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."

[Double Tap]

I have to disagree with you on the Second Amendment. It is very clear on the meaning. The "militia clause" is not a modifier or limiter on the right. The subject of the sentence, "the right to keep and bear arms", is clearly meant for the people. The "people" clearly is the individual.

You might want to find a copy of J. Neil Schulman's "Stopping Power". It has a very good section on the sentence structure of the Second Amendment.

[jo6pac]

Thanks

[JaimeD2]

Let me retract that second part of the post about the text of the second amendment; I don't want to get killed. I've looked up some more sources on it, and I'm finding "expert" opinions which contradict each other, all from leigitimate experts. A good resource for people who want to see how the second amendment may, grammatically, protect the rights of individual gun owners is:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1444

[JaimeD2]

What a coincidence (actually, it's probably not). The article I just linked to is by Schulman, called "The Unabridged Second Amendment."

[Double Tap]

Yep, that is the one. Good find.

[Dajjal]

Wouldn't have thought that Justice Scalia read Plasticman. LOL!

[rface]

for the record:

After I learned a bit about what Gov. Ryan has done, I must say that he has made a terrible mistake.

[Notwithstanding]

Do you really believe that the Constitution allows states to levy taxes to support a particular religion?

Again, you are not very careful and need to be more careful.

The relevant question is: "Do you really believe that the Constitution allows states to levy taxes to support religious worship?" (for some 50 years after the Constitution was ratified states mandated local taxing to support the local worship services of various Christian denominations - but stopped short of limiting such practice to one particular "established" church)

To that question my answer is: YES

To answer "no" one has to be ignorant of law and history - something that is understandable given the revisionism that is prevalent in our press and academia.

[Notwithstanding]

1. You are wrong about Maryland being Catholic at the time of ratification.

2. Up until the post-civil war amendments, the states could establish a religion for their state if they so desired and their own state constitution allowed it. (Thus Utah could have Constitutionally established Mormonism as the state religion if their state constitution allowed for that and the people enacted such a measure legislatively). This all cahnged after the civil war amendments, with the states now being generally bound to the bill of rights (a s they had not previously been bound.

[Double Tap]

Who in hell do you think you are? I asked a relevent question and you tell me I need to be careful?

Which religion should my tax dollars go to? I'm sure it will be Christianity, right? What about Islam? What about Jews?

Next question. Do the states that levied taxes for religious worship before the civil war still do that? Of course not. Why? Because it was unconstitutional.

Revisionist? You're the King of Revisionist history.

Go pound sand.

[Khepera]

Only if we can enslave you like you try to do us.

[jo6pac]

huh?

[Notwithstanding]

Who in hell do you think you are? I asked a relevent question and you tell me I need to be careful?

--> Your problem is that you think constitutional law is based upon colloquial contemproary English and that precise wording is irrelevant. The question you asked was not quite the one that is legally relevant. The answer to the question you asked is also legally not relevant.

Which religion should my tax dollars go to? I'm sure it will be Christianity, right? What about Islam? What about Jews?

--> There is no Constitutional prohibition from government dollars being spent to further Christian worship or Muslim prayer services. The notion that such spending was prohibited is a novel one that started well over 100 years after ratification. Even now federal dollars spent directly to further a wide array of religious activity aroudn the globe - military chaplains of all faiths are funded and chapels, supplies and other chaplain services are funded directly via tax dollars. Even wiccans now get federal tax dollars for military chaplaincy activity.

Next question. Do the states that levied taxes for religious worship before the civil war still do that? Of course not. Why? Because it was unconstitutional.

--> As noted, its the feds that actually still do so. And to the extent the states fund a national guard unit, they too fund chaplains. Likewsie with legislative chaplains in federal and state legislatures. All of the states prudentially chose to defund most of the other funding programs - they were never ruled unconstitutional.

Revisionist? You're the King of Revisionist history.

--> you are dead wrong and mad at me for pointing that out

Go pound sand.

--> your intellectual argument is just fascinating

[Double Tap]

Mad at you?

You are not worth anger.

I pity you.

[Notwithstanding]

Apparently you cannot refute my arguments.

[bvw]

Re legio. "About the Law". Religion.

You can't avoid religion, just create one. The current State Religion is very fierce btw. It is a Dewey Secularism, with some admixtures of Frankism, Voodoo, etc.

And I abhor having MY money go towards that beast.

[Notwithstanding]

one of the best posts I have ever read hear at FR

short

pertinent

witty

conservative

(and I agree with it)

[rwfromkansas]

He is a libertarian probably and they use the liberal debate tactics when it comes to Constitutional issues like this. Just ignore his liberal mind.

[curtis_ekstrom]

It is somewhat comforting to see a supreme court justice take a positive, and truly correct approach on the separation of church and state. As he said, the separation existed only on the national level, that Congress could make no religion supreme above all others. Today, that has been interpreted to mean that God doesn't belong in government. Surely, this is a dangerous trend. When you start to leave and deny the one person who protects this country out of the government, the moral fabrics of society begin to stretch, and over time tear. This is only one of the necessary reforms that the government must make to ensure our freedom as a nation. Well said, Mr. Supreme Court Justice, and thank you for defending God. It was a nice surprise, and I look forward to more of them.

[Askel5]

I wonder what other things he thinks could be done "democratically"?

HEAR HEAR!!

I'm tired of truth derived by majority rule and the "Democratization" of other nations by Acts of Congress upon the close of Clean Hands moral wars.