ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, January 03, 2016

Secularism is not constitutional

Justice Scalia calls out those who would suppress Christianity in the USA:
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday 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 at a Catholic high school in the New Orleans suburb of Metairie, Louisiana. Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 is the court's longest serving justice. He has consistently been one of the court's more conservative members.

He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High 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.

"To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?" he said. "To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another but can't favor religion over non-religion?"

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.

Scalia said during the Sept. 11 attacks he was in Rome at a conference. The next morning, after a speech by President George W. Bush in which he invoked God and asked for his blessing, Scalia said many of the other judges approached him and said they wished their presidents or prime ministers would do the same.

"God has been very good to us. That we won the revolution was extraordinary. The Battle of Midway was extraordinary. I think one of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor. Unlike the other countries of the world that do not even invoke his name we do him honor. In presidential addresses, in Thanksgiving proclamations and in many other ways," Scalia said.

"There is nothing wrong with that and do not let anybody tell you that there is anything wrong with that," he added.
Moreover, the idea that Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion" does not bar the several States, or the executive branch, from doing as it likes with regards to any religion. The fact that various courts have interpreted this as meaning that Christian football players cannot pray before a football game doesn't mean that it actually does mean that, it merely means that Christians should use their weight of numbers to do whatever they please.

The public is under no moral obligation to obey the courts. Law that is invented out of thin air can be justly ignored. Whether it can be safely ignored, of course, is another question.

Labels: ,

76 Comments:

Blogger Phillip George January 03, 2016 5:01 AM  

Jury Nullification is the ultimate democracy. People who don't know their powers w.r.t. same aren't quite up to being citizens; they're defacto denizens.
It behooves this generation to articulate the name of God. The poison pen of freemasonry left too much unsaid. IMHO.

Blogger White Devil January 03, 2016 5:22 AM  

Maybe Christians should have some kind of safe space where they can talk to invisible friends and follow their magical, superstitious rules about family and morality all they want. Maybe it should have nice high (padded) walls and a careful regulation of who comes and goes, so that the "inmates" don't get loose and spoil things for everyone. And maybe that safe space should be called The United States of America.
And maybe everyone who really, genuinely can't psychologically cope with living beside the "crazy" people can relocate.
Just rework the Statue of Liberty. The tablet can be a giant EXIT sign and the torch arm can point to nice, secular Europe.

Blogger Phillip George January 03, 2016 5:32 AM  

rib tickler WhiteDevil. The Statue was, of course, a gift from the French. The same French who now have suburbs where police won't police because allah is not on their side. you cunning little devils have already fixed France.

Anonymous Takin' a Look January 03, 2016 5:39 AM  

We are all "slaves", "denizens", whether we like it or not here in satan's world. Don't get too wrapped up in Man's Road, remember, Jesus' Third Commandment was to be wise as the serpents, gentle as doves and lambs. It's a very difficult thing to do in the world.

Blogger Phillip George January 03, 2016 5:44 AM  

while we drive cars we keep our hands on the steering wheels. Trust Him, all you like, I reckon your hands will still use the wheels already in motion. calling your car secular and your church religion is one reason this mess took place.

Blogger Christopher Yost January 03, 2016 5:47 AM  

Wasn't the determination that school officials can't lead the prayers (or the action), not that players 'n such couldn't pray at all?

Praying is allowed, it simply cannot be an official function of a non-religious (private?) school.

Anonymous Rigel Kent January 03, 2016 5:50 AM  

There was an excellent point made in a book I read a while back (IIRC it was A History of the American People by Paul Johnson) that it was ridiculous that a guarantee of freedom of religion somehow got interpreted to mean that religious practices were forbidden in government institutions. I.E, school prayer and the like.

I'm an agnostic, but the reasoning seemed sound to me.

Anonymous zen0 the Ephemeral January 03, 2016 6:14 AM  

Scalia is correct about the Battle of Midway. US should have lost, except for an extraordinary bit of "luck".

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 03, 2016 6:25 AM  

I'm not expert on this issue. However, after hearing Christopher Ferrara talk about his book, Liberty: The God That Failed, I honestly must disagree with both Justice Scalia and even you, Vox.

Yes, for one of only a few times in the 14-15 years I've been reading you, I think you're wrong on this.

Even the Civil War-era National Reform Association acknowledged that The Constitution was godless, and specifically, Christless. And in fact, in regards to the manner in which the Constitution is set up, it is destined to one day crush state governments and every move within the nation to hold onto Christianity.

Ferrara: "Again and again, these people in the NRA conventions warned that unless something like the Christian amendment were adopted, the Constitution would become a battering ram for the destruction of the remnants of the Christian social order.

