| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
12 Apr 2005 06:30:15 AM |
| Object: |
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
---
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=701&e=3&u=/ap/20
050408/ap_on_go_su_co/brf_scalia_religion
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
12 Apr 2005 10:59:28 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CD6885.23301511042005@news.giganews.com...
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
Where's the irony? Scalia's message is one that I've repeatedly said myself
in this NG.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
12 Apr 2005 11:27:19 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:kSN6e.41093$9v2.1287414@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CD6885.23301511042005@news.giganews.com...
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
Where's the irony? Scalia's message is one that I've repeatedly said
myself in this NG.
To clarify, I was referring to his 1st paragraph where he's being sarcastic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
13 Apr 2005 05:40:31 AM |
|
|
In article <rgO6e.41922$QB6.2522590@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:kSN6e.41093$9v2.1287414@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CD6885.23301511042005@news.giganews.com...
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
Where's the irony? Scalia's message is one that I've repeatedly said
myself in this NG.
To clarify, I was referring to his 1st paragraph where he's being sarcastic.
He was mocking those who don't fall for his religious BS. I think that
the irony is in the fact that he thought that he was being smartass, but
in fact was saying what many of us believe to be true.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
13 Apr 2005 09:52:31 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-182900.22403112042005@news.giganews.com...
In article <rgO6e.41922$QB6.2522590@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:kSN6e.41093$9v2.1287414@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CD6885.23301511042005@news.giganews.com...
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son
of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born
of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
Where's the irony? Scalia's message is one that I've repeatedly said
myself in this NG.
To clarify, I was referring to his 1st paragraph where he's being
sarcastic.
He was mocking those who don't fall for his religious BS. I think that
the irony is in the fact that he thought that he was being smartass, but
in fact was saying what many of us believe to be true.
Present company included in that opinion? If so, it is itself a much, much
worse form of simple-minded ignorance called bigotry.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
15 Apr 2005 05:15:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:59:28 GMT, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CD6885.23301511042005@news.giganews.com...
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
Where's the irony? Scalia's message is one that I've repeatedly said myself
in this NG.
So drools the braindead Festuring Pustule.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
15 Apr 2005 05:14:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:30:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
And this moron is on the 'Supreme Court.' Oh boy!
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
16 Apr 2005 08:06:56 AM |
|
|
In article <ditv515797liahh66estaa996241ohj77k@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:30:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
And this moron is on the 'Supreme Court.' Oh boy!
And he could well be our next chief justice. Bleah!
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
16 Apr 2005 09:35:19 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-0053B0.01065616042005@news.giganews.com...
In article <ditv515797liahh66estaa996241ohj77k@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:30:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
And this moron is on the 'Supreme Court.' Oh boy!
And he could well be our next chief justice. Bleah!
If we're lucky! And if we're real lucky we may see a few more like-minded
justices joining him on the bench!
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
16 Apr 2005 10:27:31 PM |
|
|
In article <r%48e.67189$QB6.3033928@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-0053B0.01065616042005@news.giganews.com...
In article <ditv515797liahh66estaa996241ohj77k@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:30:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
And this moron is on the 'Supreme Court.' Oh boy!
And he could well be our next chief justice. Bleah!
If we're lucky! And if we're real lucky we may see a few more like-minded
justices joining him on the bench!
Then we can rename the country "Hell".
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
17 Apr 2005 02:52:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:27:31 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <r%48e.67189$QB6.3033928@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-0053B0.01065616042005@news.giganews.com...
In article <ditv515797liahh66estaa996241ohj77k@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:30:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
And this moron is on the 'Supreme Court.' Oh boy!
And he could well be our next chief justice. Bleah!
If we're lucky! And if we're real lucky we may see a few more like-minded
justices joining him on the bench!
Then we can rename the country "Hell".
That was done in Jan 2001.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
17 Apr 2005 10:34:46 PM |
|
|
In article <40u4619ehalmlc9afh66uk1bbgb7b3ipi4@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:27:31 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <r%48e.67189$QB6.3033928@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-0053B0.01065616042005@news.giganews.com...
