|
||||||||
Posted on 11/23/2004 11:45:41 PM PST by churchillbuff
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia used an appearance at an Orthodox synagogue in New York to assail the notion that the US government should maintain a neutral stance toward religion, saying it has always supported religion and the courts should not try to change that.
Speaking at a conference on religious freedom in America on Monday hosted by Manhattan's Congregation Shearith Israel, the oldest Jewish congregation in North America, Scalia said that the founding fathers never advocated the separation of church and state and that America has prospered because of its religiousness.
"There is something wrong with the principle of neutrality," said Scalia, considered among the court's staunchest conservatives. Neutrality as envisioned by the founding fathers, Scalia said, "is not neutrality between religiousness and nonreligiousness; it is between denominations of religion."
Scalia cited early examples of support of religion in the public sphere by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, the last of whom went so far as to argue at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 for the institution of daily prayers.
Today, Scalia noted, the government exempts houses of worship from real-estate tax, pays for chaplains in Congress, state legislatures, and the military, and sanctions the opening of every Supreme Court session with the cry, "God save the United States!"
"To say that the Constitution allows the court to sweep away that long-standing attitude toward religion seems to me just wrong," he said. "I do think we're forgetting our roots."
Scalia's speech, at a conference marking the 350th anniversary both of Jews in America and of Shearith Israel, elicited a standing ovation.
Scalia was nominated to the nine-member Supreme Court in 1986 by president Ronald Reagan to fill the seat vacated by William Rehnquist, who became the chief justice after Warren Berger retired. Now, with speculation that Rehnquist is on the verge of retirement after a recent diagnosis of thyroid cancer, Scalia may be the leading candidate to take his place.
It is widely believed that President George W. Bush will appoint a staunch conservative as chief justice if he gets the chance, and the only other Supreme Court justice considered sufficiently conservative is Clarence Thomas, appointed by president George H.W. Bush.
Originally from New York, Scalia wore a black skull cap as he addressed the congregation with his back to the ark.
"The founding fathers never used the phrase 'separation of church and state,'" he said, arguing that rigid separation of religion and state – as in Europe, for example – would be bad for America and bad for the Jews.
"Do you think it's going to make Jews safer? It didn't prove that way in Europe," he said.
"You will not hear the word 'God' cross the lips of a French premier or an Italian head of state," Scalia said. "But that has never been the American way."
Most establishment Jewish groups, however, are staunch supporters of church-state separation. Earlier this month, for example, the American Jewish Committee was part of a coalition that won a lawsuit to block a Florida program allowing state aid to go to parochial schools. In 2000, the Anti-Defamation League led several Jewish groups in criticizing vice presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Lieberman for talking too much about God on the campaign trail.
Scalia said expunging religion from public life would be bad for America, and that the courts, instead, should come around to most Americans' way of thinking and to the founding fathers' vision for the US. He noted that after a San Francisco court last year barred the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because it includes the phrase "under God," Congress voted nearly unanimously to condemn the decision and uphold use of the phrase.
"I suggest that our jurisprudence should comport with our actions," he said.
If America's approach toward religion does change, it should be through democratic process, not "judicial fiat." America believes in "a personal God who takes an interest in the affairs of man," Scalia said. Quoting a line from Psalms that says the faithful will surely prosper, he added, "I think it is no accident that America has prospered."
I wish I had known about this so I could have gone.
These things MUST be MADE RIGHT!! Scalia and the NEW SUPREME Court along with the CONGRESS MUST MAKE IT RIGHT !!
This Tolarance and Supression of our Civil Religious Rights Must Stop! This country was founded on Judea Christian Beliefs any laws against this must be corrected or eliminated, Religions that try to change it must be invited to leave!
They want to emulate the old Soviet Union and make the state the only, and mandatory religion. Leftist's won't give up on the idea that the demise of the Soviet Union and communist states in general was some kind of accident.
It's sad most people don't call them what they really are at heart. Communists.
Progressive Democrat = COMMUNIST
|
||||||||
bump
Sadly, Justice Scalia announced some time ago that he intended to retire. I sincerely hope he reconsiders, is offered the Chief's chair, & accepts. I just don't think Thomas is up to the task of being the CJ & he certainly does not write opinions that can equal Scalia.
bttt
Also, blessings to the practicing and conservative Jews who made such a difference in this last election.
We need nine like Scalia and Thomas.
The whole world would reap the blessings.
"The founding fathers never used the phrase 'separation of church and state,'" he said, arguing that rigid separation of religion and state – as in Europe, for example – would be bad for America and bad for the Jews.Actually, Jefferson did use that phrase and Madison referred to separation between religion and government. Both directly stated the Constitution was the source of these. Meanwhile, the only mention of any deity in the Constitution is in the formal date, which was most likely added by a scribe."Do you think it's going to make Jews safer? It didn't prove that way in Europe," he said.
Jefferson said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." in 1782. In his autobiography he said "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.".
Madison said: "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
Scalia is rarely wrong, but he is on this issue. Europe has never had Separation to the degree that America does, it always practiced it's religious tolerance with exceptions. Once exceptions are allowed, anything can happen.
Separation has meant that America is the safest place in the world to be a Jew....or an atheist, a Muslim, a Buddhist, any kind of a Christian, or even a believer of one's own design.
-Eric
Empty public squares do not stay empty. The imps and goblins of atheism and agnosticism occupy them.
Context and timing is everything.
You can selectively view history from either side. There are just as many quotes to pull from our forefathers that include a God-based foundation for our Constitution.
I agree that it is wise to separate government from religion because that is one reason the colonies revolted against Great Britain's and The Church of England's rule. I believe as Justice Scalia does that we are losing one of the Constitution's most basic freedoms in our efforts to ensure that we don't have a religious tyranny, that is, our freedom OF religion. What you get as a result is a ruling that interprets it as freedom FROM religion.
Scalia, the traditionalist Catholic, vs the freemasons. The masons have been winning, nonetheless. But they won't win in the end.
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.
