I wonder, though, if Scalia is right in apparently thinking we are better off on a secular foundation, legally and officially, a foundation that includes all.
Not to mention the fact that if you don’t have the freedom to NOT believe, then believing loses its meaning. It’s no longer a choice, so it’s nothing.
I suspect that Scalia was threading a needle, given his audience, and retained a theistic foundation of Nature Rights.
Just to be clear, you can have freedom to NOT believe in a GOD/Creator, but you can’t deny Mans ability for logic, reason and objective morality.
We can debate where those abilities come from but you must admit that they don’t come from Man.
He was adamant. Emotional. I don’t think he was at all catering to the crowd. Probably he disliked Napolitano the amateur.
I’m not going to get into the other debate here right now. I just finished telling some folks on Facebook that the former head of research for NASA believed we weren’t alone in the universe-—BECAUSE OF EZEKIEL 1! I don’t think they believed me, but it was true.