"The appeal to the enemy is the Constitution." -T.P. Stevenson


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqRo6OHdEnw

Blogger VD January 03, 2016 6:28 AM  

Praying is allowed, it simply cannot be an official function of a non-religious (private?) school.

That's absurd. It certainly can be. A school, even a public school, is not Congress.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 03, 2016 6:31 AM  

Again, this country's foundations lie on satanic Freemasonry, which is the sworn enemy of Christ's Church on Earth. And it is therefore no surprise that we have satanists popping up their weaselly heads, right here in Oklahoma, holding black masses, desecrating religious images in front of churches during Christmas, attempting to erect statues to the devil, and generally being as nasty as possible, all for the sake of spite. Belligerence for belligerence's sake.

This nation is designed to have this kind of outcome--whether that was intended or not. And because of this Freemasonic republic, we are going to see much more Satanism--and even Islam, the bride of atheists--and much less acceptance of Christianity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3zNRTDsWPo

Myself, I think we should write a new Constitution, almost exactly like that of Hungary.

Blogger Raziel Walker January 03, 2016 7:00 AM  

Football players can pray before a match all they want, as long as nobody is forced to give them time and place to do so. Same as with http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29330180/cargill-tried-resolve-issues-before-firing-colorado-muslim People are paid to work, not paid to pray and disrupt the workflow.

Government should be secular. I don't want my country to turn into something like a christian variation of Saudi Arabia or http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/23/christmas-banned-somalia-tajikistan-brunei.

OpenID simplytimothy January 03, 2016 7:04 AM  

Historically, God makes His people choose between Him or mammon; it is happening again. No longer "God and Country" it is "God or Country". Those who choose Him get both; those who reject Him get neither.

Joshua 24:15

Anonymous GerardD January 03, 2016 7:16 AM  

I blame the Fourteenth Amendment.

The only original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to prevent Jim Crow from becoming an institution, and it failed to achieve this one goal. The problem is that this amendment is written in such vague, aspirational language as to make it basically a license for the Supreme Court to simply rule as they please in any given case, and make up the rationale afterwards. The original constitution, in effect until the Civil War, reserved the greater part of "government" by far to the states, and the Bill of Rights was a limit on the federal government only. The Fourteenth Amendment has been used to reverse this balance, limiting the power of the states, and letting the federal government to step into the resulting power vacuum.

Blogger maha January 03, 2016 7:24 AM  

//Moreover, the idea that Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion" does not bar the several States, or the executive branch, from doing as it likes with regards to any religion.// The First Amendment applies only to Congress, but the Fourteenth Amendment bars the states from depriving citizens of their rights protected under the Bill of Rights. This means that states can't discriminate based on religion, either, and must treat all religions equally.

OpenID paworldandtimes January 03, 2016 7:27 AM  

"Separation of church and state" is a codeword for "this ain't your country."

PA

Blogger dienw January 03, 2016 7:29 AM  

We have the Supreme Court under Injustice Holmes for the great lie of the Empty Public Square.

We also have the lie that the religious life, no, the godly life is lived in private and only to be public on Sunday mornings. We have been driven so far out of the public square that some cities have banned feeding the poor.

One of the greatest lies courtesy of the foolish libertarians is the belief that immoral act between consenting adults do not harm society.

Blogger VD January 03, 2016 7:30 AM  

Government should be secular.

That's like saying government should be rainbows. Even if you manage it for a moment, it won't stay that way. The concept has already failed.

Blogger dienw January 03, 2016 7:40 AM  

Again, this country's foundations lie on satanic Freemasonry, which is the sworn enemy of Christ's Church on Earth.

Look, sinful men act in the world and do great things: Cain, who was Sargon the Magnificent established ancient cities; and, where he settled on a seasonally flooding plain (Nod) he tamed rivers with dikes and irrigation systems. And he is the founder of music. It is thought that it is he who sailed the "great sea" beyond the straits of Gibraltar and influenced the Mezzo-American peoples: remember that the Aztecs welcomed their conquerors thinking that the "red-haired man had returned.
Shall we now declare civilization and culture to be Satanic and to be thrown away?

Blogger dienw January 03, 2016 7:45 AM  

I don't want my country to turn into something like a christian variation of Saudi Arabia

That statement is fundamentally idiotic; unless you are discussing a certain Babylonian religion which has that at its core in its history...

Anonymous InsufferableMystic January 03, 2016 7:49 AM  

"Historically, God makes His people choose between Him or mammon; it is happening again. No longer "God and Country" it is "God or Country". Those who choose Him get both; those who reject Him get neither."

This, simplytimothy is what it always boils down to.

Do you accept the Lord or not? It isn't enough to believe he exists. Us humans can only serve one master.