In article <ditv515797liahh66estaa996241ohj77k@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:30:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son
of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born
of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
And this moron is on the 'Supreme Court.' Oh boy!
And he could well be our next chief justice. Bleah!
If we're lucky! And if we're real lucky we may see a few more like-minded
justices joining him on the bench!
Then we can rename the country "Hell".
That was done in Jan 2001.
In Jan 2005 we had, "Hell Strikes Back" and if the above becomes
reality, it will be the "Revenge of Hell". I hate sequels.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
18 Apr 2005 04:37:28 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:34:46 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <40u4619ehalmlc9afh66uk1bbgb7b3ipi4@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:27:31 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <r%48e.67189$QB6.3033928@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-0053B0.01065616042005@news.giganews.com...
In article <ditv515797liahh66estaa996241ohj77k@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:30:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son
of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born
of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
And this moron is on the 'Supreme Court.' Oh boy!
And he could well be our next chief justice. Bleah!
If we're lucky! And if we're real lucky we may see a few more like-minded
justices joining him on the bench!
Then we can rename the country "Hell".
That was done in Jan 2001.
In Jan 2005 we had, "Hell Strikes Back" and if the above becomes
reality, it will be the "Revenge of Hell". I hate sequels.
So often they suck even more than the ones before it.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
20 Apr 2005 06:18:41 AM |
|
|
In article <jho761p8ocrnufgjceet4236pv0k2d5r5u@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:34:46 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <40u4619ehalmlc9afh66uk1bbgb7b3ipi4@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:27:31 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <r%48e.67189$QB6.3033928@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-0053B0.01065616042005@news.giganews.com...
In article <ditv515797liahh66estaa996241ohj77k@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:30:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off
traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a
'son
of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was
born
of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded
in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded
as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told
more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor
and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
And this moron is on the 'Supreme Court.' Oh boy!
And he could well be our next chief justice. Bleah!
If we're lucky! And if we're real lucky we may see a few more
like-minded
justices joining him on the bench!
Then we can rename the country "Hell".
That was done in Jan 2001.
In Jan 2005 we had, "Hell Strikes Back" and if the above becomes
reality, it will be the "Revenge of Hell". I hate sequels.
So often they suck even more than the ones before it.
True about movies too! :-)
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
20 Apr 2005 07:25:35 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:18:41 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <jho761p8ocrnufgjceet4236pv0k2d5r5u@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:34:46 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <40u4619ehalmlc9afh66uk1bbgb7b3ipi4@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:27:31 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <r%48e.67189$QB6.3033928@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-0053B0.01065616042005@news.giganews.com...
In article <ditv515797liahh66estaa996241ohj77k@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:30:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off
traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a
'son
of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was
born
of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded
in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded
as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told
more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor
and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
And this moron is on the 'Supreme Court.' Oh boy!
And he could well be our next chief justice. Bleah!
If we're lucky! And if we're real lucky we may see a few more
like-minded
justices joining him on the bench!
Then we can rename the country "Hell".
That was done in Jan 2001.
In Jan 2005 we had, "Hell Strikes Back" and if the above becomes
reality, it will be the "Revenge of Hell". I hate sequels.
So often they suck even more than the ones before it.
True about movies too! :-)
Sadly.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
16 Apr 2005 07:01:18 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:06:56 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <ditv515797liahh66estaa996241ohj77k@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:30:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
And this moron is on the 'Supreme Court.' Oh boy!
And he could well be our next chief justice. Bleah!
Justice is a great idea, too bad it's the exception not the rule.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
16 Apr 2005 10:26:24 PM |
|
|
In article <d6o261l0b0phsif1oq1cs1ek5naca89nid@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:06:56 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <ditv515797liahh66estaa996241ohj77k@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:30:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
And this moron is on the 'Supreme Court.' Oh boy!
