Scalia: It Is A Lie That Gov't Cannot Favor Religion Over Secularism

[blkmusclmachine]

Source: The New Civil Rights Movement

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told students at the conservative Colorado Christian University near Denver that it's "a lie" that the government cannot favor one religion over another, or religion over secularism.

Scalia, who has said that "the traditional Christian virtues are essential" for society, also said that "we do God honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies. 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.”

Scalia also told the students that it's "utterly absurd" to suggest that "the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non religion."



Read more: http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/scalia_it_is_a_lie_that_government_cannot_favor_religion_over_secularism?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheNewCivilRightsMovement+%28The+New+Civil+Rights+Movement%29

---

Therefore, Hobby Lobby ...

[StopTheNeoCons]

1. Scalia is one sick mfer...nt

[radiclib]

2. A towering intellect indeed!

The man is a moron.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. I love how Scalia says the Constitution is a dead thing. Doesn't match his rightwing activism!

Hypocritical liar.

[misterhighwasted]

30. DANG! Well that's what smug little GW Bushnazi said too.."The Constitution's just a piece of paper"

..as he smirked & waved a supposed copy over his swastica shaped head.
That moffia family has been bleeding this country since they set foot on it.
Lying, thieving, whole damned bunch of them & the sorry lot of their corrupt pals like Scalia & Cheney.

[Lucky Luciano]

4. Can't wait til that sick pile of shit either quits the court or dies. nt

[kimbutgar]

5. The worst Supreme Court judge in my lifetime is Scalia

And after that the waste of tax payer money, Clarence Thomas. It is disgusting he replaced the great judge Thurgood Marshall.

Sometimes I wish bad karma on them both.

[Prophet 451]

12. You limit it to karma?

I pray nightly for a three-car pile-up in the SCOTUS parking lot.

[bvf]

20. But why destroy three perfectly good cars in the process?

Simultaneous massive coronaries while in chambers would suit me just fine.

[Prophet 451]

21. That would be perfectly acceptable too

I'm fine with however the deity chooses to relieve us of these three bags of crap, so long as it happens ASAP.

[kimbutgar]

69. I also could get behind that

But I was trying to PC. What I really wish on them would get me banned by DU and a visit by the security detail of Scotus. so I can only dream.

[Prophet 451]

72. Right there with you,bro

In my unwise moments, I have occasionally made Facebook comments to friends that would do the same.

[3catwoman3]

77. Not just...

...sometimes - regularly.

[Plucketeer]

6. Scaliy Scalia

A snake in a robe.

[whereisjustice]

7. yet, somehow all the notes and letters from the people who actually wrote the constitution

disagree. As far as "Christian values", guess how many times "Jesus" is mentioned in the constitution?

[longship]

22. To say nothing about the evolution of the amendment in both houses of congress.

And the dialog on the floor. The earlier versions would have explicitly advantaged believers over non-believers. After several revisions the final version adopted ended up being the most liberal and most strict on separation.

Scalia either has not read this, or he is deliberately ignoring it. There is no other alternative interpretation.

[happyslug]

42. That is Madison notes, not trusted by everyone...

Last edited Fri Oct 3, 2014, 12:59 AM - Edit history (1)

The official transcript of the working of Congress on the Bill of Rights still exists, no one knows what the transcriber was doing but it does have some interesting dottles.

Thus we rely on Madison's own notes written 30 years afterward and published is such a way to make Madison look in the best light possible (These were Madison's notes released by Madison himself after everyone else involved was dead).

If you actually read the First Amendment it is clearly aimed ONLY on the Federal Government, thus the language reflects a decision that the STATES could have State Churches if they wanted to (and most did at that time period, removal of Churches from the State started big time in the South, but more to remove widows and orphans off Government payments then any real desire to separate church and state).

In the 1790s it was NOT yet possible to separate Church and State, for the simple reason the State used the Church to get its message out to the people. What we called Newspaper is the product of Pulp paper (invented 1801), the invention of high speed presses (about 1850) and the Steam Locomotive (1830). Before those inventions (and their combination by the 1850s) if you wanted news you went to the State Church (or a Church recognized by the State and thus used by the state to send out notices to the people).

Thus the wording of the First Amendment reflected the technology limitations of the 1790s. By the 1860s those limitation were gone and you could actually have separation of Church and State. It is only in the post Civil War Era that you start to see a real push in that direction (they were cite Jefferson and Madison, but it is clearly a cite to show what they were doing was what the Founding Fathers wanted instead of what was wanted in the 1860s, when the later was the case).

In the 1790s and until the 1860s, Separation of Church and State kept running across and being blocked by those two functions of the Church:

First was Welfare for Widows and Orphans, such welfare was run through the churches even after their were disestablished (and continued to be so till the 1870) and,

Second, the ability of the Church to get a message to almost everyone, i.e. its ability to spread the news

Ending Welfare through the church was easy, the States started to do that in the 1790s and told all the widows and orphans to go west and steal lands from the Native Americans (Yes, in many ways Separation of Church and State included stealing lands from Native Americans). New York City shipped Orphans west till various Western States started to ship them back in the 1930s. Prior to the Revolution such orphans and their mothers would get relief from the established church (or in the case of Pennsylvania the Quakers, who were the de facto established church till replaced by the Presbyterian church when Pennsylvania kicked out the Quakers in 1758, both churches handled "Welfare" till the 1870s when the State took it over for both churches were found to NOT provide enough do to lack of funds AND often to the wrong people. i.e. Union strikers and their families).

Disestablishment of Churches started in the South in the 1790s (Massachusetts would not do it till the recession of 1837), but such disestablishment had little to do with separating church from state, and more to the concept of reducing costs to the state by' shifting welfare costs to the frontier as stated above.

As to the News Function, that continued till the Civil War (and in some states after the Civil War). During the Civil War, newspapers found out their could sell more papers if they report what was going on in the front AND if they could report about any local units and how they were doing in the field. This permitted daily papers to actually survive and thus provide daily updates (where the Church could only get weekly updates AND then through official channels, the papers sent their own reporters and told them to send messages by Telegraph NOT letter thus the papers could publish news from the front on the day after something happened, the Church could not get that news for maybe weeks since they relied on letters NOT telegraphs). Thus it was clear by the 1860s that the news function of the Churches was obsolete. Thus only in the 1860s could you have seperation of Church and State.

I bring this up for Madison's notes often do NOT reflect political reality of the 1790s. It does reflect political reality of the 1820s when their were published. The US did NOT yet have the technology to seperate church from state but the technology was clearly headed that way.

Thus Madison "notes" as to earlier versions of the Bill of Rights have to be taken with a grain of salt. i.e. remember it is questionable for we have NO official transcript AND no other notes for Madison only released his notes after everyone else who had been in Congress was dead (Thus no one could support them OR attack them).

[freefaller62]

44. Madison disagreed with the Bill of Rights

I question a lot of the old "transcripts," knowing that they were written by quill on parchment as the debates raged on. There was no way that a penman, who had to constantly dip and write, then dip again, could keep up with the speeches.

Madison was forced by the Anti-Federalist movement into penning the Amendments, else the Constitution would not have been ratified. In his writings I learned that he didn't want any national government involvement in church or education.

As far as the 'wall of separation' argument goes, I find it risible that some people constantly quote from a *letter* written by a person who was not a writer of our Constitution, to involve the national government in religion. We have bigger problems that I wish would animate the masses like religious debate does.

[happyslug]

45. Linen was the preferred paper, they were transferred to parchment only later if at all

Linen had been the preferred paper since the 1300s when it reached Europe (China had it since before the time of Christ, but kept the production of it secret till the Mongol Conquest).

As to quill pens, you had ways to write down such debates even at that time period. Using a Quill and pen is NOT that hard ONCE YOU GET USE TO IT. Later Congresses, still in the Quill pen period, did produce transcript of what was said in any debate. Thus it could be done and had been done, but the first transcriber had been a Federalist Hack who obtain the position through connections NOT competency.

As to Jefferson letter of 1819, it is hard to give it any weight to what the First Amendment was intended to be. Jefferson was in Paris at the time seeing the French Revolution first hand. The French did NOT embrace separation of Church and State till 1905 (and that decision seems more as an attack on the Pope for his actions at that time period NOT for any real move to seperate church from state). Thus how much weight do you give a private letter from a person NOT involved in the actual writing of the Bill of Rights?

I blame Grant, if he had NOT used that quote in 1875 when he asked for an Amendment to prohibit public support for any schools run by any religion, that phase would be dead today, but Grant revived it and used it and it entered into the American Lexicon as what the First Amendment is suppose to say, when it does not.

[freefaller62]

84. Linen paper

FYI - - Interesting stuff:

http://raglinen.com/2010/05/01/the-distinction-of-18th-century-american-paper/

"It must be understood that the paper made in colonial America, especially in the early days, was not the finest in quality. The word “handmade” has a connotation in these days that dazzles the intelligence even of persons ordinarily unimpressed by shibboleths. The American paper of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, handmade, of course, from rags, was an honest paper, tough and durable in general, but as variable in quality as one would expect from indifferent materials handled by provincial workmen in rude manufactories."

[JEFF9K]

8. I guess it applies only to Christianity.

And only the fake Christianity of the "Religious" Right.

[Prophet 451]

11. I call it "Republianity"

Republianity is a mixture of lip service to Jesus (while jettisoning virtually everything he actually taught), Nieztchian will-to-power, Randian beliefs to justify psychotic anti-tax beliefs, Nazi-level nationalism and worship of the military and Rapture beliefs that were invented wholesale out of a few twisted-from-context Bible verses about a century ago. It has it's own high priests (Pat Robertson, Limbaugh, Beck), it's own messiah figure (Reagan), it's own devil figure (Obama although really, it's whoever the most high-profile liberal of the time is), it's own designated scapegoats (liberals) and it's own versions of history, economics, psychology, theology and jurisprudence.

[Iliyah]

9. Forget US history huh.

The founding fathers wrote " separation of state and church". Scalia must have forgotten the reason why the founding fathers wanted that. He must have forgotten the prosecution of the different "Christian" religions in Europe and why many fled to the US. Now he suggesting the same thing here. STFU, impeach this mother**ker.

[happyslug]

43. "Separation of Church and State" is NOT in the First Amendment or any other part of the Consitution

Read the first, all it calls for is that CONGRESS will NOT favor OR disfavor any 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.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

The Phase "Seperation of Church and State" first appears in a letter from Jefferson written in 1819. It was given little weight at that time for the simple reason it appeared more for something to strive to as opposed to being the actual law. It was revived in 1875 when Grant used it in a speech in support of Federal Funding of Education, but only to public schools. This lead to the proposed "Blaine Amendment", which passed the house, but did NOT get the 2/3rds vote in the Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaine_Amendment

Thus our founding fathers did NOT support "Separation of Church and State" for practical reasons more then any dogmatic reasons (The Church was still the best way to get news to the people as a whole then the newspapers of the time period, that would change by the 1860s, but that is the 1860s NOT the 1790s when the Bill or Rights was written).

[demwing]

73. Bullshit. Congress makes law. Judges interpret law. The President enforces law.

Our society is constitutionally governed by the rule of law.

So when we say that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, we are actually saying that religion has no place in the governing of our country, as dictated by the Constitution.

[happyslug]

75. That is NOT how the US Supreme Court has ruled, and that includes dissents

The has ruled GOVERNMENT has no say in religion, BUT the reverse has NEVER been ruled to the case, for if is did it would violate "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which can include lobbying Congress in addition to evangelizing.

Furthermore the Congress that passed the bill of Rights authorized a chaplain for Congress AND authorize Chaplains for the US Military (all of whom were Protestants till the Civil War, when Catholic Priests were permitted to become Chaplain, later expanded to include Jewish Rabbi, Moslem Clerics, Buddhist priests and recently Wiccan).

The rationale used to justify Chaplains is that in appointing them, Congress was filling a need not promoting religion.

[demwing]

78. "The rationale used to justify Chaplains..."

"...is that in appointing them, Congress was filling a need not promoting religion."

Thank you. You provided your own rebuttal. If there were no implied or direct separation, there would be no need for a justification, nor an explanation as to why this doesn't violate the Constitution.

[Prophet 451]

10. No, Tony, your "jurisprudence" is the lie

This monstrous bag of shit has been making decisions purely on grounds of politics for years and now, he's not even bothering to hide it.

[Baitball Blogger]

13. Looks like our strict constructionist is coming apart at the seams.

[douggg]

14. "it's "a lie" that the government cannot favor one religion over another"?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/?no-ist=

Madison also made a point that any believer of any religion should understand: that the government sanction of a religion was, in essence, a threat to religion. "Who does not see," he wrote, "that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?" Madison was writing from his memory of Baptist ministers being arrested in his native Virginia.

[candelista]

15. Scalia probably had a little too much booze.

So he said what he really thinks. "Utterly absurd"? That's alcohol greasing his tongue.

[cstanleytech]

16. Frankly he should resign now as he totally is butchering the Constitution to suit his own religion.

And furthermore if the idiot had really read the Constitution he would see its clearly written to deny congress the power to write any laws that support any 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.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. However, the cardinal priciple is that everything Scalia says is a lie

Unless he just says it because he doesn't to believe it (so we can avoid the infamous liar's paradox).

[defacto7]

18. There is no doubt in my mind

that he is trying to mold the US into his own personal theocracy.

He is so far off the track he much be impeached, removed, fired, whatever it takes. He is a loon and mentally unstable..

[longship]

19. The founders and the founding Congress disagree, Justice Douchebag!

[BrotherIvan]

23. Fuck that guy!

If conservatives are trying to force RBG to recuse herself, then liberals should be all over slimeball Tony for these comments alone.

[Monk06]

24. Article 11, The Treaty of Tripoli

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Of course that went out with the hanging of Qaddafi

[ReRe]

25. The man is clearly senile. n/t

[Dont call me Shirley]

26. If we adhere to traditional Christian values then why does Scalia repeatedly break several of the

10 commandments? Especially the one about bearing false witness!?

[closeupready]

27. "utterly absurd" - translation: 'I'm wrong, so I gotta double down, or else

nobody will ever believe me.' LOL

[marmar]

28. Dangerous ignorance on the Supreme Court.

[Kalidurga]

29. He should be impeached he isn't even pretending to follow the law

his rulings are evidence of that.

[rug]

31. But it is true that his brain is separated from his mouth.

[SoapBox]

32. I want Freedom FROM Religion...period.

He can have his religion all he wants but when he tries shove'n it up my ass...NO FUCK'N WAY!

[Diremoon]

33. Cause to impeach

Ok, we have ample cause to impeach this judge. Now we just need to vote the republicans at least down to a minority so that can happen.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

34. Him being there is an ethics violation.

[Midnight Writer]

35. How much was Scalia paid for this speech?

[marym625]

40. Oh he's paid with pennies from heaven :) n/t

[Oldtimeralso]

36. The Pledge of Allegiance...

Scalia, said that "we do God honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies.

I really must be old, and when I first learned the pledge the words "under God" were not part of it.

I'll swear on the Koran that this is true!

[Art_from_Ark]

38. A lot of the kids in my class said "Underdog",

which was a popular cartoon at the time

[marym625]

41. AWESOME! n/t

[progressoid]

52. UNDERDOG!

Used to watch that after school.

[LibertyLover]

57. That's correct -

the words "under God" were added in the 1950s by Congress as a reproach to the godless Communism of the USSR.

I'm sure it did a lot of good.

[Art_from_Ark]

37. The Flushing Remonstrance is cited as the beginning of religious freedom

in what would become the United States, and the immediate aftermath is one reason why the Founding Fathers did not want government sponsorship of any religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flushing_Remonstrance

[shenmue]

48. That's my beloved hometown, by the way

[Art_from_Ark]

50. The Wiki article said that the Queens Borough President's Office

held a celebration of the 350th anniversary of the Remonstrance in 2007, which included appearances by descendants of people from both sides of the Remonstrance, as well as an original copy of the document. Were you able to attend that event?

[shenmue]

51. No

I lost my job in '04 and had to move. But I'll make it back!

[marym625]

39. We haven't got a prayer n/t

[the_sly_pig]

46. I often wonder what is in store...

for those that claim to know the mind of God. It takes no courage to claim a majority is oppressed. He obviously lacks faith and requires mortal authority to enforce his will on others.

[bvf]

53. I think he sees himself

as the authority. If I believed in an afterlife, I'd think he was in for a major disappointment. As it is, I just look forward to the day when he ceases to exist.

[MFrohike]

47. True as far as it goes

The constitution doesn't say anything about favoring or disfavoring religion. The only mention, unless I'm forgetting something, is the Establishment Clause.

I see a lot of attempts to refute Tony based on originalist ideas. That's a bad mistake. If you want to refute him, use the logic he displayed here to do it. He's essentially claiming the constitution's silence on the issue makes it permissible. That's fine. The constitution is silent on a lot of issues. In fact, when it comes to the powers of the federal government, it's overwhelmingly silent. There are the enumerated powers, which cover a good amount ground. Then there are the specific powers prohibited to Congress, such as bills of attainder. Otherwise, Article I is silent as a ghost when it comes to the powers of the government.

The dominant argument is that the federal government is a government of limited powers, in that it's restricted to the powers granted to it by the constitution (original text and amendments). That seems to be an illogical assumption to make, given that the Framers (not the fucking Founders, they came a lot earlier) clearly had the opportunity to restrict federal power on a whole host of issues, but chose only to explicitly do so in a few areas. Why should we assume that federal power is limited to those enumerated powers, and the amendments, when such an assumption does not square with the fact that specific prohibitions exist? It seems more reasonable to conclude that the constitution contains explicit powers and prohibitions and the rest is up for grabs. That view would accord with John Marshall's famous comment in McCullough, about expounding a constitution, not a code of laws.

Anyway, if Tony wants to view the constitution expansively, it's clearly better to meet him on that ground than on the ground of originalism. Originalism is about as useful as an argument over sports. It might be fun, but it's got no value other than entertainment. It's pointless to run back to the Framers for definitive statements because they are dead. They've been dead a long time. The fundamental weakness of originalism is one simple question: why should the dead hand of the past govern the present or the future?

[GeorgeGist]

67. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

But favoring is OK?

[MFrohike]

86. It doesn't speak directly to it

It's not like the exacting requirements of the treason definition or the prohibition on ex post facto laws. The federal constitution is pretty much nothing but wiggle room. That means the definitions of clauses are decided by politics, not by a self-selected priesthood.

[FiveGoodMen]

82. Let me just second George's question above

[MFrohike]

87. It doesn't speak directly to it

That's the whole point I was making with my original post. Where the constitution does not specifically prohibit or allow something, it's up for grabs. Think of the constitution as the basics of how you play baseball, statutes/regs/rulings as the actual rules of the game, and enforcement of the above as the umps' calls. The basics of the game would include how to hit, pitch, catch, score, etc. Those basics would prohibit using a soccer ball instead of a baseball, because it's self-evidently baseball, but they wouldn't provide guidance on how to deal with an infield fly that can be caught with ordinary effort.

[shenmue]

49. He should have to wear a board that says 'no-establishment clause'

Ugh. Just ugh.

[pansypoo53219]

54. but its only the 'left' activist judges that matter.

[Demeter]

55. Jesus Christ! and I say that in the terms of the Moneychangers in the Temple way

and I'm agnostic.

Scalia is no intellectual, has no concept of the Enlightenment which formed this nation, and is evil, on top of it.

[riqster]

56. This is why GOTV is vital: we MUST hold the Senate.

[Delphinus]

58. I'm not a lawyer,

but I think he's full of shit.

[srican69]

59. I bet if suddenly a majority of us converted to Islam or Jewism tomorrow - Scalia will be singing a

different tune.

[Gothmog]

60. Scalia is wrong and it is clear that he needs to retire soon

[hue]

61. Scalia is def sick & should be impeached. He is completely bought, sold & biased.

[albino65]

62. Why are there no calls for Scalia's impeachment?

I think his utterances show him to be contemptible or at least too senile to carry out his duties.

[leftyladyfrommo]

63. What law school did he go to? n/t

[eppur_se_muova]

64. Well, Scalia should certainly know a lie when he sees one ...

he has more experience in that department than the other two branches of govt. combined.

[rock]

65. Of course it's a lie!

They do it all the time! And it goes against the Constitution.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

66. This is why

Justices should be allowed to be removed from the Supreme Court..............

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

68. That should be grounds for impeachment right there!

Last edited Fri Oct 3, 2014, 02:43 PM - Edit history (1)

edit: or = for

[davidthegnome]

70. Hmm.

You know, I understand that the constitution is something considered to be sacred by many Americans. In many regards, I do not disagree. Yet, there are some things that should come down to human rights, and simple common sense, which in some cases I do feel should prevail over even a seemingly sacred document.

Regardless of whether or not the constitution, or anything our "Framers" did put "separation of church and state" down on paper... it is something that should come as a simple common sense matter of how to run a government. In essence - NOT based on religious dogma would be a good place to start. Further, it is not only a question of whether a government "CAN", but whether a government "SHOULD".

Generally speaking, mixing religion and government is insane (if you don't think so, examine Egypt, Israel, Iran, Iraq - and so on) except for in the event that government protects the right to religious freedom. I am not a practicing anything, but I would gladly defend anyone's right to believe in whatever particular version of spirituality or God or afterlife, or grand scheme that they please. I would, on the other hand, also defend anyone's right to NOT believe certain things, nor to base their lives upon them, nor to be told that they must behave in specific ways due to religious writings.

How literally should it be taken? The old testament or the new? Should we forgive seven times seven times? Let he who has not sinned be the first to cast the stone? Should we suffer not a witch to live? Should we smite those the old testament tells us to smite? Should Mr. Scalia pluck out his right eye and cast it from himself if it leads him to sin? No more porn for you, Mr. Justice.

Which particular "traditional Christian values" is this imbecile referring to?

The true absurdity, Mr. Scalia, is the notion that we require God or religion to tell us the difference between right and wrong. That we need some kind of mythical being to tell us how to live, what to think, or how to treat others. That we should behave in such a way in the hopes of a spiritual reward... rather than do so just because it's the right thing to do. Or that a book written many centuries ago, should serve as a "how to" guide for modern governance or life in general.

Humanity evolves - society evolves, or at least it should, and would, if we did not have to suffer the idiocy of Neanderthals like yourself.

By all means, believe whatever you please. Believe in stones - that is your right. You do not have the right to throw stones at me if I do not. The rest of us have the right to NOT be held prisoner either literally or figuratively by the writings of ancient scholars.

The separation of church and state should be, and indeed must be, a reality. In order for us to have any claim to democracy, to freedom, to higher nobility, or respect for free will and human rights, we must not place one particular religion or philosophy on a pedestal above all others.

I like Christ, but some of his Christians (and self proclaimed "Christians&quot really frustrate me at times.

Traditional Christian values brought about the crusades. Traditional Christian values brought about the witch hunts and the burning of innocent women. Traditional Christian values gave us the Inquisitions. Traditional Christian values brought about the torture and slaughter of many thousands, the extermination of entire peoples and cultures. So did traditional Roman values - and many, many other values that could certainly be referred to as traditionally a part of a specific religion.

Is the golden rule not simple enough? Are human rights and freedom not basically notions that are self explanatory? Should your freedom include the right to tell my kids that they have to praise a God their family does not believe in?

Mr. Scalia, Sir. I am afraid you missed your calling. You should immediately resign from your current position and apply to your local seminary. There, you may promote your theology as much as you like. As a Supreme Court Justice, however, you are an absolute shame, a mockery, a joke that is no longer funny.

[sakabatou]

71. Fucking asshole seems to ignore the Establishment Clause.

[santamargarita]

74. This asshole should be impeached or legally removed!

[atreides1]

76. And that's the elephant in the room

Society no longer practices "the traditional Christian virtues"! Instead you have a mishmash of sectarian "Christian" groups that insist that theirs is the "right" religion...and who no longer even make the attempt to do the works of Christ!

The twisted, delusional, life controlling belief system that passes for Christianity today, is not what I believe Jesus had in mind.

[FiveGoodMen]

83. I doubt that most of the last 2000 years is what Jesus had in mind.

So I don't know how much respect we should have for the 'traditional'.

[merrily]

79. We are going backwards, thanks to this biggest liar of all.

[BadGimp]

80. AssClown Award winner

[FiveGoodMen]

81. And we STILL can't impeach him????

[Beacool]

85. Scalia.......just hearing his name makes me sick to my stomach.

Of all the bastards to ever grace the Supreme Court............

[spanone]

88. for this alone he should be removed from the court. he's 100% wrong.

[Hekate]

89. It is a Lie that Scalia is Qualified to be on the Supreme Court of the US...

I could see him on some court during the Spanish Inquisition, though.

[Scruffy Rumbler]

90. He is right...

A government can choose one religion over another or even over secularism... the only problem is that is NOT our government.

[Orsino]

91. He proves that it can. n/t

[Adrahil]

92. FUCK. HIM.

I generally son't wish any harm on anyone. But that fucker can't die of a painful heart attack soon enough.

[Arugula Latte]

93. I have to agree.

He's in the "needs to croak NOW" category, along with Dick Cheney.

[calimary]

94. This guy is a hazard to our country's health.

An airborne toxic event on two legs. This individual is TOXIC.

Technically, of course, a government can, and often does, favor one religion over another. The crux of it, though, is that a government SHOULD NOT favor one religion over another. Not in an increasingly pluralistic world like the one we all live in, imo.