The devil offers us the world and ourselves, promising freedom, if we accept he laughs and we get less than nothing.

If we accept the Lord is who he says he is, that he is the rightful king, then all else follows.

The choice is that of being dead or alive.
Either you take part in true existence, or you remain part of the shadows.

People constantly forget that this is what the core of the matter is.

There is nothing else.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling January 03, 2016 8:06 AM  

@14 GerardD

I blame the Fourteenth Amendment.

GerardD is right, and if our betters were more honest, they'd admit they've created their own religion or family of religions, and are using force to make it the state religion and to suppress most of the competing popular ones.

Blogger dienw January 03, 2016 8:15 AM  

... the Bill of Rights was a limit on the federal government only.

Again, utter foolishness: the Bill of Rights was meant to protect Human Rights; these rights extend to all of the people of the United States; they exist as part of our humanity. The Bill of Rights can only have real existence if the people in the separate states had them already.

It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that the Federal government can declare that you have the right to bear arms as a human right while the various states can disarm you completely.

Anonymous GerardD January 03, 2016 8:31 AM  

@dienw

You're subscribing to the modern notion that the federal government is the font of all that is good, and the guarantor of all rights.

The federal Bill of Rights was a limit on the federal government only. The states had their own constitutions, and their own guarantees of rights. The citizens in those days looked to their own states, hardly ever the federal government, to enforce their rights.

Blogger dienw January 03, 2016 8:41 AM  

You're subscribing to the modern notion that the federal government is the font of all that is good, and the guarantor of all rights.

NO, GerardD, I am not, I am arguing from the classical understanding that the Bill of Rights was proposed by those who feared the new government would trample the Human Rights of the people. The Federal government does not through the Bill of Rights create these rights. It is designed to protect them.

Anonymous Godfrey January 03, 2016 8:47 AM  

We'd be better off selecting judges at random from the phone book. The current courts are illegitimate.

Anonymous Godfrey January 03, 2016 8:53 AM  

@12
"Government should be secular. I don't want my country to turn into something like a christian variation of Saudi Arabia"


It's a "secular" version of Saudi Arabia.

Blogger Salt January 03, 2016 8:58 AM  

The Federal government does not through the Bill of Rights create these rights. It is designed to protect them.

That was a poor deal then, as it surely, once having gained enough power, changed the rules.

Blogger Phillip George January 03, 2016 8:59 AM  

all antithetical postures presuppose the existence of secular, ie. you're in trouble. It's the fantastic notion you can create space in which God doesn't exist. hence Islam can judge you. On any gradient of delusions your position is least defensible. Man made nothing in his image that can stand the test of even 200 years of juridical time. Babylon, with writing on it's walls. the graffiti of the new age intellectual.

Anonymous GerardD January 03, 2016 9:00 AM  

@dienw

I agree that the federal government does not create rights through the federal bill of rights. I'm sure you know, however, that the attachment of a bill of rights to the constitution was controversial at the time. There was a school of thought around 1787 that the federal government would be one of only enumerated powers, and that it would be obvious that it would have no authority outside those specific powers. It was thought that the inclusion of a bill of rights might falsely imply that the federal government would otherwise have the authority to (say) prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Until the federal fourteenth amendment, it was always understood that the rights of citizens (an English speaker in the 18th century would not have been likely to use the modern phrase "human rights") would be protected by their states, not the federal government.

Blogger dienw January 03, 2016 9:22 AM  

I'm sure you know, however, that the attachment of a bill of rights to the constitution was controversial at the time.

Yes, the anti-Federalists were arguing against the Constitution because there was no obvious protection of the human rights. The Bill of Rights was the result.

Anonymous GerardD January 03, 2016 9:32 AM  

@dienw

Yes, they did, and this view was disputed and controversial at the time.

Blogger Daniel January 03, 2016 10:02 AM  

Secular government abides sharia; secular government is not secular.

Anonymous Cadwallander J January 03, 2016 10:43 AM  

Scalia is the only justice who looks like a man who would punch you in the face for insulting him. He's the only one I trust, and as far as I know has never cast the obligatory traitor-Republican appointee vote on a major issue.

Look at Roberts and tell me you would leave your kids unattended with the guy for five minutes.

Blogger wrf3 January 03, 2016 10:46 AM  

Salt @28

"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Blogger pyrrhus January 03, 2016 10:48 AM  

"Congress shall make no law..." meant exactly that, since several of the Original States had State religions...but it only took a few socialists on the bench to completely pervert the meaning..

Blogger wrf3 January 03, 2016 10:54 AM  

@12: "Government should be secular. I don't want my country to turn into something like a christian variation of Saudi Arabia..."