And he could well be our next chief justice. Bleah!
Justice is a great idea, too bad it's the exception not the rule.
Oh it's still there, if you can afford it. :-\
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
17 Apr 2005 02:53:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:26:24 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <d6o261l0b0phsif1oq1cs1ek5naca89nid@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:06:56 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <ditv515797liahh66estaa996241ohj77k@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:30:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
And this moron is on the 'Supreme Court.' Oh boy!
And he could well be our next chief justice. Bleah!
Justice is a great idea, too bad it's the exception not the rule.
Oh it's still there, if you can afford it. :-\
Disagree. If you've got the right connections there's nothing you
can't get away with.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
17 Apr 2005 10:36:29 PM |
|
|
In article <61u461dno7d2kqsaj4e866j4psva1luoq8@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:26:24 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <d6o261l0b0phsif1oq1cs1ek5naca89nid@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:06:56 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <ditv515797liahh66estaa996241ohj77k@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:30:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son
of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born
of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
And this moron is on the 'Supreme Court.' Oh boy!
And he could well be our next chief justice. Bleah!
Justice is a great idea, too bad it's the exception not the rule.
Oh it's still there, if you can afford it. :-\
Disagree. If you've got the right connections there's nothing you
can't get away with.
Those connections cost. That was my point.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
18 Apr 2005 04:43:01 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:36:29 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <61u461dno7d2kqsaj4e866j4psva1luoq8@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:26:24 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <d6o261l0b0phsif1oq1cs1ek5naca89nid@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:06:56 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <ditv515797liahh66estaa996241ohj77k@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:30:15 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
"One can be sophisticated and believe in Jesus as in some way a 'son
of
God.' But," Scalia said sarcastically, "to believe in traditional
Christianity is something else. To believe Jesus was God and was born
of
a virgin ... surely those who adhere to those beliefs are regarded in
educated circles maybe in the South, it's different are regarded as
simple minded."
The justice, whose nine children include a priest, quoted scripture
passages warning that those wise in the world would not accept
Christianity.
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
And this moron is on the 'Supreme Court.' Oh boy!
And he could well be our next chief justice. Bleah!
Justice is a great idea, too bad it's the exception not the rule.
Oh it's still there, if you can afford it. :-\
Disagree. If you've got the right connections there's nothing you
can't get away with.
Those connections cost. That was my point.
You meant more than financial costs then. Ok.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
12 Apr 2005 08:28:42 AM |
|
|
TV's johac wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
"Faith with no rational thought is false. What is irrational is to
reject (without question) the possibility of miracles," he told more
than 300 people at a banquet on the eve of an annual Mass to honor and
bless lawyers and people who work with them.
Is it irrational to reject the possibility that one can fly? That the Tooth
Fairy exists?
--
Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing.
- Maynard James Keenan
The belief in the Christian god... is an appalling nightmare. I reject
the notion that the whole universe was created by this kind of evil
creature who would create such a thing. - Anthony Flew, March 22, 2005
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
12 Apr 2005 01:25:45 PM |
|
|
johac wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
Want some jumbo shrimp with that oxymoron? And I wasn't aware of any laws that
would "write off Christians." Such laws would be properly declared
unconstitutional.
Oh, wait. People like Scalia are demanding that laws allow for religious
discrimination, the Constitution be damned. My bad.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
12 Apr 2005 10:55:17 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:425BCC59.B4B7FF7D@serv.net...
johac wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
Want some jumbo shrimp with that oxymoron? And I wasn't aware of any laws
that
would "write off Christians." Such laws would be properly declared
unconstitutional.
I know, it's futile to keep on correcting mindless littel twits like you,
but sometimes it can be entertaining. Consider the above outburst. Just
where in Scalia's paragraph did he hint at anything like "laws writing off
Christians?" Any literate person would notice that he was referring to the
law profession doing so, not legislatures.
Oh, wait. People like Scalia are demanding that laws allow for religious
discrimination, the Constitution be damned. My bad.
