct, and because they believed God (in his/her many incarnations or possible conceptions) had no place in governmental discourse.</p>
<p>Neither is Baseball enshrined as our National Sport which, as I understand, has all the Soccer-moms in a felicitous buzzzz.</p>
<p>Hey, heres a missive from the smoke-filled backroom:
John Adams. October 11, 1798.</p>
<p>Some say Adams carried some heavy water in these things, others claim he was part of an anti-American propaganda campaign to undermine the first godless republic; myself, I am unclear.</p>
<p>Laura - can you please explain what you are talking about?</p>
<p>The Founding Fathers intended for public expression of religion - just not state expression of religion. It’s not an inconsistent decision: it’s called a nuance in the law. They left countries where public expression of a differing sect of Christianity was punished. I would be shocked if the Founders truly believed that all religious expression should be confined to the home and to the church. </p>
<p>Scalia’s point is one that you see a lot in First Amendment jurisprudence: that we do NOT restrict the freedom of one person’s expression (religious, speech, politics, etc) because it might offend someone else. There is the idea that you can walk by a protest and ignore what the people are saying; you can choose to not attend a public demonstration; and, most importantly, that you can express your contrary views. </p>
<p>Scalia merely said that the First Amendment allows for public expression of religion, regardless of whether or not it “offends” people. </p>
<p>If that concept is a little tough, simply analogize to another area of First Amendment law: imagine that a group sued to stop a gay pride parade, because it is an expression of values that is contrary to their religious beliefs. This is America, so tough luck to those who are all offended. Don’t like it? Have your own parade. Likewise with religion. Don’t like it? Put up your own menorahs, Buddhas, or “Darwin” paraphenalia. Just don’t stop others from doing it.</p>
<p>If that doesn’t get you… consider that the word “abortion” is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. “Religion,” however, is right up there in the first amendment. </p>
<p>Oh, wait, and voting is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights… but we still consider voting to be pretty fundamental. </p>
<p>It’s the opposite of activism, unless you define “activist” to mean “what liberals don’t like.” I guess I completely fail to see how allowing free exercise of religion constituents “activist judging.” The basis of parts of the Constitution (and early jurisprudence) is that people would all run about and express their ideas - vigourous public debate! freedom to practice your religion without fear of state reprisal! print whatever you want, so long as it isn’t libel, because someone else is going to print their opposing view! Marketplace of ideas!</p>
<p>It isn’t activist… it’s AMERICAN.</p>
<p>Well said, Ariesathena. Our society has gotten to the point that some corporations are prohibiting their employees from wishing customers “Merry Christmas,” in order to avoid offending someone. That is the negative result of liberal activists. Alito and Roberts will provide a more reasoned approach as supreme court justices and both seem to be leaning toward constructionist points of view rather than being “activists.”</p>
<p>I think, though, the important thing is to look at the dialogue concerning the establishment if religion in the US. Clearly the First Amendment did not initially end the question and in some places, particularly MA and CT, Congregational Churches continued to receive state support for a while. In 1784, for example, Patrick Henry attempted tp pass an establishment billing giving VA state support to multiple Protestant denominations. Clearly the founding fathers did not agree on the question and, frankly, we should not try to emulate their viewpoint. Instead we should ask what role in today’s society should we give religion? Individual rights of course are protected by the Constitution, but the founding fathers did not envision the enormous quasi private/public commercial sphere that exists today.</p>
<p>So , what do you think Alito would do about alll the sain spying being done on law abiding AMERICANS that this administration has done</p>
<p>As for a better Supreme Court, Alito thinks women are beholden to their men , and need their permission, driver, that sit right with you, that you need your husbands permission to do someting with your own body?</p>
<p>Think birth control, even, back in the day, women needed their man’s permission to take birth control, guess we were too stupid to think for ourselves</p>
<p>But if that is what you want, well, think about your daughter, if she wants to get birth control, very legal, some members of this court would love to take that protection away</p>
<p>What a joke, sane and rational, religious beliefs are NOT rational, how could they be? Then it would not be FAITH</p>
<p>Can’t have it both ways</p>
<p>CGM:</p>
<p>It wasn’t a permission statute in Casey; it was spousal notification. It also only required that the woman say that she notified her husband - no actual requirement of proof.</p>
<p>Not sure how on earth you get from that to wanting to take away the right to birth control - as if we couldn’t then legislate access thereto.</p>