So what you're saying is that, on the one hand, you don't want the government to tell you what to do; but on the other hand, that's the power you've granted to government.

Do you really think there's another choice between the Cross, the burqa, or the gulag?

Blogger White Devil January 03, 2016 11:59 AM  

Government should be secular.
A salesman than says "just a minute of your time" is not taken at his word. A leftist that says "secular government" shouldn't either. That's mistaking their rhetoric for good intentions.

People who don't want to waste your time don't waste your time. People who don't want to rule you don't promise not to do so. Their actions demonstrate their intentions, so they need not make promises (or threats.)

Think of all the pedo white-washing. Everyone who says "but I don't touch kids or advocate for it" is lying, often to themselves. Just like every rag-clutching addict. Just like every unfaithful spouse. Just like every anti-patriot/global-citizen.

Government is already secular. What they're talking about is excluding people with loyalties and affections (beyond paperwork and economic sadism) from having a hand in it.

Anonymous Jerome Horowitz January 03, 2016 12:27 PM  

Vox is of course correct. There were several states at the signing of the US Constitution, that had religion denoted in their own State Constitutions...
..
Delaware ; Article 22 (1776) "Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust...shall...also make and subscribe the following declaration, to whit:
'I,_____, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration'"

Georgia; Article VI (1777) "The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county...and they shall be of the Protestant religion..."
..
Maryland; Article XXXII (1776) "...All persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection their religious liberty...the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general tax and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion."

Blogger dc.sunsets January 03, 2016 12:27 PM  

Political government in all Western countries is Not secular.

Every one of them has engaged in a relentless crusade to instill Universalist (Pilgrim/Leveller/etc) nominally Christian (but actually Satanic) dogma for a very long time.

Just because Progressivism no longer openly acknowledges its roots (because they now are producing Sodom openly instead) doesn't make it any less a theocratic political movement.

No other legal framework reveals this more than "hate crime." This is nothing but the Theocracy banning blasphemy.

Folks, that's not secular.

Anonymous redsash January 03, 2016 12:27 PM  

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion and NOT freedom of CULTS. Otherwise, we've had a terrible corn crop last season and I along with a band of 300 Aztecs would like to relocate to the States. We do practice human sacrifice at summer and winter solstice, but this is mostly accomplished with slaves we've captured. I am informed that this is currently practiced by Black youth in Chicago. BTW, my cousin now worships a crescent moon god, has a paedophile for a prophet, and believes that all non-believers should be put to the sword. To be truthful we are both very bad neighbors,Charles Manson types, but I am informed that your governing elite make no distinction between the most vile of CULTS and the Son of God who proclaimed that "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..." and established His Church at Pentecost barring that episode where the mormon cult was driven out of the States by terribly unenlightened men who did not know that cults were religions and marriage involved more than one man United with one woman.

OT: Did you catch Obama's new year address? I forgot. He didn't deliver one. YouTube Putin's new year address and you will see how presidents should lead. America is governed by empty suits, empty heads, empty hearts, empty souls uttering empty words.



Blogger dc.sunsets January 03, 2016 12:28 PM  

I should add, it's not Christian either.

Blogger Sheila4g January 03, 2016 1:28 PM  

As others have noted, many state constitutions had religious provisions for the citizens in those states, as well as religious requirements for holding office. None of these were considered or ruled unconstitutional until the 14th amendment.

@9 Laramie Hirsch: Do you have specific incidents where any public exercise of Christianity was challenged early on? I've found quite a bit in newspapers in 1905/6/7 regarding NY Jewish immigrants challenging Christian celebrations in the schools and then banning the very words "Christ" and "Christmas" from all school texts and songs.

Anonymous Godfrey January 03, 2016 1:28 PM  

@41
The State is a cult.

And it will most likely end the way Jim Jones did.

Blogger G-S. January 03, 2016 1:42 PM  

The separation of church and state was designed so that each state, and the nation-state could not force one particular religion upon the public. For centuries, monarchs ruled by the idea of divine right, or a divine monarchy. Dictators quite often choose a winning religion as it is easier to control the public with only just one in place. The USA is a republic that allows all religions, but not any at the state level. That is what is freedom of religion. Jefferson's 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' was created to prevent a monarchy of divine right from occurring, but still let people have any religion of his choosing. Secularism is the idea of not deferring to any particular religion, and is a default state.

Blogger G-S. January 03, 2016 2:03 PM  

Following my last comment: Regarding the title of this thread "Secularism is not constitutional" is basically nonsense. Secularism means not referring to any religion in particular. It is done specifically for mixed company out of respect for all. Making a Muslim say the Lords Prayer is as disrespectful as forcing a Christian pray to Allah. Secularism is saying pray on your own time, don't force others to do as you do. It's not a cult, and it's not coded in law, and it's an attempt to be respectful for everyone.

