Freedoms

[evmori]

Scalia Complains on Church-State Rulings

 

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

 

FREDERICKSBURG, Va. - Courts have gone too far to keep religion out of public schools and other forums, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.

 

Although the Constitution says the government cannot "establish" or promote religion, the framers did not intend for God to be stripped from public life, Scalia said Sunday at a religious ceremony.

 

He contended that the Constitution has been misinterpreted both by the Supreme Court and lower courts. As an example, he pointed to a federal appeals court ruling in California barring students from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "one nation under God."

 

That 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 the Supreme Court gave the judges in the pledge case "some plausible support" to reach that conclusion.

 

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

 

The rally-style event about 50 miles south of Washington 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," Scalia said. "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."

 

The crowd repeatedly cheered Scalia, whose son Paul, one of nine children, is a priest at a nearby Roman Catholic church.

 

Several hundred people joined the justice in singing "God Bless America" after a brief parade through downtown sponsored by the Knights of Columbus.

 

"He's the voice of reason on the Supreme Court," said Jim McFall, a retired FBI agent who organized the 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 reiterate criticisms that the Constitution is being liberally interpreted.

 

"It is a Constitution that morphs while you look at it like Plasticman," he said.

 

 

 

 

 

[pfann]

We have gone from freedom of religion to freedom FROM religion.

[le Voyageur]

This Supreme should be ashamed of taking this very one sided position. Freedom of religion means ANY religion...but, how soon we forget that when Christiany ruled the world, it was called the Dark Ages. Guess I'll go out and gather some firewood and save this Court sometime since free thinkers are the first to go....

[acco40]

One of the beauties of our country is freedom from the tyranny of the majority.

 

Yes individuals should be free to practice their own religious beliefs (to an extent) but for the Government to promote religion (generically or a particular religion) is wrong in my view. To many, One nation, under God - does promote religion. Therefore to them, it should not be recited, en mass, in public schools, U.S. senate, public office inaugurations, etc.

 

I would like to see our public schools not teach religion, but teach about religions. For example, compare different beliefs, explain why some beliefs came into existance, histories, etc. Primarily at the high school level. Because, your own religious beliefs be damned, religion is a part of our society and students should be aware of it.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[ASM7]

It seems like all of these people who talk about separating God from government has forgatten the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. It also seems to me that these peoples rights are granted by their Creator. So, do we want to separate the government of the people from the one who has granted these people with their rights? Read the words.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

Doug

[evmori]

Where does it say God & government must be separated? I know the government is not to endorse as specific religion. And by having a prayer said, is this endorsing a specific religion?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[firstpusk]

"It seems like all of these people who talk about separating God from government has forgatten the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence."

 

I think that is a pretty broad assumption about motivations. Our founders wanted the government to allow free exercise of religion and that is precisely why they wrote the it should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

 

They understood the danger of official religion. England had been torn apart by religious war only the century before. I thank God every day for their wisdom and I pray that someday Antonin Scalia might find some...

[SR540Beaver]

Ed,

 

Since most of us here in the US were brought up in a Judeo-Christian environment, we see a prayer said in a school or Congress that uses the phrase, "in Jesus's name we pray" as normal and not offensive. It is part of our norm and we don't think twice about it. What if 5 times a day a Muslim cleric walked into Congress, put down a prayer mat, turned to the East and started reciting his required prayers? We'd be asking why our Congress is endorsing this religion and allowing it to happen on the Senate floor!! Why, it has no place there, it's the government for crying out lound, not a mosque!! This is why many people who are not religious or of the Christian faith have a problem with overt Christian influence supported by government entities.

[littlebillie]

"since most of us here in the US were brought up in a Judeo-Christian environment, we see a prayer said in a school or Congress that uses the phrase, "in Jesus's name we pray" as normal and not offensive."

 

um... actually, MANY Jewish Americans that I know - brought up in that Judeo-Christian environment you mention - DO find the Jesus thing offensive, especially at civic and public gatherings that have no other tie to any religious function. kwc57, I know you're aware of that, certainly, but I wanted to clarify for others who may take it as Gospel (sorry) and follow it down the wrong path.

 

[Twocubdad]

Particulars of the case aside, I'm just glad to read that Justice Scalia hasn't already made up his mind on the case before hearing all the arguments.

[Quixote]

establishment of religion

 

Far cry from "Seperation of Church & State" and even a little different from "Freedom of Religion"

 

As for your point regarding Scalia, I would agree with those moral relativists out there on this one that it depends on your viewpoint as to his (and your) wisdom. But then again, what does he know, he's just one of the "supremes".

 

While we're on the subject, isn't it interesting how we lament society today not respecting the older generations and it's our generation that refers to Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States as "the supremes"

[pfann]

I am a little confused by reading all of these posts.

 

I re-read the original posts and I have some questions.

 

We know Scalia is a Catholic. Where in the article does Scalia advocate catholicism for everyone? Where does he say that catholicism or any other faith should be held in higher regard than another? Where dose he advocate the establishment of a national religion?

 

It seems to me that all he is saying is that the courts should not be so hostile to the exercise or expression of religious ideas in the public square.

 

In all my years I have never heard of a government employee telling people they had to express a certain faith. I have heard of many instances where a government worker told someone what they could NOT say or practice though.

[firstpusk]

"Particulars of the case aside, I'm just glad to read that Justice Scalia hasn't already made up his mind on the case before hearing all the arguments."

 

Close, actually Scalia makes up his mind BEFORE he hears the arguments.

[le Voyageur]

pfann

 

so you never heard a government employee tell people that they had to follow a certain faith. Sorry to say, I have, lots of time. Until 1978 Christianity was a manditory religion for native Americans. It's the reason I tend to bristle on this subject, but overall I'm glad the Federal government has come to it senses more or less, and have takened it's mandated theological leash off of our necks..

[firstpusk]

Native children were taken away from their communities and not allowed contact with home, to speak their native tongue or to practice their religion. Significant ceremonies were outlawed and religious practices obstructed by US government officials. Scalia has continued in that tradition on the court. Americans unaware of such practices or willfully ignorant like the "honorable" justice disgrace those that have sacrificed for those freedoms.