Okay, now I'm wondering if scooby is just having fun with us. If he's for real, he's unreachable. Looney as any Christian fundy.

Krauss wrote an article in the New Yorker entitled "Put an Atheist on the Supreme Court".

Here it is. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/...reme-court

(February 19, 2016 at 7:47 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Krauss wrote an article in the New Yorker entitled "Put an Atheist on the Supreme Court".

Here it is. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/...reme-court

Yep, and that would be a good thing, Jefferson's wall, the First Amendment, oath of office and Barbary Treaty article 11 would be honored. We are not a theocracy. While it is legal for religious people to hold office the entire idea of "no religious test" is to prevent us from looking like the Middle East.

Scalia not only gave more power to the rich, he pissed all over the founder's concept of government neutrality on the issue of religion.

(February 19, 2016 at 7:47 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Krauss wrote an article in the New Yorker entitled "Put an Atheist on the Supreme Court".

Here it is. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/...reme-court

Thanks for the link. Which makes all your railing against me all that more miffing. Why did you post it? If you want an educated society, as all sane people should, then having an objective skeptic on SCOTUS would counter balance stupid crap like trying to pretend Creationism or ID can replace real science.

If Muslims were trying to mix the Quran with science Christians would be rightfully up in arms.

If a SCOTUS justice is any good, they will check any religious baggage at the door. It would be nice to have an atheist there for the sake of diversity but at this point in time, just give me one that doesn't interject his religious values into his court opinions. Candidates who fit that bill are plentiful but trying to find an atheist would be much harder. It would also complicate the approval process - something we absolutely can't have in this particular case. It's not the right time for this battle.

(February 19, 2016 at 2:58 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: If a SCOTUS justice is any good, they will check any religious baggage at the door. It would be nice to have an atheist there for the sake of diversity but at this point in time, just give me one that doesn't interject his religious values into his court opinions. Candidates who fit that bill are plentiful but trying to find an atheist would be much harder. It would also complicate the approval process - something we absolutely can't have in this particular case. It's not the right time for this battle.

What even our Christian left does not get, is if the entire court were made up of 5 right wing Muslims, and 4 liberal Muslims, the result would be the same. Instead of focusing on society, the court would be focused on religion. Which is why the founders put in the oath of office "No religious test".

Now again, I am not delusional. I know that in the west religious people will apply and run for office, there is no way to stop that. But, it is most certainly reasonable to insist, that your personal bias does not override common law.

But when you say "Now is not the right time", no, sorry, that plays into the insecurities of the majority. To them, there is never a right time.

Even if I believed the church that ruled over Galileo, as some argue, that they didn't arrest him because of his beliefs, which they did, but as some argue, they did that to protect him from persecution, is utter bullshit.

This boils down to evolution here. The dominate individual or group simply does not like their social order upset. Progress certainly isn't about getting revenge  on the top, but human's insecurities far too often lead the top of the social order to fear change.

NBC News is showing a live video of Scalia "Laying in Repose". Wouldn't a still photo work just as well?

(February 19, 2016 at 3:42 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: NBC News is showing a live video of Scalia "Laying in Repose". Wouldn't a still photo work just as well?

What's wrong with suppose or juxtapose? And why would you call it "repose"? It's a fucking human being's funeral, get it right the first time, why would you risk having to pose them again?

(February 19, 2016 at 3:42 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: NBC News is showing a live video of Scalia "Laying in Repose". Wouldn't a still photo work just as well?

Are we ruling out Zombie Scalia ??

(February 19, 2016 at 4:49 pm)vorlon13 Wrote:

(February 19, 2016 at 3:42 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: NBC News is showing a live video of Scalia "Laying in Repose". Wouldn't a still photo work just as well?

Are we ruling out Zombie Scalia ??

Well, even for my well intended liberal Christian friends, they still believe in the same zombie god the right does, it is just their zombie god is more interested in smoking pot and tipping over change carts and not interested in dominion.