Uh huh. Please do tell us just where he says that in the above paragraph?
Oh wait, I'm asking an illiterate ***** to read, my bad.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
13 Apr 2005 05:33:14 AM |
|
|
In article <425BCC59.B4B7FF7D@serv.net>,
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
johac wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
Want some jumbo shrimp with that oxymoron? And I wasn't aware of any laws that
would "write off Christians." Such laws would be properly declared
unconstitutional.
Oh, wait. People like Scalia are demanding that laws allow for religious
discrimination, the Constitution be damned. My bad.
And yet the neocons complain about 'activist judges'. Scalia and his
buddies are rewriting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to suit
their fundy friends.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
13 Apr 2005 10:16:30 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-0E0FB2.22331412042005@news.giganews.com...
In article <425BCC59.B4B7FF7D@serv.net>,
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
johac wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
Want some jumbo shrimp with that oxymoron? And I wasn't aware of any laws
that
would "write off Christians." Such laws would be properly declared
unconstitutional.
Oh, wait. People like Scalia are demanding that laws allow for religious
discrimination, the Constitution be damned. My bad.
And yet the neocons complain about 'activist judges'. Scalia and his
buddies are rewriting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to suit
their fundy friends.
Is that a fact? Recently we've had the liberal side of the court basing
court decisions entierly on their own whims about how they want America to
be. In the Lawrence decision we were told that foreign laws and customs
were the supreme law of our land (I missed that bit the last time I read the
Constitution). In the Simmons case we were told that "evolving standards"
trumped the Constitution (as though passing laws in accordance with evolving
standards wasn't the job of other branches of governmnent). Case after
case, the liberal, activist part of the court decides how they want to rule,
and then fabricates a rationale for it from whatever source they think will
fly, without regard to OUR LAW. Scalia is the most consistent and
staunchest opponent of such decisions. He is our best hope for a court
which respects and adheres to the Constitution. He is our best hope for a
court which will voluntarily limit its own powers to those granted by the
Constitution. We are in genuine danger of allowing nation devolve into an
oligarchy of 9 robed kings if we don't support and have more judicial
appointees like Scalia, who understand their Constitutional role.
Remember this. You may like the outcome of cases like Lawrence and Simmons,
but such decisions may be over-ruled by later courts at the whim of later
justices. What the court gives, the court can take away. The more powerful
we allow the court to become, the more vulnerable we are to an extreme
conservative court coming along later and exceeding THEIR power and trashing
the Constitution in ways you wouldn't approve of.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
13 Apr 2005 01:13:11 PM |
|
|
johac wrote:
In article <425BCC59.B4B7FF7D@serv.net>,
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
johac wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
Want some jumbo shrimp with that oxymoron? And I wasn't aware of any laws that
would "write off Christians." Such laws would be properly declared
unconstitutional.
Oh, wait. People like Scalia are demanding that laws allow for religious
discrimination, the Constitution be damned. My bad.
And yet the neocons complain about 'activist judges'. Scalia and his
buddies are rewriting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to suit
their fundy friends.
"Activist", by definition (see http://www.serv.net/~techbear/writings/RRDict.html),
means anyone you disagree with. Since neocons like Fester agree with Scalia, he is
not, by definition, an activist. QED.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[T]hose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves;
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
-- Pres. George W. Bush, Hypocrite, his inauguration speech, 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
13 Apr 2005 11:07:10 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:425D1AE7.1FE0B6DD@serv.net...
johac wrote:
In article <425BCC59.B4B7FF7D@serv.net>,
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
johac wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off
traditional
Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
told
fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of reason and faith.
Want some jumbo shrimp with that oxymoron? And I wasn't aware of any
laws that
would "write off Christians." Such laws would be properly declared
unconstitutional.
Oh, wait. People like Scalia are demanding that laws allow for
religious
discrimination, the Constitution be damned. My bad.
