Monday, January 4, 2016

No Neutrality

Justice Antonin Scalia goes way out there when it comes to religious liberty.

METAIRIE, La. (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday the idea of religious neutrality is not grounded in the country’s constitutional traditions and that God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him.

Scalia was speaking at a Catholic high school in the New Orleans suburb of Metairie, Louisiana. Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 is the court’s longest serving justice. He has consistently been one of the court’s more conservative members.

He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is “no place” in the country’s constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.

“To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?” he said. “To be sure, you can’t favor one denomination over another but can’t favor religion over non-religion?”

He also said there is “nothing wrong” with the idea of presidents and others invoking God in speeches. He said God has been good to America because Americans have honored him.

So in his view, it’s perfectly all right to discriminate against those who do not worship some sort of magical sky faerie.  (Just curious; is he in favor of all the magical sky faeries, not just the one he likes?)

Justice Scalia: Torquemada without the charm.

HT to CLW.

5 barks and woofs on “No Neutrality

  1. Sounds like Scalia is so lost in his own argle-bargle that his reading comprehension has suffered: what does he think “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” means?

    • My guess is he interprets that in the strictest possible sense: that we can’t have an “established” denomination a la the Church of England.

      • I’m sure that’s his interpretation — that’s the fallback position for most of the “Christians” addressing the question: the Establishment Clause just means that the government cannot favor one denomination of Christianity over another.

        Actually, a strict reading would lead one to the conclusion that the government cannot favor religion, period.

Comments are closed.