buddha

what law excludes non-religious people?

from trump's tax cut to biden's infrastructure bill, to continued low interest rates, the money keeps flowing out of washington and into wall street's pockets. as long as we keep buying the rest of the world's goods and being a relatively good actor on the world stage, we can keep having the world's reserve currency and keep spending ourselves silly. i read an article recently comparing the US to 16th century Spain, awash in gold from the americas. i didnt really understand it all, but the basic premise seemed to be without any consequences for terrible financial mismanagement, government and society grew fat and lazy, and eventually collapsed. we'll see if history repeats itself, or just rhymes.

yes, because i'm sure you spend countless hours in rural america talking with southern evangelicals. lol. why did you limit your scope of bad religious people to "rural" and "southern evangelicals" and not urban, inner city evangelicals? some of the best parts of america and some of the worst parts (in our 21st century morality eyes) come from our history of protestant religiosity (both slavery and abolition, for example). it's interesting to me how much the 1960s have influenced modern thought on things like law and morality as we move away from common religion as a basis for community and more towards the individual's "right" to do whatever they want as a basis for our social contract with our government.

excluding them from what?

all of you seem to base your idea of "religion" on people who hold views outside the norm of most people in the country. joe biden is catholic. is he going to make you take communion and invade palestine? you all have been watching too many handmaid's tale episodes.

what american law requires a belief in god or a particular religion?

depends what we get for it.

he may not start in detroit, but he'll end up there. and actually, i think the odds are pretty good he does start there.

what should be the basis?

the infant mortality rate in france was about 35% back then, so a lot of babies died. also, abortion was a felony punishable by death, so maybe a lot has changed under the sun? one could argue that all of our american conceptions of morality derive from christian religious dogma, but whatever. i'm not religious at all and would have no problem outlawing abortion after 15 weeks. i'm not that concerned about who is perceived to be the driving force behind the attempt to change a law if i think that law needs to be changed. and dont worry, overruling casey wont stop the baby killing. blue states will welcome abortion seekers with open arms.

The anti-casey/roe argument does not rest on a "mystical revealed truth," but rather on a different interpretation of an 18th century legal document. And its an historical habit of mind for lots of people to forget that many other people come to different interpretations of the same facts or beliefs as they do for perfectly logical reasons and not for the continuation of some nefarious plot to convert the non-believer. see the above paragraph.

clarence darrow and oliver wendall holmes' intellectual lovechild couldnt persuade you that youre wrong, what chance does a mere mortal like amy coney barrett have?

urgent care around here has a 3 or 4 hour wait to get in.

right. it was about the author of that piece's opinion that barrett should recuse herself from abortion cases based on an old law review article barrett wrote. its funny how liberals were all about how judges needed to bring their own personal opinions and experiences to every decision when sotomayor testified to such effect in her confirmation hearings when talking about her take on discrimination cases. not so much when its barrett talking about abortion cases. and the same is true of conservatives when the situation was flipped. i dont think you have to be an atheist to interpret the constitution or read a law. as i said before, plenty of religious justices have done so in ways that you presumably agreed with.

dink dunk dink dunk dink dunk

well....that was what the article you quoted that pfife posted was about. i figured you read it.

The packers currently hold the tie breaker over the bucs and rams, but not the cowboys. cowboys would be the top seed if they had an equal record.

lions could easily win this game. the seahawks are trash.

i dont see a scenario where a healthy edvinsson doesnt play in detroit next season.

Bednar in net for the czechs today.

and what was the "argument" they used against kennedy (and al smith, for that matter)? he was beholden to the pope. basically the same argument that g2 made about barrett and scalia not being able to be judges. i imagine g2 thinks barrett and scalia should not be on the supreme court because he thinks their opinions are wrong, which is a perfectly good reason for anyone to think they shouldnt be on the court. but because theyre religious? nyah. plenty of religious folks have been really good justices, both conservative and liberal.

but you dont really care about that statement, you care that she doesnt support casey or your version of how the establishment clause should be interpreted. there isnt anything about being a very religious practicing catholic that should prevent one from being a capable supreme court judge. ask william brennan.

ACB and scalia did swear an oath to uphold the constitution, so your problem with them is that you don't believe them because you think you dont agree with their legal rulings on some issues.

right. that's why we can't elect Al Smith or John Kennedy. they can't be trusted. do you think the same thing about Muslim judges (there is one now! lol) or just Catholics? Mormons? or - maybe the more appropriate question - do they just need to agree with you on abortion and your interpretation of the establishment clause?

right, no catholics allowed. they take orders from the pope and can't be trusted to obey our secular laws.