Antonin Scalia Says Constitution Permits Court To 'Favor Religion Over Non-Religion'

Well here is something that should stir the hate in the heart of many Liberals. Seems we have a USSC judge that actually knows what the First Amendment means.



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.”

H/T Washington Times

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...ment_n_5922944.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

 

So, is Scalia saying that an individual is not free from religion if he or she chooses to be? Because, unless he misspoke about the Constitution, he just made the case that no man or woman is free from religion according to the Constitution.

If the Constitution according to Scalia protects the freedom "of" for us, but does not protect us "from", all that does is open up a can of worms disregarding one's right "from" religion in all the convenient ways one's imagination could invent. Sounds like Scalia has more explaining to do.

 

Hardly. You are free to be an atheist you can never be free from religion because that would mean you are taking other peoples rights to be religious away. Its simple there is no slippery slope on this one.

 

I take it he is saying the First Amendment gives you freedom of religion. You have the freedom not to join, partake, or donate to any religion. But the government has no duty to protect you from seeing or hearing anything about religion. Which is what I have always believed.

 

This is a major decision. This opens the doors once again to singing Christmas songs in school. Saying a prayer before a ball game, etc. It's allowing religious people to practice their religion and giving atheist the option of not taking part. Which is what the First Amendment means.

 

So Scalia is a theocrat....is this a surprise?

BTW, remember, as Isaac Asimov said, "It's a poor blaster that doesn't point BOTH ways".

Keep that in mind the next time a MUSLIM wants their religious rights over an agnostic or atheist.

 

As an atheist myself, I have absolutely no problem with that and it annoys me to no end that other atheists make a big fuss over (*)(*)(*)(*) that affects them in no way.

The Hobby Lobby decision though went too far in my eyes.

 

What makes him a theocrat? You dont protect a right by taking it away. Its pretty simple.

 

Great, RPA.....as long as you and Marine remain consistant with protecting people's religious rights.....who are Muslims.

And not just the rights of fundamentalist Christians who want to teach kids that Adam and Eve had pet Apatosaurs "along side" the "supposed theory" of evolution.

 

Who is RPA? And I dont dislike Muslims. I'm agnostic so your dinosaur and evolution flamebait dont bother me in the least... Seems your trolling is a complete fail. Care to try again?

 

1. Typo...RP.

2. Good...so you'll work JUST as hard to defend Muslim religious rights....right?

3. Do you favor or oppose "creationism" being taught along side evolution in public schools? Yes or No?

 

I do believe you are making this personal Gorn imagine that. But for (*)(*)(*)(*)s and giggles i will answer your questions ( you think they are loaded but they are not)

Why wouldnt defend a Muslim religious right? Are there any you take issue with? Why do you think i would? Or are you assuming again?

I have no issue with either being taught in school.

What now? What stupid "loaded" question do you have for me instead of discussing the topic?

 

Every one donates to religion, remember they SUCK of the public by being untaxed.......they SUCK off the public by invading PUBLIC schools with prayer...and using public land and buildings for displays of their idols.

 

I'm an atheist. I have been for 64 years. I would agree that the 1st Amendment protects religion. It does not protect anti-religion.

"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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

There it is. Simple enough for an atheist like me or even a liberal. Congress shall make no law. Of course, the government has always fought against the Constitution because it was designed to protect the people from the government. Not from each other. Not from imaginary slights. Not from unpleasantness. No, it's designed to protect us from the awesome power of the government that has grown like Alice in Wonderland.

Congress shall make no law. It does not say a student who was named valedictorian for her class can't say, "I thank God for my wonderful life...," in her speech. It doesn't say that a government employee can't say, "God bless you," when someone sneezes. I'm pretty sure it does not say that no one can say anything that makes you uncomfortable. Of course, I'm also pretty sure it doesn't say there is a right to have an abortion, either.

My statement to atheists, as an elderly atheist, is grow a set of balls and suck it up.

 

Again, how is Scalia a theocrat?

Spare us the red herrings this time, Cap'n...

 

They should pay taxes because the First Amendment doesn't mean separation.

 

Thank you sir. I love atheist that understands what the First Amendment means and is not offended by any mention of religion.

 

People are and should be free to practice there religion. It's when that religion guides the political process that effects all is where my issues arise.

 

That's just what our forefathers didn't want. They didn't want religion forcing their religious laws on people like they did in England

 

Absolutely, yet so many believe that the US was 'founded on christian ideas' when the very idea was what pushed people to start a new country.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about the political process, Cubed - religion has always been a part of politics and there's nothing wrong with that. What should concern us is the same thing that concerned the Forefathers - the legal process.

 

Exactly. This is one of the grossest misinterpretations of the constitution I've ever seen. It should not be coming from a supreme court judge. He is clearly unfit.

 

There's a reason why so many Americans believe that, and it's because many of the Founders explicitly stated that the United States was founded on Christian ideas. That doesn't mean that the United States is theocracy and/or should be a theocracy, and clearly the Founders didn't desire or create one.

 

Utter nonsense. The brilliant Scalia clearly outlined the 1st Amendment.

 

I would argue that it is you and bwk who are misinterpreting the First Amendment, lee. The text of the Constitution clearly does not guarantee anyone freedom from religion:

That's pretty narrow stuff there. I don't know what you and bwk are reading, but it's clearly not in the language of the First Amendment.

Scalia hasn't misinterpreted anything, and he is clearly fit to be a Supreme Court justice - and I say that as a secularist. The Bill of Rights does not establish an atheist republic, and the Constitution clearly does not grant Congress the right to establish one, either.

Now, if you want to lock yourself away in your house so you won't be exposed to the religion that exists in the outside world, you're free to do that. If it's a monkish existence you're after, there's nothing in the Constitution that forbids you from being a hermit.