Another shocking revelation...Scalito wants more religious interference in our lives. He's firmly in the Crazy Pat Robertson "no wall" Camp.
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. has compiled a brief but unmistakable record, lawyers and analysts say, that makes him a leader in the camp of conservative theorists and judges who believe federal courts have been too quick to limit religious activities in public life.
During his 15 years sitting in Newark as a member of a federal appeals court, Judge Alito has sided almost uniformly with those who have complained vigorously in recent years that zealousness in enforcing the Constitution's separation of church and state has unfairly inhibited religious practices.
...
He is inclined to the view of the First Amendment that the government is not intended to be hostile to religion," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University in California. "It is intended to be accommodating when it can."
Professor Kmiec, a former Justice Department colleague of Judge Alito's, is a leading proponent of the "religious liberty" argument pressed by social conservatives, which advances the view that the Constitution allows for a greater presence of religion in the public sphere than courts have previously allowed. This stream of argument has largely involved issues like prayer at school functions, the display of religious symbols at Christmastime and public financing of programs run by religious groups.
Because there has been entirely too much repression of the Xtians in our society...we need Scalito to help remedy that. After all, if you can't be a buddy to the big-money televangelists, what the hell good are you anyhow? Seriously, the only continent left for the oppressed Xtians to head for is Antarctica ... but the Penguins might object to the SUV's, pollution and defense of traditional marriage, after all, they define marriage as between one Penguin and another...and that's just not gonna work with the Christo-Fascists. However, it would let them continue to complain about being oppressed, methinks.
posted by Jo Fish on 11.21.05 at 11:56 AM
Comments:
He is inclined to the view of the First Amendment that the government is not intended to be hostile to religion," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University in California. "It is intended to be accommodating when it can."
Sorry, bud, but it is supposed to be NEUTRAL! Everyone really needs to read the US Constitution. NOWHERE will you find the words Christian, Christianity, Muslim, Baptist, Protestant, Catholic, Almighty, Allah, Jesus, Christ, Savior, God, Gods, Zues, Bible, you get the drift. The word religion is mentioned only twice. Article VI states, "...;but no religous Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The First Admendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I included caps and punctuation as in the original document; I abridged Article VI where the semicolon really is. You can read the full text for yourself. Read them again. Read them as a religous person. Read them as an atheist. Notice anything? If this was supposed to be a Christian nation then why the hell didn't the founders come out and just SAY SO? Silly me, but it sounds like there's not supposed to favortism of one religion, no 'Free Speech Zones,' the press shouldn't be controlled (imbedded), peaceful protest shouldn't require police sanctions, and whistleblowing should be encouraged. Now, someone explain what strict constructionists are again?