Anonymous Godfrey January 03, 2016 2:19 PM  

@46
G-S

If only that were true. No friend, secularism means forcing a Christian baker to make a "wedding" cake for two goofs of the same sex. You're behind the times.

Anonymous ArmyStu January 03, 2016 4:07 PM  

Scalia should retire based on his revolutionary war comment alone. He clearly is delusional.

Anonymous ArmyStu January 03, 2016 4:11 PM  

"The public is under no moral obligation to obey the courts"

And this is why Vox Day should retire from writing on legal issues. The Court's rulings in the Constitution's religious clauses and amendment don't apply to the Public. They apply to the state. Jesus! Talk about a complete doofus!

Anonymous redsash January 03, 2016 4:41 PM  

"don't apply to the Public" This is the stupidest statement ever, ever made on this blog. Tell that to the state bakers in Oregon, or the county clerk in Kentucky.

Also moral obligation is often at conflict with legal obligation. Oh well, Christmas break is nearly at an end, and the little yellow bus will shortly arrive to take you back to Junior High schroole.

Anonymous ArmyStu January 03, 2016 5:27 PM  

" 'don't apply to the Public" This is the stupidest statement ever, ever made on this blog. Tell that to the state bakers in Oregon, or the county clerk in Kentucky."

First, please explain what a "state baker" is. Second, how did the dimwit clerk in KY find here life impacted by any constitutional ruling? The bitch simply decided not to do her job.

Anonymous ArmyStu January 03, 2016 5:31 PM  

"That's absurd. It certainly can be. A school, even a public school, is not Congress."

This person doesn't believe the Incorporation Doctrine is sound. But like most now it's wh make the mistake of opening their flap on the topic can't and won't explain why.

Blogger weka January 03, 2016 5:58 PM  

Well, ArmyStu, get the shite out of your ears and listen up. Your consitution is not worth the paper it is written on, if a society chooses not to keep it.

And the current Prezident of the Banana states of Amerika has shredded it. To the point where the only people who can speak freely and without fear are out of the reach of the weaponized IRS and DOJ.

Those in other countries of the Anglosphere, (Canada and the UK excepted) or intending never to return from exile.

It is not legality now, it is raw power. I am not sure if there is still time for reform. You better stop posting and start praying, because if it is a civil war, my money is on the rednecks winning.

And NZ not getting involved.

Anonymous redsash January 03, 2016 6:08 PM  

You stated that court rulings didn't apply to the public, only the state. I was mocking you by calling those bakers, those public bakers, state bakers. The SC declared up to be down. The Kentucky clerk said NO, up is up, and was imprisoned for her faith. You are not a legal scholar, just another anti Christian bigot. I find no pleasure in mocking those so ignorant they don't realize they are being mocked; therefore, no more pearls for you.

Anonymous ArmyStu January 03, 2016 6:10 PM  

"And the current Prezident of the Banana states of Amerika has shredded it. To the point where the only people who can speak freely and without fear are out of the reach of the weaponized IRS and DOJ."

Baloney! What exactly is it that isn't being said for fear of the DOJ or IRS? You guys with your ludicrous claims never back them up....making them shite.

Blogger Gapeseed January 03, 2016 6:26 PM  

ArmyStu @55 - You're asking weka to prove a negative, which is unfair and pretty much impossible without a meta-statement such as "I would have said X, but choose not to because of Y consequence." It stands to reason that examples like the Oregon baker would chill free speech. Think of days of yore and heads on spikes.

I like Scalia a lot, but his support for stare decisis is indefensible - it has added a measure of inevitability to the Leftist march through institutions. While a conservative principle in normal jurisprudence, when applied to Constitutional Law, stare decisis becomes a one-way ratchet where Leftists are constantly on offense and originalists are always stuck on defense. Scalia pretty much claims that it is baked in the cake, but overturning precedent could spur a much-needed Constitutional Convention, as well as temper Leftist enthusiasm for robed legislators.

Clarence Thomas's strict adherence to the text of the Constitution and willingness to overturn long-established judicial precedent would go a long way to reestablishing the Constitution as a protector of religion rather than secularism.

Blogger Phillip George January 03, 2016 6:30 PM  

New World Secular Order @ArmyStu, you can pick its juicy fruit all day. How did all these ignorant people spring up around you with such good secular teachers nurturing them from cradle to grave.

novus seclorum ordo @ArmyStu

the meatloaf in your sandwich. No baloney in sight.

