The separation of church and state doesn’t mean “the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued during a speech at Colorado Christian University on Wednesday, according to The Washington Times.

Defending his strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution, Scalia knocked secular qualms over the role of religion in the public sphere as “utterly absurd,” arguing that the Constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion -- not freedom from it.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” the Reagan-appointed jurist told the crowd of about 400 people.

“We do Him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” the conservative Catholic justice continued. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”

Earlier this year, Scalia joined the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway, which held that the New York town could continue opening legislative sessions with sectarian prayers.

Scalia has since used the case to press for the approval of public prayers in schools, legislatures and courtrooms.

In June, Scalia criticized the Supreme Court for declining to review Elmbrook School District v. John Doe, a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled that a public school district's decision to conduct graduation ceremonies in a church violated the Establishment Clause.

In a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Scalia argued that “at a minimum,” the Supreme Court should remand the case for reconsideration, noting that “the First Amendment explicitly favors religion.”

On Wednesday, Scalia also criticized members of the Court who champion a more evolving, “living” view of the Constitution -- a judicial philosophy he has previously said only an “idiot” could believe.

“Our [the Supreme Court’s] latest take on the subject, which is quite different from previous takes, is that the state must be neutral, not only between religions, but between religion and nonreligion,” Scalia said on Wednesday, according to The Washington Times. “That’s just a lie. Where do you get the notion that this is all unconstitutional? You can only believe that if you believe in a morphing Constitution.”

If Americans want a more secular political system that guarantees those distinctions, they can “enact that by statute,” Scalia said, “but to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”

In another public appearance on Wednesday at the University of Colorado Boulder Law School's annual John Paul Stevens lecture, Scalia compared his efforts to restore constitutional originalism to the challenges faced by "Lord of the Rings" protagonist Frodo Baggins.

“It’s a long, uphill fight to get back to original orthodoxy. We have two ‘originalists’ on the Supreme Court,” Scalia said, referring to Thomas. “That’s something. But I feel like Frodo … We’ll get clobbered in the end, but it’s worth it.”

Quote from: Korra on October 02, 2014, 10:30:12 PM

Quote from: IcyWind on October 02, 2014, 10:29:44 PM

Quote from: Korra on October 02, 2014, 10:28:08 PM

Quote from: TBlocks on October 01, 2014, 07:20:07 PM

Spoiler

c:

Back off, he's mine.

Do I have to slap a bich?

c:
Aww thx bbys

Quote from: IcyWind on October 02, 2014, 11:44:21 PM

You can't get in yet? Strange.

It says missing or off limits. And a back button.

Quote from: IcyWind on October 02, 2014, 10:28:12 PM

Oh, that show that was saved by Yahoo?

Lol, funny.

Yeah, it's kickass that we're getting a sixth season!

Quote from: SecondClass on October 02, 2014, 05:37:22 PM

Gen III is objectively the best.

Not enough to get me to spend $40 on a remake of worst gen.

Quote from: IcyWind on October 02, 2014, 10:31:10 AM

Soup

What kind?

Tom Gannam/AP

A Dallas Cowboys special teams player has been accused of sexually assaulting a woman at the team’s hotel in Texas on Sept. 20 — and he was allowed to play the next day.

The alleged attack came just a day after NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s awkward news conference during which he promised to get tough on players accused of violent crime.

Police in Grapevine, Tex., told the Daily News that C.J. Spillman, 28, is “involved” in the investigation of a sexual assault that allegedly took place at the Gaylord Texan Resort and Convention Center, the Cowboys’ official hotel since 2009.

“We have a sexual assault report we are investigating at this time, and it does involve C.J. Spillman,” said Sgt. Robert Eberling, a police spokesman. “He is involved in the investigation. We are looking into the matter.”

The NFL has been under heavy fire for several weeks for the tepid discipline it meted out to players accused of domestic violence, child abuse and other violent acts, prompting the National Organization for Women and other groups to call for Goodell to resign.

Goodell acknowledged the NFL had screwed up during a news conference in New York on Sept. 19 and promised the league would learn from those mistakes and get things right.

“The same mistakes can never be repeated,” Goodell promised. “We will get our house in order first. We will do more.”



Civil rights attorney Gloria Allred sent a letter to the commissioner on Friday, a week after Goodell’s uneasy news conference, saying she represents a woman who filed a police report alleging an NFL player had raped her.

The alleged perpetrator, accompanied by a team official, met with police on Sept. 20, Allred said in the letter.

“Thereafter, the accused was then allowed by his team to play the following day,” the letter added. “We have asked the NFL whether or not this alleged rape was reported to them and if they approved this accused individual’s playing in the game notwithstanding the allegations that had been made against him.”

In her news conference Monday, Allred revealed her client underwent a rape kit examination and provided other evidence. Allred said her client was told the player was contacted by police and appeared at a station with a representative of his team, and then played the next day, Sept. 21.

Allred declined to discuss the Spillman investigation Wednesday, but she did respond to a request made earlier this week by the NFL’s top lawyer, Jeffrey Pash, to interview the alleged victim.

“In considering whether our client will or will not be agreeable to meeting with your representative, we would like to be assured that the NFL is acting in good faith and that it is conducting an investigation which encompasses not only the rape allegations but also why the player and the team involved did not report these matters immediately to the NFL as required by your NFL Personal Conduct Policy,” Allred wrote.

 The NFL has been under fire since the season began last month after TMZ posted a video of Baltimore Ravens star Ray Rice hitting his then-fiancée in an Atlantic City casino elevator in February. Goodell took heat for initially only giving Rice a two-game suspension. Once the tape surfaced, the commissioner suspended Rice indefinitely and the Ravens terminated his contract.

Then Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson was arrested on child abuse charges stemming from him whipping his 4-year-old son with a tree branch. The Vikings, who deactivated Peterson for one game, had planned to play the 2012 league MVP on the following Sunday, but flip-flopped when sponsors threatened to bail.

Goodell acknowledged the league had fumbled after sponsors — including Anheuser-Busch — expressed concern about how the NFL handled allegations of domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse.

Quote from: IcyWind on October 01, 2014, 09:59:43 PM

Yes. Sexual assault of a child and abuse of power is something to support.

>sexual assault
>consensual

wat