Can you point out specifically what is incorrect in that quote? Those are not only the beliefs of Scalia, btw, but a simple affirmation of what SCOTUS precedent currently means on the subject-- ie, “ceremonial deism”.
I’d like to see “under God” taken out of the pledge, and I think it would be better public policy to do so. But, as long as the act is constitutional, the majority **can **tell the minority to “quit complaining”. That’s simply called democracy.
John Mace, is the funding issue that tomndebb mentioned the political pressure you feel would force the Supreme Court to take the case? As crowmanyclouds mentioned, I think that would likely seem too infantile a response for the Supreme Court to worry about.
I wasn’t thinking of funding, but the of the “court stripping” as I think it’s called. It’s equivalent to the nuclear option being tossed aroung in the Senate-- Congres can rule that the Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over a certain piece of legislation. I don’t know the legal status of that action, but I believe it is untested. Or, that there could be some other challenge to their authority. They have it pretty damn good right now, power-wise, and to lose that power would be a big blow.
Also, the Supremes are human and thus not unaffected by public opinion (except maybe Scalia 
). If they go too far outside the mainstream, they’ll be marginalized and generally disrespected-- not only by the people, but by their fellow jurists.
I would certainly agree that they are **much **less open to political pressure than are legislators, but they are not immune from it either. Most people do like to be well thought of.
I guess we just disagree. Most people seem to agree (perhaps you don’t?) that if instead of “under God” the pledge said “under Jesus Christ”, then it definitely would NOT be constitutional. Really, what’s the difference? Just that “under God” fits with 3 main religions rather than just one?
What’s the third one? I can only think of 2 - Christianity and Judaism. Or are you counting Catholicism seperately from Christianity?
I’m betting John would consider “under Jesus Christ” constitutional as well, so long as they don’t grab you and physically force you to move your lips and expel air from your lungs.
That would be a disaster. It would destory the Checks and Balances system, and would itself be a trashing of the Constitution.
Islam. (Allah is simply Arabic for God and Arab Christians pray to Allah.)
One can argue the extent of damage to the system of checks and balances, but it would not trash the Constitution because it is in the Constitution. So far, Congress has never attempted to execute that provision in any major way and the issues it raises are many, (to say nothing of the problem with having someone decide what it exactly means), but it is actually included in the Constitution.
Article III, Section 2 (Excerpt):
I guess technically you could say God is the translation of Allah, but English-speaking Muslims would tend to use “Allah” rather than “God”, even when speaking English, wouldn’t they? So really, “God” only fits 2 religions.
You learn something new every day.
Not necessarily. This wouldn’t be a blanket overruling of Maybury vs Madison, but only for the **specific **legislation in question. And to do that, Congress would have to have a lot of political capital to spend-- ie, they have to make sure they don’t piss off the electorate. Similar to the “nuclear option”, it could just as easily backfire. The ulitimate check and balance is us-- ie, we the people.
What planet did you derive that malarkey from? I’ve heard English-speaking muslims use the word God when speaking about their deity.
Not on TV programs like “24” or in movies.
Actually, it’s not at all uncomon to hear, even on TV: “God is Great” and “God willing”. Very common. OTOH, “praise be to Allah” seems to be the norm for some reason.
This is a serious question, so don’t think I’m being clever or snide. Does it really matter if we say God, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Creator, Great Architect etc? It is still the same Being. If I remember, when directly asked for his name in the Bible, God answered “I AM”. He was saying names and labels were unimportant to him (?).
That’s what scares me,congress wouldn’t do it unless they knew it would be popular!
In an age where seemingly rational, civilized people can be led by their leaders to commit genocide,striping a minority of a constitutional right or two is a piece o cake.
We’ve had entire threads dedicated to figuring out whether all religions do or do not pray to the same divine entity. You’re not going to get a quick answer that does not bring an objection from someone.
You’re probably right. I better leave it alone.
If I’m incorrect, I welcome your input, but I don’t see any reason for you to be rude about it.
My problem with it is this,
What if the 1st amendment had a dog clause “no dogs, of any kind, on any of the furniture, at any time”
My reading of Scalia is (I cite him as a/the leader of the school of interpretation he favors), first read the words. If the wording is clear,game over !
If the text is ambiguous, yielding several conflicting interpretations, Scalia turns to the specific legal tradition flowing from that text – to “what it meant to the society that adopted it.”
Dogs ?, members of the species Canis ? The sofa,is that furniture ?
Scalia notes that he will sometimes refer to Hamilton’s and Madison’s Federalist papers, but “I do so… not because they were framers and therefore their intent is authoritative and must be the law; but rather because their writings, like those of other intelligent and informed people of the time, display how the text of the Constitution was originally understood” “according to the “common sense” meaning and definition of the document’s words at the time they were written”, the ordinary meaning of the words.
So the dog clause should be easy to rule on. At most we might need a quick look at the dictionary (in Scalia,s case from the period ) to see if a sofa is historically defined as furniture, and what a dog is.
But alas no.
Enter "historical practices"from which we get “ceremonial deism”.
Washington writes how he was forced to share his bed, with his favorite bird dogs, during the bitter cold nights at Valley Forge.Something Martha would have never allowed.
Franklin waxes poetically on the joys of a crackling fire, a good book, and cuddling with a warm puppy on the couch.
Despite the clear text of the dog clause, as understood by the people of the time. We have exceptions allowing for it’s violation.
So now we have a “ceremonial dogism”.
Washington and Franklin let dogs on the furniture, and who cares if Martha complained (she never wrote it down) The clause actually means,some dogs, on some furniture, some times.
Have the words respecting, establishment, and religion changed their definitions that much since the 1780’s ?
Does the constant historic violation of an amendment erase it from the constitution.
I didn’t really follow your dog analogy, but I wanted to point out that “ceremonial deism” dates back to the 1960s, and was first used by the SCOTUS in 1963. Scalia joined the SCOTUS in 1986. Would you want him to ignore precedent?
IOW, Scalia certainly didn’t invent the term. It’s not some whacky phrase, but a well established legal doctrine, even if it can by fuzzy, and the SCOTUS has been inconsistent in its application. This would be true if Scalia had never lived, and if Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy had been on the SCOTUS instead.
It’s his jumping to it that I don’t get.
Why look for examples of ceremonial deism unless your trying to justify it !
Do you think the three words in question (respecting, establishment, religion) have a substantially different meaning today ?