Blogger weka January 03, 2016 6:40 PM  

@55.
I just sit in NZ and watch. I avoid the USA. So answer me this:

Did the IRS not deliberately audit and demand details of all donors to tea party groups prior to the last presidential election or did they not?

Did not Wisconsin Attorneys deliberately raid their republican opponents and demand they be silenced under Grand Jury Penalties or did they not?

Did more tna 100% of some Democrat precincts vote Obama in the last election or did they not?

It only takes one black swan to disprove an negative. The USA is more corrupt than most banana republics: I'll happily visit most of SOuth America and Canada but the TSA rules keep me out of the USA.

Blogger Phillip George January 03, 2016 6:56 PM  

add to that weka the overt 'logic' that they are protecting 100 story buildings from freefall collapse because all it takes to bring down 100 story buildings is one box cutter and some jetfuel. With protection like that who needs enemies?
oh, and a carbon tax to protect you from adverse weather events.
but 'secular' is rational and scientific - so shut ArmyStu explained.

Safer in NZ. but only a little.

Blogger Harry Spitz January 03, 2016 7:04 PM  

I find it very funny that people have an issue with Christianity, who can only express that opinion because they live a Civilization created by (Western) Christianity.
Try publicly expressing the same sort issues with Islam, in, say Riyahd or Tehran.

Anonymous redsash January 03, 2016 7:16 PM  

I looked at some new year's eve celebration pictures from the, I think, Daily Mirrow. More properly pictures of drunks. One can safely say that Britain has become the land of sluts and mutts. A society nearly totally alienated from its Christian roots, Britain has become a muslim loving, alcoholic, neurotic, amoral, pony riding, and sexually deviant (those who aren't already eunuchs) nation. And now they are so self-righteous they would deny Trump a visa. Maybe a President Trump could sent back to the U.K. all the British who have come here since 1990! Or tell the Russians to have at it. My uncle flew bombing runs for these people who were and are now not worthy of one drop of his sweat. Look at England all you dead and wounded of two world wars. You fought for sluts, mutts, and globalists who detest the very notion of clan and nation.

Blogger Phillip George January 03, 2016 7:23 PM  

@60 that pretty well nails it Harry Spitz. There's this grand delusion with 'secularism', that morality just happily condenses from thin air. That rights are obvious.

Never been a conviction for clitorectomies in Britain, despite tens of thousands of them. That should tell the honest reader everything. But "bill of rights" "state rights" "constitution" bring this fog of war. As is it was all designed to obscure the obvious.

that a George Washington could imagine his works being interpreted as an endorsement for Gay rights, abortion rights, fault free divorce, TSA groping, wars in the middle east is, simply inconceivable. These men weren't smart enough to state the obvious in unambiguous terms. They were too civilized to conceive of new world paganism and the technologies for death.

Blogger Phillip George January 03, 2016 7:28 PM  

@61, redash. Drunk and sleep walking Britain is a metaphor. But in paris young musselmen celebrated the new year by torching 800 + cars. Down from previous yrs probably because the streets are clogged with police these days trying to avert the charle hebdo cultural melting pot diversity celebrations.

Drunk and sleep walking or car burning. Still put your hopes in the drunks. The car burners won't respect you like the drunks will.

Anonymous Rolf January 03, 2016 7:50 PM  

While I shudder to think what sort of SC justices a President Hillary might try to appoint, I have absolutely no idea what sort of SC justices a Prez Trump might angle for, other than making a UUUUGGEEEEE deal out of it. But in all likelihood, the next president in the US will be appointing at least one, and likely two or three, of them.

Any hints out there in pundit land?

Blogger bob k. mando January 03, 2016 7:58 PM  

15. maha January 03, 2016 7:24 AM
but the Fourteenth Amendment



the 14th Amendment was adopted illegally and against the rules set forth in the Constitution. this is true of ALL of the Reconstruction Amendments.



23. dienw January 03, 2016 8:15 AM
the Bill of Rights was meant to protect Human Rights



liar.

just as the 10th Amendment says, the Bill of Rights is to protect and reserve powers to "the States respectively, or to the people". you notice that the *States* have precedence over "the people".

the Bill of Rights is a check upon FEDERAL power. should the people of Utah decide to make the Church of Latter Day Saints their official state church *that is legal*, provided they follow their OWN state law regarding the adoption of an amendment necessary to set this forth.

in the same way that Massachusetts had an official state church as late as 1834 ( EIGHTEEN THIRTY-FOUR, MOTHERFUCKER ), this was both perfectly legal and Constitutional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Tabular_summary



58. weka January 03, 2016 6:40 PM
Did the IRS not deliberately audit and demand details of all donors to tea party groups prior to the last presidential election or did they not?



they did.

but, just as Louise Lerner is not in jail, neither is Hillary.

don't hold your breath waiting.

