Law Alito Decries 'Hostility to Religion' in First Public Remarks Since Abortion Decision

[Lord Coke]

I'm worried. The good times don't ever last forever. When Alito is out talking like this, there is an argument that his statements are akin to that of a politician and that hurts the power of the court. It gives democrats fuel to undermine the court. That means less big decisions.



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-opinion-author-decries-hostility-to-religion
US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito ridiculed foreign leaders who criticized his opinion overturning the constitutional right to abortion as he made his first public remarks since the court issued the ruling last month.

Speaking in Rome at a religious-liberty summit sponsored by Notre Dame Law School, Alito also decried what he called “growing hostility to religion.”

 

[giusti825]

So he wants to legislate from the bench, but to make us a theocracy. Awesome.

 

[Misfit23]

There isn't enough hostility to religion, imo.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

Hostility to religion is entirely justified and scum like Alito are a big reason for it.

 

[HereticBD]

I don't see the controversy.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Haven't watched it yet but I will say that there is a hostility to religion in some developed Western countries and this is of course not a good thing. That said, religious fanatics with unpopular policy ideas who push them through by gaming the least representative institutions of the country like the SCOTUS aren't going to help the public perception of religious folks.

 

[milliniar]

I don't see the controversy.

What does the constitution indicate?

 

[Belaya Smert]

I like the part where he told Marcon and Trudeau to STFU.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Haven't watched it yet but I will say that there is a hostility to religion in some developed Western countries and this is of course not a good thing. That said, religious fanatics with unpopular policy ideas who push them through by gaming the least representative institutions of the country like the SCOTUS aren't going to help the public perception of religious folks.

Governing according to religion is inherently tyrannical, though, unless everyone agrees with that religion. A big part of liberalism was just seeing the effects of horrible religious wars (8 million dead leading up to 1648) and having really smart people try to figure out how we can avoid ever doing that again. And part of that was defanging religion, telling people "go ahead and believe what you want, just don't force it on anyone else or expect everyone else to obey." And that's all under attack now. We know where this shit leads. So I'd say there isn't nearly enough hostility to religion.

 

[Deorum]

Haven't watched it yet but I will say that there is a hostility to religion in some developed Western countries and this is of course not a good thing. That said, religious fanatics with unpopular policy ideas who push them through by gaming the least representative institutions of the country like the SCOTUS aren't going to help the public perception of religious folks.

Dude was literally up there mentioning Moloch and the sacrifice of children, @M3t4tr0n. Bro, I'd be so hype about the possible direction of this country right now if I were a Christian Nationalist. But as it is, I'm a gay pagan and these folx want to bring back sodomy laws. It's fucking stunning.

 

[AWilder]

over 90% of incarcerated people in America identify as Christians.

 

[LMP]

These Christian Nationalist are regressive and a major problem. The fact that they are openly saying this shit is ridiculous for our nation. They are openly stating that they wish to be more authoritarian. Funny watching them play victim when they are trying to take rights away from other people. America is not a Christian Nation, and should not be governed as one.

 

[nostradumbass]

over 90% of incarcerated people in America identify as Christians.

Well that's a straight up lie, and not even relevant. Half are protestant, 14.5% are catholic, which is less than the general population. Muslims are overrepresented at less than 1% of the general population and nearly 10% of inmates, but that doesn't mean much either because it says nothing of their religion affiliation when they committed their crimes vs how many converted after.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/234653/religious-affiliation-of-us-prisoners/

 

[Deorum]

I'm worried. The good times don't ever last forever. When Alito is out talking like this, there is an argument that his statements are akin to that of a politician and that hurts the power of the court. It gives democrats fuel to undermine the court. That means less big decisions.

He is a politician.

I don't know why you're stressing when Cons hold a 6-3 SCOTUS with recently packed federal circuit and district courts in addition to that. FedSoc gave Trump a list of handpicked, ultra-conservative judges in their institutional pipeline and Mitch McConnell got them appointed to the bench at surreal, breathtaking speed.

They appointed like 230 federal judges, more in four years than Obama did in eight over two full POTUS terms. You already know this, it was the most consequential thing about his presidency by miles. I've also said many times that Mitch is one of the most effective and shrewd political operators in the history of the country. Easily.

"Our job is to do everything we can, for as long as we can, to transform the federal judiciary, because everything else we do is transitory."

 

[jx820]

What does the constitution indicate?

Nothing really. The constitution weighs in on the role of congress (and govt departments established by an act of congress) in legislating religion. Here's exactly what it says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It does protect the right of the public to be as hostile or hospitable as they so choose so long as it's done peacefully.

"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[Islam Imamate]

Governing according to religion is inherently tyrannical, though, unless everyone agrees with that religion. A big part of liberalism was just seeing the effects of horrible religious wars (8 million dead leading up to 1648) and having really smart people try to figure out how we can avoid ever doing that again. And part of that was defanging religion, telling people "go ahead and believe what you want, just don't force it on anyone else or expect everyone else to obey." And that's all under attack now. We know where this shit leads. So I'd say there isn't nearly enough hostility to religion.

Idk that I'd agree that we need more hostility towards religion. If you're pointing to wars of religion to justify that then I think its fair for me to point to the fact that anticlerical states(Revolutionary France, USSR, PRC, CPK) have a far higher death toll in the last 250 years when compared to religious states. Theocracy is bad but anticlerical states are worse.

 

[Deorum]

Nothing really. The constitution weighs in on the role of congress (and govt departments established by an act of congress) in legislating religion. Here's exactly what it says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It does protect the right of the public to be as hostile or hospitable as they so choose so long as it's done peacefully.

"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

James Madison ftw, essentially authored the entirety of the US Constitution & Bill of Rights. He was an absolute animal and only 36 years old at the time. It's always been an interesting fact to me that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson didn't sign the document or even attend the Constitutional Covention of 1787 itself, @superking. Neither of them were even in the country at the time.

George Washington was there to preside over it but he didn't have much of a legislative pen game nor was he big on political ideology and philosophy. He was a military commander and warrior, though his overall leadership qualities did serve the purposes for holding executive office. Benjamin Franklin was there, but in the very last years of his life and mostly served to moderate and urge the delegates to compromise. Madison was a lot more forceful about it on a strictly individual and personal level.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

Well that's a straight up lie, and not even relevant. Half are protestant, 14.5% are catholic, which is less than the general population. Muslims are overrepresented at less than 1% of the general population and nearly 10% of inmates, but that doesn't mean much either because it says nothing of their religion affiliation when they committed their crimes vs how many converted after.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/234653/religious-affiliation-of-us-prisoners/

Didn't mafia men regularly attend church? Religion is a joke

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

Well that's a straight up lie, and not even relevant. Half are protestant, 14.5% are catholic, which is less than the general population. Muslims are overrepresented at less than 1% of the general population and nearly 10% of inmates, but that doesn't mean much either because it says nothing of their religion affiliation when they committed their crimes vs how many converted after.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/234653/religious-affiliation-of-us-prisoners/

Oh forgot to add Mexican drug cartel members are extremely religious as well

 

[Joe]

The right spent decades crying about stopping activist judges but they just wanted right wing activist judges.