Speaking before about 400 students and faculty at Colorado Christian University this past Wednesday, Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that
secularists are wrong when they argue the Constitution requires religious
references to be removed from the public square. He opined that a battle is
underway over whether to allow religion in public life, from referencing God in
the Pledge of Allegiance, to holding prayers at school events and town hall meetings. “I think the main fight is to dissuade
Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true:
that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor
religion over non-religion.” Scalia said.
…and yet the First Amendment clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Where does it indicate favoritism towards religion? That a jurist on the Supreme Court can misinterpret the meaning is astounding!
Antonin Scalia conjures up a whole new interpretation
Alright, let’s take Scalia at his word, that he really believes
the First Amendment actually favors religion over non-religion.
Which religion does it favor? There is not just
one religion, so if we are to believe he means it, which religious faith is the
one that guides us? Scalia is a
professed Catholic, so should it be Roman Catholicism that is the moral compass
and guiding light of our nation? Most Pentecostals, Baptists and
Mormons will vehemently disagree with that idea. Should the Jews and Muslims be left out of
Constitutional protection, or is it extended to them because they at least believe
in some sort of supernatural entity?
Whose altar do we bow before?
Scalia continued, “We
do Him honor in our Pledge of Allegiance, in all our public ceremonies. There’s
nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t
let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the
secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution” meaning that in the past, secularists simply wanted the Constitution upheld. But no more. Upholding the Constitution has changed under his judicial guidance. It means the government is now free to impose
religion, ill-defined though it may be, on all of us.
Justice Scalia suggests that we already acknowledge god in our pledge
of allegiance, which is an odd position for him
to take since during his school years the phrase ‘under God’ wasn't even in
it. If we are one nation under god, which one do we stand under…Amon Ra, Wotan,
Kulkukan, Zeus, Brahma, Quetzalcoatl, or The Great Spirit? It can’t just be the gods that Europeans
brought over when they wrestled the American continents away from the original inhabitants. The native’s various deities were sacred and revered before the
immigrants arrived, so those gods should be included in those we stand beneath. And it was only a year ago that Scalia admitted that he believed
the devil was a real being, so he apparently recognizes Satanism as legitimate. Wouldn't it be logical then to include Satan as worthy of worship since Satanism is recognized as a religion?
Americas list of gods to worship continues to grow
Freedom of religion means the freedom not to worship at all. People can do what they like as long as they allow others to do the same
without forcing it on anyone. Thanks to Scalia, we may have 'freedom of religion' re-interpreted as ‘we have to worship some god…but we have the freedom to
choose which one.’ If the government gets to impose a religion on us, what happens if it turns out to be, say, the "Christianity" as practiced by Westboro Baptist Church? Would
Antonin Scalia use the power of the court to force all Americans to adhere to Westboro’s concept of what god wants? In which case, who is going to protect us
from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia?
No comments:
Post a Comment