Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Discusses Church-State Separation

ASSOCIATED PRESS / Las Vegas Sun ^ | 1.12.03 | ASSOCIATED PRESS /

[rface]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia complained Sunday that courts have gone overboard in keeping God out of government.

Scalia, speaking at a religious ceremony, said the constitutional wall between church and state has been misinterpreted both by the Supreme Court and lower courts.

As an example, he pointed to a ruling in California that barred students from saying the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "one nation under God."

That appeals court decision is on hold pending further consideration by the same court, but the Supreme Court could eventually be asked to review the case.

Scalia, the main speaker at an event for Religious Freedom Day, said past rulings by his own court gave the judges in the Pledge case "some plausible support" to reach that conclusion.

However, the justice said he believes such decisions should be made legislatively, not by courts.

The rally-style event drew a lone protester, who silently held a sign promoting the separation of church and state.

"The sign back here which says `Get religion out of government,' can be imposed on the whole country. I have no problem with that philosophy being adopted democratically. If the gentleman holding the sign would persuade all of you of that, then we could eliminate `under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. That could be democratically done," said Scalia.

The rest of the crowd repeatedly cheered Scalia, whose son, Paul, is a priest at a nearby Catholic church. The justice, also a Catholic, is a father of nine.

Several hundred people joined him in singing "God Bless America" after a brief parade through downtown.

"He's the voice of reason on the Supreme Court," said Jim McFall, a retired FBI agent who organized the Knights of Columbus parade. "His remarks were right on the money. The pendulum has swung too far and people have said `enough is enough.' We'll see it swing back."

Scalia used the event to repeat criticisms that the Constitution is being liberally interpreted. "It is a Constitution that morphs while you look at it like Plasticman," he said.

The Constitution says the government cannot "establish" or promote religion, but Scalia said the framers did not intend for God to be stripped from public life.

"That is contrary to our whole tradition, to `in God we trust' on the coins, to (presidential) Thanksgiving proclamations, to (congressional) chaplains, to tax exemption for places of worship, which has always existed in America."

[rface]

I went to a Scalia event here at U. of Missouri, Columbia a year or more ago. What a guy!

I am surprised that this article hasn't been posted here - I did a check...

Ashland, Missouri

[rface]

this event happened at FREDERICKSBURG, Va......

[Anti-Bubba182]

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Faith]

Thanks for the encouraging post.

[jo6pac]

"That is contrary to our whole tradition, to `in God we trust' on the coins, to (presidential) Thanksgiving proclamations, to (congressional) chaplains, to tax exemption for places of worship, which has always existed in America."

Slavery was part of our tradition, too. Should we bring it back? Oh, those good old days, Tony.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Scalia is interesting. He is an original-intent purist, right down to the last wart, which certainly is a position in favor of preserving robust Christian liberties but also puts him in the position of apologia for some indefensible things in other arenas.

[Leonard210]

WHAT?

[narses]

Ping

[Double Tap]

"The sign back here which says `Get religion out of government,' can be imposed on the whole country. I have no problem with that philosophy being adopted democratically. If the gentleman holding the sign would persuade all of you of that, then we could eliminate `under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. That could be democratically done," said Scalia.

That is a curious thing for an "Original Intent" jurist to say. I wonder what other things he thinks could be done "democratically"? If the majority of the people in this country convinced their reps and senators to ban firearms ownership, would that pass muster with him?

[rface]

Slavery was part of our tradition, too. Should we bring it back? Oh, those good old days, Tony.

I guess you are confused.
We should discard those things that are against the constitution, and keep the things that are in the constitution.

Slavery is against the ideals that the Bill of Rights states - and is also against the laws that the Constitution decrees. The separation of Church and State is a "made-up" amendment to the Constitution that has taken root in liberal folklore - and has spread into Libertarian circles. Its time to put this fairytale to bed.....

[Notwithstanding]

THe founding documents of the nation do NOT hinge upon slavery but they do hinge explicitly upon what the very founding documents themselves consider to be God-given freedoms.

[Notwithstanding]

The constitution forbids only establishment - which is far far different than the constitutionally permissible government involvement with or promotion of religion.

Since it is permissible, such promotion or involvement can be legislatively required or prohibited.

(Unlike a constitutional freedom or right - such as to bear arms - which cannot be suppressed via legislative act)

[rface]

I think Scalia is saying that if you want to get rid of "God" in the government, don't try to do it under the guise of a "Separation of Church and State" clause (since there is no such clause) - do it the way the system allows you to do it - at the ballot box.

Scalia would say, "If you want to prevent Christmas Displays on your town square, don't dis-allow it on Constitutional Grounds - pass a law that prevents it by reason of democratic decree.

my humble opinion as a constitutional legal layman

[Notwithstanding]

you are spot on

[blau993]

The recent travesty in Illinois where a Catholic governor knuckled under to the position of the Catholic church and effectively did away with the death penalty should be a wake-up call to all Americans on the importance of the separation of church and state. Not to pick on the Catholics particularly, but religions tend to look for a foot in the door, and when they get it, look out. Religion is a private matter. Our Founders understood that.

[Double Tap]

"Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Amendment I, Bill of Rights.

So if congress can make no law respecting any religion, how can they do what he says?

[rface]

I don't think he did this because he was Catholic - more likely he did it because he saw there were holes in the justice system that a whale could have floated through.

I don't know all the details - so maybe I am just ignorant of some important facts......I suspect that Ryan had some good reasons for doing what he did......hopefully justice was served.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[rface]

"Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Amendment I, Bill of Rights.

So if congress can make no law respecting any religion, how can they do what he says?

You play bad word games....where does it say..."congress can make no law respecting any religion"? It says "respecting an Establishment of religion....(ie. a denomination, a specific religion, a religious point-of-view)

If the 1st stated, "....shall make no laws respecting THE establishING of religion..." then I would give you the point, but that's just not what it says.