He’s wrong, but he says what the law is, not me, so he’s also right.
We have a practice in America of pretending we’re being non-religious when we’re being relatively mildly Christian, which (in my opinion) is what confuses this topic so much. This is Scalia saying explicitly what a bunch of cases have already said in effect, which is kind of refreshing.
Either way, the result is going to be that we give lukewarm sponsorship to a bland form of Christianity, because that’s what we’ve always done; the question is whether or not we try to do a lot of smoke-and-mirrors rhetorical gymnastics to pretend we’re not doing that.
Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It does explicitly favor the private practice of religion. At the same time, it explicitly forbids government sponsorship of it, but it is true that it does the other bit, too.
I don’t see how you can say that. It explicitly favors allowing people to choose which if any religion to practice. That’s not favoring religion over nonreligion.
It carves out religion as an area in which government must remain neutral – it protects religion in a way that other things are not protected. The government is not required to remain neutral on the issue of protecting migratory birds, or coinage of silver, or use of marijuana. The government can criminalize or permit killing geese, coining silver, and smoking pot. But religion is a favored category: the government must remain neutral.
I think what is needed is a campaign of photographs of a mundane object like a lamppost or mailbox, captioned simply “God”. No mockery, no derision, just a simple picture to be trotted out during ceremonial references. Let someone take offense and declare “THAT’S not God!” and then challenge them to explain why not.
Scalia is, as usual, making up his own laws. Originalism means that he interprets the meaning of the Constitution as if Antonin Scalia had written it.
Not believing in God is a religious belief. And therefore it is constitutionally equal to believing in God.
If Scalia and people like him think that the expression of Christian beliefs is just ceremonial symbolism, then would they be willing to accept the expression of atheist beliefs as just ceremonial symbolism? Would they have a problem with the motto “There Is No God” being printed on currency?
If Christians would be offended by that motto, then atheists are entitled to be offended by “In God We Trust”.
Bingo. Even if one assumes that ‘God’ is a catchall term referring equally to all monotheistic deities, from Jesus H. Christ to the FSM, use of the term still favors monotheistic religions over polytheistic religions or religious systems such as Buddhism that do not believe in a deity. There’s just no practicable way to avoid favoring some religions over others, yet favor religion over nonreligion.
And Scalia sounds increasingly like your uncle that you do your best to avoid at family gatherings because he watches Fox News 16 hours a day, and any conversation with him will largely consist of his repeating what he heard there.
I hate the use of “secularist” in the context in which Scalia uses it. The opposite of “secular” isn’t religious, it’s sectarian. Back when I was a Christian, I was a secularist, in that I didn’t want the government telling me what religious practices I had to engage in or what beliefs I was required to espouse. Now that am no longer a Christian, I’m still a secularist, and I still don’t want the government doing those things.
Back in my public high school days we had a prayer every day over the intercom and explicitly religious assemblies a couple of times a year. (North Texas, mid 90s.) The Muslim and Hindu kids got to go to the library if they didn’t want to go to the assemblies, which at the time I thought was reasonable accommodation, and these days I wince at. I wonder if Scalia, from his lofty perch, realizes what these practices end up looking like on the ground.
We all knew Scalia was a tool. He may be well read, but intellectually honest he is not. Either he’s a liar or he’s stupid, take your pick. Sadly, many conservatives now do the same thing, justify their beliefs by trying to change reality on topics such as abortion, global warming, voter suppression, poverty, race, etc.
Scalia’s statement that the First Amendment explicitly favors religion, it was meant in the sense that it favors religion over nonreligion.
You’re arguing something here that’s completely separate: that the whole category of religion/nonreligion is one that the government isn’t allowed to step into. It’s pretty much the opposite of what Scalia was saying, since if the FA really does favor religion, that would violate your own statement that the government must remain neutral.
This statement favors having religion, by guaranteeing that having religion is possible but not guaranteeing anything else:
“Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
This statement would favor not having religion, by guaranteeing that not having religion is possible but not guaranteeing anything else:
“Congress shall make no law … requiring the exercise thereof.”
So, the clause is not quite symmetrical with regard to having versus not having religion. It only supports one of the two possibilities.
I am neutral on Scalia’s statement, but this part:
That pretty much elevates religion above other things that are not explicitly protected. The free exercise of religion is favored above say, driving a car, or acquiring a fishing license.
How in heck is mandating people pledge implicit creed and explicit trust in a deity *not *a religious practice ?
Just because the pledge doesn’t say “in this god right here (see fig. 1) we trust” doesn’t make it any less religious a statement in nature. It’s just pan-monotheist (yes, I just coined that. No, you bloody well can’t have it) rather than specific to this or that cult. And just the same, as has been stated, it implicitly excludes the non-religious, the “religiously atheists” (e.g. Taoists, Buddhists…) and the polytheists.
Also, symbols have a non-zero value, you know. There’s no such thing as “just symbolic”. Symbols are both the expression of, and shaping forces upon, thoughts and beliefs. There’s definitely pressure going on there. Soft pressure, but pressure all the same.
Whether or not that’s kosher wrt to the US Constitution I won’t dare touch for fear of being lawyered into oblivion; whether that is cool for states to do at all and generally-speaking however… well, I do come from one of the most secularist nations out there, almost forcibly so, and I *really *like it here :p.
They don’t really come up, but I can certainly imagine such phrases being meaningful in the right context:
“You’re completely free to speak your mind about politics, as long as you’ve first publicly recited the Daily Affirmation of the Greatness of the Dear Leader.”
“OK, you latte-sipping hippie, as soon as you’ve completed your Congressionally mandated hour of watching FOX News you can change the channel to NPR or the Comedy Channel.”
Scalia’s sandwiching of the “we do Him honor in our pledge of allegiance” remark between mentions of the Constitution is plainly meant to confer Founding Fathers/Constitutional gravity on the 1954 addition of “under God” to the Pledge.
The “in the best of American traditions” claim renders his ploy transparent, if there were any doubt. Supreme cynic Scalia knows perfectly well that most conservative Americans have no idea that the Founders didn’t write “one nation, under God, indivisible.”
It’s difficult to come up with a more egregious example of intellectual dishonesty than that.