Blogger Kevin Blackwell January 03, 2016 9:31 PM  

First, the constitution is a one way document. It only applies to the government. I can sue a man if he works for a newspaper and slanders me.

Second, courts don't make laws. Courts give opinions. Also stop calling codes laws. You don't choose which laws you follow. I obey gravity because the alternative is me getting put on my ass. Codes must be voluntarily agreed to. If I were to pull out the UCMJ on someone on the street, I would be a wacko.

Vox mentions using words and understanding their meaning. Black's law dictionary is free online (get the first or 4th edition).

Blogger weka January 03, 2016 9:58 PM  

@PhilipGeorge, since I was born in NZ, yes we are only a little safer. We have our fair share of loons and we have had a full SJW government (Helen Clarke was so good at it she is now number two in the UN).

Made a fair number of Kiwis rabidly antiprogressive, she did. THe Labour (read Democrat) party is now unelectable: the Cuckservatives (read National) run the place.

And we are a tad safer, because most people are still engaged. Most still vote. And most are quietly patriotic.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 04, 2016 12:28 AM  

@43

Do you have specific incidents where any public exercise of Christianity was challenged early on?

I imagine suppression of exercising Christian practices is more common these days, now that atheism is emboldened by the weakness of whatever Christian remnants are left in this country. But I do have an example or two. The first example will match our current season of the Christmas octave. (Christmas ain't over until Wednesday, the Epiphany.) Going back, you could always point to the suppression of Christmas by the Puritans. Granted, it was by a Protestant denomination, and not the State. However, Puritans were the ones in charge of local government, and prosecutions were definitely a real thing. As late as the 1800's people were prosecuted for disturbing the peace with their festivities, and tension didn't ease up until after the Civil War ended, and Christmas was made a Federal holiday.

In the early times of our country, the situation for Catholics was so tenuous, that bishops would hardly ever be appointed here. For American Catholics, back then, Catholics couldn't blatantly come out in the open so much about their faith.

The Know Nothing Party of the 1800's is responsible for a lot of harassment and destruction of Catholic property. Its most prominent leaders were U.S. Representative Nathaniel P. Banks, and Representative Lewis C. Levin. They actually started using the name the American Republican Party in 1843.

There was the Blaine Amendment of the late 1800s, which forbid direct government aid to educational institutions that have any religious affiliation. This was largely a Nativist attack against the Irish Catholic influx of that era, and it is here that we see President Grant proclaiming that--in schools at least--Church and State should be forever separate, and that religion should be left to families, churches, and private schools devoid of public funds.

Though America consists of mostly Protestants, it is arguable that the fight against Catholicism and the Logos--Jesus Christ--are wrapped up in one package. The running "joke" among Catholics is that anti-Catholicism is "the last acceptable prejudice" in this country. Historian, Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr., once said: "I regard the prejudice against your Church as the deepest bias in the history of the American people."

Listen to that youtube link I provided. Christopher Ferrera gave quite a few examples of official challenges by the Founders against Christianity, proclaiming that this is NOT a Christian nation. Here it is again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqRo6OHdEnw

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen--and as the said states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

-Treaty of Tripoli, President John Adams.


Religious indifferentism implemented, once again, in order to appease the Muslims. Eat your heart out, Obama.

Blogger SciVo January 04, 2016 2:46 AM  

Well, since five black-robed nutcases can imagine whatever they want, I reject Adams and say he was a dumbass.

Blogger SciVo January 04, 2016 5:38 AM  

To be clear, I only reject John Adams. Scott Adams has some interesting things to say.

Blogger tz January 04, 2016 9:00 AM  

half OT: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12068068/Mapped-how-a-demographic-time-bomb-will-transform-the-global-economy.html

Japan's defacto < 1 child policy...
Islam will win by default at this rate.
Worse, it isn't up to the men but the women. They reject the combat that matters most. Hands don't rock empty cradles.

Anonymous Sebastian January 04, 2016 10:47 AM  

That's fine that we can invoke our freedom to express our religion as Christians. However, with that said, we need to respect other religions just the same. We should not condemn other religions for those of the few who are known criminals (terrorists). Remember, Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, ISIS and Al Qaeda are Muslim terrorists (who kill other Muslims). I think the action of the criminals are just that, actions of criminals. However, some feel it necessary to paint an entire religion with hate (the Jews in the Holocaust and now the Muslims because of terrorist organizations who wrongfully claim they are doing it for God).

