Apos, you’re rambling. You don’t seem to dispute that there is a religous tradition in American civic life, so you aren’t disputing the existence of what Scalia actually said. You are just taking issue with some of his examples.
Which requires that I ask: since you acknowledge that this tradition exists, what examples do you think would be appropriate in describing it?
Regardless of whether some of the founders didn’t like it, the fact remains that Congress has for most of its existence had a chaplain; that presidents have often issued proclamations of prayer and thanksgiving; that religious entities have long held tax exempt status. Even if all of those examples weren’t present at the founding, they have certainly become ingrained in American culture over the past 200 plus years.
“In God We Trust” may be of later vintage, but it’s been around long enough to qualify as well. After all, Christmas trees and Santa Claus weren’t around at the time of Christ’s birth, but they still evidence a religious tradition of honoring that event.
If you have issues with the way American culture has developed and see serious constitutional objections to the course of that river, fine. I have no quarrel with that, nor do I have any problem with your general dislike of Scalia’s methods of interpretation. But that’s not what your OP is claiming. Your OP is claiming historical ignorance embedded in Scalia’s comments, a historical ignorance that simply isn’t there.
—You don’t seem to dispute that there is a religous tradition in American civic life, so you aren’t disputing the existence of what Scalia actually said.—
Are you out of it or someinthg? Are you even aware of the subject of this discussion? The subject of Scalia’s talk was not, however much one might desire to confuse the subjects “does our nation have a religious tradition” but rather “should our government practice a religion, accomodate religious demands on government, and include religion in its official duties?”
—You are just taking issue with some of his examples.—
Well, some of them are historically incorrect. That, I guess, is an “issue” with them. They are also being used as support for a legal view by a man who believes that changes to the Constitution requires amendments, not a tradition of abuse.
—Your OP is claiming historical ignorance embedded in Scalia’s comments, a historical ignorance that simply isn’t there.—
My OP takes issue with the statement “which has always existed in America” (note, that doesn’t even date it specifically to Constitution, but even before), which is simply not true in at least two cases. As for those outspoken “founders” they are the very ones Scalia is in the habit of citing as authorities on what the original language meant. Madison was on the commitee that drafted the language of the establishment clause, and the language was not only largely his, but he left ample amounts of writing to say exactly what the words that were passed meant, in detail. Yet Scalia can’t seem to find these writings in his supposedly scrupulous studies of the founders.
Obviously the “which has always existed in America” part of the sentance refers to the tradition itself and not the examples he listed. That’s why he used the word “has” and not the word “have.”
Do you honestly think that Justice Scalia doesn’t know when “In God We Trust” was put on our coins? I mean, think what you will, but he’s no dummy.
The first sentence in the OP says,“For someone who believes in strict constructionism, and constantly cites original intent Justice Scalia has a remarkable gift for being less-than-accurate about the history he quotes as his authority.” From this I gathered the the point of this thread was Scalia’s alleged inaccuracy, rather then the broader subject of SOCAS.
They are “incorrect” only through a strained interpretation of what Scalia said: “That is contrary to our whole tradition, to `in God we trust’ on the coins, to Thanksgiving proclamations, to (Congressional) chaplains, to tax exemption for places of worship, which has always existed in America.” What’s the antecedent of the underlined pronoun, which? I think it’s “tradition.” He’s claiming that our whole religious tradition has always existed, not that each and every supporting example has always existed. Note that if the antecedent were the whole list of examples, Scalia would have said, "which have always existed.
However, “tradition of abuse” is merely someone’s opinion. If the Constitution has been understood a certain way ever since its ratification, I, too, would prefer to see changes made by amendment. I especially would not want to see a newly invented Constitutional interpretation used to invalidate democratically enacted laws, or, even worse, to create new laws.
Again, this is your misinterpretation. The religious tradition does indeed predate the Constitution.
Apos, misreading a quote in order to find fault with it is one of my pet peeves. Scalia’s comment makes sense under a reasonable interpretation. You have found an alternate interpretation under which the statement would be obviously inaccurate as well as ungrammatical. Why not assume that he meant what was reasonable. Nobody doubts that Scalia is very smart, which is another reason for presuming that the sensible interpretation is the one he intended.
Be that as it may, that is not what the OP was about. The OP was making a very specific complaint, namely that one particular statement of Scalia’s evidenced historical ignorance. The title of this thread is not “Scalia: how can you believe our government should practice a religion;” it is “Scalia: how can you cite history when you’re ignorant of the relevant parts?”
**
And again, a fair reading of the sentence indicates that a certain religious tradition has “always existed in America,” with the other stuff just acting as examples of that tradition. The mere fact that the unique role of religion in American civic life has been evidenced in different ways at different times does not alter the basic thesis that such a tradition has been with America from the start.