Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Discusses Church-State Separation

ASSOCIATED PRESS / Las Vegas Sun ^ | 1.12.03 | ASSOCIATED PRESS /

[rface]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia complained Sunday that courts have gone overboard in keeping God out of government.

Scalia, speaking at a religious ceremony, said the constitutional wall between church and state has been misinterpreted both by the Supreme Court and lower courts.

As an example, he pointed to a ruling in California that barred students from saying the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "one nation under God."

That appeals court decision is on hold pending further consideration by the same court, but the Supreme Court could eventually be asked to review the case.

Scalia, the main speaker at an event for Religious Freedom Day, said past rulings by his own court gave the judges in the Pledge case "some plausible support" to reach that conclusion.

However, the justice said he believes such decisions should be made legislatively, not by courts.

The rally-style event drew a lone protester, who silently held a sign promoting the separation of church and state.

"The sign back here which says `Get religion out of government,' can be imposed on the whole country. I have no problem with that philosophy being adopted democratically. If the gentleman holding the sign would persuade all of you of that, then we could eliminate `under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. That could be democratically done," said Scalia.

The rest of the crowd repeatedly cheered Scalia, whose son, Paul, is a priest at a nearby Catholic church. The justice, also a Catholic, is a father of nine.

Several hundred people joined him in singing "God Bless America" after a brief parade through downtown.

"He's the voice of reason on the Supreme Court," said Jim McFall, a retired FBI agent who organized the Knights of Columbus parade. "His remarks were right on the money. The pendulum has swung too far and people have said `enough is enough.' We'll see it swing back."

Scalia used the event to repeat criticisms that the Constitution is being liberally interpreted. "It is a Constitution that morphs while you look at it like Plasticman," he said.

The Constitution says the government cannot "establish" or promote religion, but Scalia said the framers did not intend for God to be stripped from public life.

"That is contrary to our whole tradition, to `in God we trust' on the coins, to (presidential) Thanksgiving proclamations, to (congressional) chaplains, to tax exemption for places of worship, which has always existed in America."

[jo6pac]

Slavery is against the ideals that the Bill of Rights states - and is also against the laws that the Constitution decrees.

Some founding fathers were slaveholders. The BoR was for white men. It was not unconstitutional until after a civil war and an amendment.

[jo6pac]

See #21

[Notwithstanding]

You are still a bit off. Legal documents need to be looked at carefully - each word matters.

no laws "respecting an __ESTABLISHMENT__ of religion" are allowed

for centuries "ESTABLISHMENT" had a fixed meaning: "A form of government, civil or ecclesiastical; especially, a system of religion maintained by the civil power; as, the Episcopal establishment of England" (Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996).

thus only true "establishment" of something along the lines of a Church of England (with an episcopal hierarchy established by the government).

[jo6pac]

Today we've destroyed this safeguard by allowing judges to legislate from the bench, the Constitution not withstanding.

Interpreting the law IS legislating from the bench.

[Double Tap]

Sorry, your the one playing word games. The amendment clearly states that congress can not make laws that respect one establishment, or organized group, of religion over another. The original intent was to make sure that the government did not make a state religion, or favor one religion over another. That all religions, of lack of belief, could be practiced freely.

[Notwithstanding]

You are flat out wrong.

In a legal and historical context, your definition of "establishment" is in error.

History also PROVES you wrong in that some state constitutions in effect at the same time (both before and after the US Constitution was retifies) forbade establishment while these same states mandated that local communities collect taxes to fund Christian worhip services.

Likewise, after the US Constitution was ratified Congress funded Christian chaplains for itself. Likewise, Congress continues to fund military chaplains (and has done so for 200 years).

[Double Tap]

"of lack of" should be "or lack of"

[Double Tap]

It is not my definition. It is a definition of the word, and it has been for a long time.

After the Constitution was ratified, many things continued to be done that were clearly unconstitutional.

[Notwithstanding]

Its one definition - but the law does not merely allow you to apply the definition of choice.

"establishment" is a term that had a particular legal meaning when used to discuss religion and government interaction - UNTIL the activist supreme court redefined it during the last century in order to suppress religion

I wish you could admit your lack of knowledge in this area.

[Double Tap]

You are the one who needs to do some thinking. Do you really believe that the Constitution allows states to levy taxes to support a particular religion?

The Constitution is clearly written. Try reading it. Try not to bend it to your benefit.

[SandRat]

Remember the constitution says freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Yes it says that congress shall make no laws establishing religion, but it also goes on to say nor shall congess make any laws prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Much like all of the bill of rights you have to read the whole ammendment just not the parts you want.

[dirtydanusa]

Slavery was part of our tradition, too. Should we bring it back?

Slavery is still alive and well in the U.S. The slaves just happen to be in third world nations. When you're paying a Chinese worker $0.20 an hour to make products for here and the CEO who moved our jobs over there is pocketing millions, what do you call it?

[JaimeD2]

I'll give you this to think about: the Constitution, and the first amendment, are federal law. It says "Congress shall make no laws...," which begs the question: to whom exactly does this apply? I don't propose a clear answer, since I'm no lawyer, but it seems that it could specifically be referring the federal Congress and not the congress of any individual state. Would that, then, allow the states themselves to pass laws which touch on religion? This idea is particularly striking in the context of the tenth amendment, and since amendments crafted to explicitly deal with the rights of states usually begin with "No state shall..." I've often wondered about this, since I live in Maryland, which was a Catholic state at the time it ratified the Constitution, and nobody then seemed to see that as much of a contradiction.

[Double Tap]

The original intent was a prohibition on the US Congress from making laws on religion. The Fourteenth Amendment made it applicable to states as well.

[jo6pac]

Remember the constitution says freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Yes it says that congress shall make no laws establishing religion, but it also goes on to say nor shall congess make any laws prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

OK

Much like all of the bill of rights you have to read the whole ammendment just not the parts you want.

OK

No argument from me.

[rface]

The original intent was to make sure that the government did not make a state religion, or favor one religion over another. That all religions, of lack of belief, could be practiced freely.

Well, I guess we agree....imagine that!

[JaimeD2]

I can see that, given the context. The Fourteenth Amendment was a great consolidation of federal control; the "equal protection" clause, meant to apply to freed slaves, does seem to make all things federal, including the prohibition of establishment of religion, apply to the states as well. While I doubt that was intended, it could certainly be read that way. I always get a bit wary when closely scruitinizing the language of the Constitution and separating that from perceived intent, though, because a particularly careful reading of the second amendment, which is a grammatical nightmare on par with this sentence, seems to not protect the rights of individual gun owners. And I'm not so sure that was intended.

[rface]

The BoR was for white men. It was not unconstitutional until after a civil war and an amendment.

I don't see anything about "white men" in the BoR, but in some of the documents I see phrases like "All men are endowed etc."

What is the amendment written after the Civil War that you refer to? .....

[JaimeD2]

He's referring to the thirteenth. It's pretty explicit: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

[jo6pac]

Prior to the 14th Amendment, slaves were not under federal jurisdiction. They were an issue handled by individual states...and considered property - no rights.