And yet the neocons complain about 'activist judges'. Scalia and his
buddies are rewriting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to suit
their fundy friends.
"Activist", by definition (see
http://www.serv.net/~techbear/writings/RRDict.html),
means anyone you disagree with. Since neocons like Fester agree with
Scalia, he is
not, by definition, an activist. QED.
Not even clever enough to devise your own bogus definitions. You have to
borrow from some other idiot's hoard of stupidity. Judicial activism is the
process of creating law, rather than interpretting the language and intent
of the Constitution.
Telling us the since most people these don't think that 17 year olds should
be executed, therefore we interpret the Constitution as saying most 17 year
olds shouldn't be executed is judicial activism. As is telling us the even
though the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right of people to bugger each
other, the French have that right and therefore our Constitution must mean
for us to have it as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
14 Apr 2005 04:08:28 PM |
|
|
In article <yCh7e.53464$JL2.1642524@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
[.snip.]
Not even clever enough to devise your own bogus definitions. You have to
borrow from some other idiot's hoard of stupidity. Judicial activism is the
process of creating law, rather than interpretting the language and intent
of the Constitution.
Judicial activism is when a judge or judges base their decision on
their own beliefs and inclinations (and sense of what is "right")
rather than on the applicable statutes (whether constitutional or
otherwise). It is "legislating from the bench" which is the process
whereby a judge in fact 'creates law', usually through judicial
mandates in the form of "remedies".
Judicial activism and legislating from the bench are not the same
thing, nor do they need to go together. The Miranda decision was
legislating from the bench, for example, in that it mandated
procedures during arrest and subsequent interrogation that did not
exist before and were not part of any statute at issue. Lochner and
other decisions by the Four Horsemen during the laissez-faire era of
the court were judicial activism, because they were based on what the
majority of judges felt was the "right" thing, rather than anything
else; hence Holmes's famous statement in his dissent in Lochner, "The
14th Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics.'
There has been and still is both judicial activism and legislating
from the bench from both sides of the political spectrum. The Warren
Court did a lot of legislating from the bench, and a fair amount of
judicial activism, from the liberal side; the Court during the first
30 years of the 20th century did a lot of both from the conservative
pro-business side (striking down minimum wage and maximum hour laws,
based on a "freedom of contract" argument).
It is an easily observable fact, though, that these days it is
customary for people to label "judicial activism" and "legislating
from the bench" any decision they disagree with, whether or not this
decision satisfied either (let alone both) meanings.
Telling us the since most people these don't think that 17 year olds
should be executed, therefore we interpret the Constitution as saying
most 17 year olds shouldn't be executed is judicial activism.
Possibly; arguing that executing 17 year olds is ->wrong<- and
therefore is prohibited would be a clear cut case of judicial
activism. Of course, the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause has
always been one that requires interpretation; then you get into
competing theories of whether a statute should be interpreted within
contemporary understandings or "original" understandings (really, the
contemporary understanding of what those who wrote it meant, which
itself changes over time).
As is
telling us the even though the Constitution doesn't guarantee the
right of people to bugger each other, the French have that right and
therefore our Constitution must mean for us to have it as well.
That seems more like legislating from the bench to me, but maybe
that's just me.
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
14 Apr 2005 11:28:47 PM |
|
|
"Arturo Magidin" <magidin@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:d3m4hs$r3b$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
In article <yCh7e.53464$JL2.1642524@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
[.snip.]
Not even clever enough to devise your own bogus definitions. You have to
borrow from some other idiot's hoard of stupidity. Judicial activism is
the
process of creating law, rather than interpretting the language and intent
of the Constitution.
Judicial activism is when a judge or judges base their decision on
their own beliefs and inclinations (and sense of what is "right")
rather than on the applicable statutes (whether constitutional or
otherwise). It is "legislating from the bench" which is the process
whereby a judge in fact 'creates law', usually through judicial
mandates in the form of "remedies".
Judicial activism and legislating from the bench are not the same
thing, nor do they need to go together.