Blogger Danby January 04, 2016 11:14 AM  

@72 Sebastian
That's fine that we can invoke our freedom to express our religion as Christians. However, with that said, we need to respect other religions just the same.
Why? You seem to make the mistake of believing that everyone in the world is just the same, regardless of religion. That is manifestly untrue. Islam is both a rape cult and a death cult.

We should not condemn other religions for those of the few who are known criminals (terrorists). Remember, Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, ISIS and Al Qaeda are Muslim terrorists (who kill other Muslims).
Speaking of lies, here's a good one. McVeigh was no more a Christian than Mohammed al Baradei. He was an Atheist. Under Islam, it's not just "a few" who are terrorists. Literally every Moslem is required, by the koran, the literal word of God, to take up arms and help subjugate the entire world. It's a good thing for us they're Moslems and mostly Arabs, and so not very effective at what they're doing.

I think the action of the criminals are just that, actions of criminals. However, some feel it necessary to paint an entire religion with hate (the Jews in the Holocaust and now the Muslims because of terrorist organizations who wrongfully claim they are doing it for God).
It's nice to see that you know more about Islam than Muslims, more than the Koran, and more than the Prophet Mohammad. And you know more about the motivations of Muslim terrorist organizations than the organizations themselves.
BTW, no one besides Moslems paints Jews with the terrrorist brush. It's not believeable.

Tell me, Sebastian, do you get a sexual thrill every time you see a story of yet another White girl forcibly raped by a swarthy Moslem?
Tell you what, pal, try learning about the world, and what's happening, and why it's happening before you even think about commenting here on it. You believe the lies told you by the idiot box and parrot them back nicely. Unfortunately, they have nothing to do with reality, you fucking cuck.

Blogger Eric Castle January 04, 2016 1:09 PM  

As Paul stated in Gal. 6, do remember that God is not mocked and we reap what we sow. All the historical revisionism cannot remove the assumption by the founders that American society would be a generally "religious" one, or at least would follow the "Judeo-Christian ethic". Herein is the Achilles' Heel.

Attacks upon organized religion, et al. are really attacks upon objective morality. Religious groups have been advocates of such morality in varied imperfect degrees for centuries (albeit not as well as of late for many such groups). People attack religion because they are mad at God, or more specifically mad that God has said certain behaviors are wrong, damaging, and socially unhealthy.

Governments exist at least in part to uphold law and (in theory) promote a general morality. The only way to do so is to mimic, mirror, or openly advocate the objective morality authored (e.g. revealed through inspiration) by God. Our post-modern world is rife with subjective anti-morality and too many fools angry with their fathers, both earthly and Heavenly, for such law to stand with any vitality.

The first sign of the end was all the decrying of such "oppressive" cultural norms. It went from "I'm OK, you're OK" and became that most idiotic of phrases: "You cannot legislate morality". I'm sorry? There is frankly little else you really can legislate with any real purpose. And it has already been "legislated" in Heaven whether or not man cares to accept it.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar January 04, 2016 5:31 PM  

When the government starts telling you what you can do, instead of telling people what they can't do you need to burn it down. This idea of you can't fight City Hall is bizarre. How do you think America became a country? If the Founding Fathers can kick the ass of the British Empire, you should be able to run the mayor out of town on a rail. These Government buffoons have a lot of faith in a guy who plays Chess like a pigeon. This "War on Terror" has jumped the rails already. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are BOTH DEAD and now we've overthrown Qaddafi who wasn't even supporting terror and overthrown Mubarak of Egypt who was our Best Friend on the Arab Street. This isn't a strategy. Who the hell is running this "War"? You might as well have a monkey throwing darts at a map. If Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are both dead, then this War should already be over. I'm not sure ISIS is an enemy or an ally at this point. I'm sure the CIA and military armed and trained them, cause that idiot Sen McCain was telling everyone they were Freedom Fighters a few years back.
Tolerance is a virtue for cowards. Evil only wins when Good Men do Nothing. Tolerance has let homosexual terrorists attack Christian businesses and fine them hundreds of thousands. I can see why the Mohammedans kill these people. BLM may as well be ISIS America, and homosexuality has become a weapon against God. Its time to stop being Nice, and start KICKING ASS.

Anonymous kjj January 04, 2016 8:35 PM  

The articles of the bill of rights were written in different ways, which we normally understand as having different meanings.

For example, "Congress shall make no law", is very clearly a restriction on Congress, while "shall not be infringed" is a command to every person in government at all levels that they have no job more important than protecting our right to keep and bear arms.

Any single unifying theory is necessarily contrary to some or all of the amendments, which were written in unusually plain language. Using the two examples above, "Congress shall make no law" does not fit with the "human rights" model, and "shall not be infringed" does not fit with the "restriction on the federal government" model.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts