FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/16/2014 12:03:52 PM PDT by nickcarraway
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia takes part in an interview with Chris Wallace on "FOX News Sunday" at the FOX News D.C. Bureau on July 27, 2012 in Washington, DC.
Although the Supreme Court declined today to hear a case about religious freedom, it reminded Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented, about his feelings regarding music and joy and community. Religion, some people believe, "is a personal matter," he wrote. "[I]f it must be given external manifestation, that should not occur in public places where others may be offended." Just like that dreadful rock and roll:
I can understand that attitude: It parallels my own toward the playing in public of rock music or Stravinsky. And I too am especially annoyed when the intrusion upon my inner peace occurs while I am part of a captive audience, as on a municipal bus or in the waiting room of a public agency.
My own aversion cannot be imposed by law because of the First Amendment.
His inner peace would be absolutely shattered if he ever had to ride the subway during "Showtime!" But it's not just rock music — Scalia hates public displays of Stravinsky, too. Anything beautiful or fun, really.
To be honest, I liked it better in the days that you knew NOTHING about the Supremes at all and only saw them once a year at the State of the Union but absolutely never again for the rest of the year. You hear decisions and that was it. All this fluffy nonsense is ridiculous. I do not care that Scalia and Ginsburg are bosom buddies and get a long great and even vacation together with their respective families. Should not even be known. Just do the cases and that is it.
He makes a good point. He demonstrates the folly of doing away with the second amendment. The moment we do, there will be an explosion of laws based on personal preferences.
I feel the same way about rap. It really is idiotic
Can’t blame a thinking man for being annoyed by unsolicited revelry.
So much for the freedom of religion under Scalia.
I think he was making a legal point. He may not have even meant the music part literally.
Smug reporter, shockingly, misses the point.
That’s OK, I hate the sight of the words “New York” anywhere I see them.
Comment taken out of context. Scalia’s opinion is more or less the direct opposite. Here are some paragraphs from the opinion that put into context.
Some there are—many, perhaps—who are offended by public displays of religion. Religion, they believe, is a personal matter; if it must be given external manifestation, that should not occur in public places where others may be offended. I can understand that attitude: It parallels my own toward the playing in public of rock music or Stravinsky.
My own aversion cannot be imposed by law because of the First Amendment. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 790 (1989); Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 210–211 (1975). Certain of this Court’s cases, however, have allowed the aversion to religious displays tobe enforced directly through the First Amendment, at least in public facilities and with respect to public ceremonies—this despite the fact that the First Amendment explicitly favors religion and is, so to speak, agnostic about music.
It is perhaps the job of school officials to prevent hurt feelings at school events. But that is decidedly not the job of the Constitution. It may well be, as then-Chief JudgeEasterbrook suggested, that the decision of the Elmbrook School District to hold graduations under a Latin crossin a Christian church was “unwise” and “offensive.” 687 F. 3d, at 869 (dissenting opinion). But Town of Greece makes manifest that an establishment of religion it was not.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
I wholeheartedly agree with Scalia’s point. If I cannot express my religion in public because it offends, then neither can anyone else offend me. If a cross in public is banned then gay pride parades and rock music on subways must also be banned if they upset my sensibilities.
Much appreciate the correction, Sherman.
It doesn’t matter if the neighbors are playing rap or Mozart.
If I can hear it — it’s too loud.
I can tolerate neighborhood music, but I’d rather not be forced to hear it especially when it’s neither classical nor rock.
My choice of restaurants is sometimes based on the music I know they ay be playing. I have also left stores when the music was either too loud or offensive.
The thing I appreciate most about Amish businesses: no music at all! I have learned to savor the silence when I drive by leaving the radio off.
There’s no money in anonymity.
As the good doctor in “MASH” would say, “Shhhh!. Mozart!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.