Legislating from the bench is a form of Judical activism. Unless you mean
to suggest that the judges who do so are not legislating to bring about
their own "beliefs and inclinations."
The Miranda decision was
legislating from the bench, for example, in that it mandated
procedures during arrest and subsequent interrogation that did not
exist before and were not part of any statute at issue.
And it was also a form of activism. When judges mandate remedies to
problems, instead of stating what is and what is not Constiutional they
overstep their own Constitutional authoirity.
Lochner and
other decisions by the Four Horsemen during the laissez-faire era of
the court were judicial activism, because they were based on what the
majority of judges felt was the "right" thing, rather than anything
else; hence Holmes's famous statement in his dissent in Lochner, "The
14th Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics.'
There has been and still is both judicial activism and legislating
from the bench from both sides of the political spectrum. The Warren
Court did a lot of legislating from the bench, and a fair amount of
judicial activism, from the liberal side; the Court during the first
30 years of the 20th century did a lot of both from the conservative
pro-business side (striking down minimum wage and maximum hour laws,
based on a "freedom of contract" argument).
It is an easily observable fact, though, that these days it is
customary for people to label "judicial activism" and "legislating
from the bench" any decision they disagree with, whether or not this
decision satisfied either (let alone both) meanings.
It is an easily observab le fact aht most people are stupid. So what?
Telling us the since most people these don't think that 17 year olds
should be executed, therefore we interpret the Constitution as saying
most 17 year olds shouldn't be executed is judicial activism.
Possibly; arguing that executing 17 year olds is ->wrong<- and
therefore is prohibited would be a clear cut case of judicial
activism. Of course, the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause has
always been one that requires interpretation; then you get into
competing theories of whether a statute should be interpreted within
contemporary understandings or "original" understandings (really, the
contemporary understanding of what those who wrote it meant, which
itself changes over time).
Oh, but our court did better than that. They told us that since "evolving
standards" say that it is "wrong" then the Constitution must have meant for
us to prohibit such executions. The ridiculous part is that one never knows
where to look to find out if a law is Constitutional anymore, with this
court. For example, most states have or are in the process of passing state
ammendments against go-called gay marriage. Clearly the evolving standard
is the same as the original standard. So should we look there to determine
if the traditioanl definition of marriage is legal? Not so fast, because
there are foreign countries where it's allowed. But then again, there are
other countries where it isn't. So, by not limiting themselves to the
Constitution (and Federalist papers, etc to discern it's intent) our court
is simply choosing from a buffet of available options. They've got an
opinion on how we should live, so why let a little thing like our law stop
them. They can make up any excuse they want, evolving standards, this law
from that country, a different law from another. It's all grist for their
activist mill.
As is
telling us the even though the Constitution doesn't guarantee the
right of people to bugger each other, the French have that right and
therefore our Constitution must mean for us to have it as well.
That seems more like legislating from the bench to me, but maybe
that's just me.
It's all activism. Legislating from the bench is a particularly pernicious
form of activism, that's all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
15 Apr 2005 01:49:19 PM |
|
|
In article <P0D7e.52845$QB6.2866741@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
"Arturo Magidin" <magidin@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:d3m4hs$r3b$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
In article <yCh7e.53464$JL2.1642524@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
[.snip.]
Not even clever enough to devise your own bogus definitions. You have to
borrow from some other idiot's hoard of stupidity. Judicial activism is
the
process of creating law, rather than interpretting the language and intent
of the Constitution.
Judicial activism is when a judge or judges base their decision on
their own beliefs and inclinations (and sense of what is "right")
rather than on the applicable statutes (whether constitutional or
otherwise). It is "legislating from the bench" which is the process
whereby a judge in fact 'creates law', usually through judicial
mandates in the form of "remedies".
Judicial activism and legislating from the bench are not the same
thing, nor do they need to go together.
Legislating from the bench is a form of Judical activism. Unless you mean
to suggest that the judges who do so are not legislating to bring about
their own "beliefs and inclinations."
While the two are often commingled and come together, they are not
really the same thing, nor is one a subset of the other. "Judicial
activism" is the opposite of "Judicial restraint". It is quite
possible to legislate from the bench while exercising judicial
restraint (in the form of letting stand both precedent and statutory
intent, yet dictating to the legislative or executive branch how to
proceed).
The Miranda decision was
legislating from the bench, for example, in that it mandated
procedures during arrest and subsequent interrogation that did not
exist before and were not part of any statute at issue.
And it was also a form of activism.
But for different reasons.
When judges mandate remedies to
problems, instead of stating what is and what is not Constiutional they
overstep their own Constitutional authoirity.
Yes... But "judicial activism" is ->also<- not synonimous with
"overstepping Constitutional authority."
It is an easily observable fact, though, that these days it is
customary for people to label "judicial activism" and "legislating
from the bench" any decision they disagree with, whether or not this
decision satisfied either (let alone both) meanings.
It is an easily observab le fact aht most people are stupid. So what?
So, since you obviously don't think of yourself as stupid, perhaps you
should try to use the terms correctly instead of using them in the
same manner as stupid people do?
As is
telling us the even though the Constitution doesn't guarantee the
right of people to bugger each other, the French have that right and
therefore our Constitution must mean for us to have it as well.
That seems more like legislating from the bench to me, but maybe
that's just me.
It's all activism. Legislating from the bench is a particularly pernicious
form of activism, that's all.
It seems to me that you are not using the terms properly; you are
falling into fuzzy thinking. Judicial activism is the opposite of
judicial restraint. Legislating from the bench, while often following
judicial activism, is neither part of nor synonimous with nor
necessarily a part of, judicial activism.
Attempting to overturn long standing precedent because you think the
original decision was "wrong" is a form of judicial activism, whether
good or bad. Brown v. Board of Education I was an example of (what is
normally considered good) judicial activism. Brown II and busing
decisions were legislating from the bench, but after the precedent
existed were no longer judicial activism.
CJ Rehnquist seems to have no trouble distinguishing the two. With
Miranda, for example, he has always argued that there are two
different questions: whether the decision was sound in the first place
(i.e., whether or not it was a result of judicial activism, which he
believes [with some justice] it was), and whether or not it is sound
precedent ->now<-. He wrote an opinion affirming Miranda recently on
the grounds that it is now part of long established precedent, and to
overturn it would be just as judicially active as the decision was in
the first place.
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians |
13 Apr 2005 02:00:26 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:425D1AE7.1FE0B6DD@serv.net:
johac wrote:
In article <425BCC59.B4B7FF7D@serv.net>,
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
johac wrote:
Better turn the irony meters off for this one.
---
Scalia: Law Shouldn't Write Off Christians
Fri Apr 8,11:06 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - The legal profession shouldn't write off
traditional Christians as "simple minded," Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia told fellow Catholics, and he urged a blend of
reason and faith.
Want some jumbo shrimp with that oxymoron? And I wasn't aware of
any laws that would "write off Christians." Such laws would be
properly declared unconstitutional.
Oh, wait. People like Scalia are demanding that laws allow for
religious discrimination, the Constitution be damned. My bad.
And yet the neocons complain about 'activist judges'. Scalia and his
buddies are rewriting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to suit
their fundy friends.
Hmm, it appears that "rewriting the Constitution" is defined as
"preventing my side from rewriting the Constitution".
"Activist", by definition (see
http://www.serv.net/~techbear/writings/RRDict.html), means anyone you
disagree with. Since neocons like Fester agree with Scalia, he is not,
by definition, an activist. QED.
I suppose that "dictionary" means "book that defines words in a way that
I agree with".
And here is an interesting article about Scalia.
http://www.newamerica.net/templets/Documents/print.cfm?pg=article&DocID=
2291&Prt=Yes
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L251121EA
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
