Scalia says religion infuses U.S. government and history
By VERENA DOBNIK
Associated Press Writer

November 22, 2004, 4:04 PM EST

NEW YORK -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Monday that a religion-neutral government does not fit with an America that reflects belief in God in everything from its money to its military.

"I suggest that our jurisprudence should comport with our actions," Scalia told an audience attending an interfaith conference on religious freedom at Manhattan's Shearith Israel synagogue.

An outspoken conservative, Scalia joined a gathering that included the chief judge of New York state, Judith Kaye, a member of this Orthodox synagogue where the late Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo had worshipped.

The discussion in the century-old edifice was lively.

"I have spent many private hours with Justice Scalia _ in print," said Kaye, who has led New York's highest court for almost a dozen years since she was appointed by Gov. Mario Cuomo, a liberal Democrat.

Scalia, 68, addressed the topic of government and its relationship to religion.

In the synagogue that is home to America's oldest Jewish congregation, he noted that in Europe, religion-neutral leaders almost never publicly use the word "God."

But, the justice asked, "Did it turn out that, by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America? I don't think so."

Also participating in the three-hour session was Shearith Israel's senior rabbi, Marc Angel, as well as prominent members of New York's Protestant, Roman Catholic and Muslim clergy. Speakers included the Rev. James Forbes Jr. of Riverside Church, the Rev. Arthur Caliandro of the Marble Collegiate Church and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of the New York-based American Sufi Muslim Association, whose aim is to foster an American-Muslim identity.

Scalia told them that while the church-and-state battle rages, the official examples of the presence of faith go back to America's Founding Fathers: the word "God" on U.S. currency; chaplains of various faiths in the military and the legislature; real estate tax-exemption for houses of worship _ and the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Last year, Scalia removed himself from the Supreme Court's review of whether "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, after mentioning the case in a speech and complaining that courts are stripping God from public life.

"None of this is compatible with what we say when we express the so-called principle of neutrality," Scalia said.

He could be tapped as a possible nominee for chief justice should Chief Justice William Rehnquist step down because of his thyroid cancer.

Scalia was named to the Supreme Court in 1986 by President Reagan.

Since then, Scalia _ a Catholic raised in Queens and father of nine children, one a priest _ has become an anti-abortion hero to many in the American political right and a leading conservative voice on the court.

An "originalist," Scalia believes in following the Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers, rather than interpreting it to reflect the changing times.

"Our Constitution does not morph," he said Monday, deadpanning, "As I've often said, I am an originalist, I am a textualist, but I am not a nut."

Earlier this year, Scalia cast one of two dissenting votes in a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling that states may deny taxpayer-funded scholarships to divinity students.

At the time, Scalia wrote: "Let there be no doubt: This case is about discrimination against a religious minority."

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ ... 5814.story

Scalia in shul: State must back religion
Uriel Heilman, THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 23, 2004

US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia used an appearance at an Orthodox synagogue in New York to assail the notion that the US government should maintain a neutral stance toward religion, saying it has always supported religion and the courts should not try to change that.

Speaking at a conference on religious freedom in America on Monday hosted by Manhattan's Congregation Shearith Israel, the oldest Jewish congregation in North America, Scalia said that the founding fathers never advocated the separation of church and state and that America has prospered because of its religiousness.

"There is something wrong with the principle of neutrality," said Scalia, considered among the court's staunchest conservatives. Neutrality as envisioned by the founding fathers, Scalia said, "is not neutrality between religiousness and nonreligiousness; it is between denominations of religion."

Scalia cited early examples of support of religion in the public sphere by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, the last of whom went so far as to argue at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 for the institution of daily prayers.

Today, Scalia noted, the government exempts houses of worship from real-estate tax, pays for chaplains in Congress, state legislatures, and the military, and sanctions the opening of every Supreme Court session with the cry, "God save the United States!"

"To say that the Constitution allows the court to sweep away that long-standing attitude toward religion seems to me just wrong," he said. "I do think we're forgetting our roots."

Scalia's speech, at a conference marking the 350th anniversary both of Jews in America and of Shearith Israel, elicited a standing ovation.

Scalia was nominated to the nine-member Supreme Court in 1986 by president Ronald Reagan to fill the seat vacated by William Rehnquist, who became the chief justice after Warren Berger retired. Now, with speculation that Rehnquist is on the verge of retirement after a recent diagnosis of thyroid cancer, Scalia may be the leading candidate to take his place.

It is widely believed that President George W. Bush will appoint a staunch conservative as chief justice if he gets the chance, and the only other Supreme Court justice considered sufficiently conservative is Clarence Thomas, appointed by president George H.W. Bush.

Originally from New York, Scalia wore a black skull cap as he addressed the congregation with his back to the ark.

"The founding fathers never used the phrase 'separation of church and state,'" he said, arguing that rigid separation of religion and state – as in Europe, for example – would be bad for America and bad for the Jews.

"Do you think it's going to make Jews safer? It didn't prove that way in Europe," he said.

"You will not hear the word 'God' cross the lips of a French premier or an Italian head of state," Scalia said. "But that has never been the American way."

Most establishment Jewish groups, however, are staunch supporters of church-state separation. Earlier this month, for example, the American Jewish Committee was part of a coalition that won a lawsuit to block a Florida program allowing state aid to go to parochial schools. In 2000, the Anti-Defamation League led several Jewish groups in criticizing vice presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Lieberman for talking too much about God on the campaign trail.

Scalia said expunging religion from public life would be bad for America, and that the courts, instead, should come around to most Americans' way of thinking and to the founding fathers' vision for the US. He noted that after a San Francisco court last year barred the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because it includes the phrase "under God," Congress voted nearly unanimously to condemn the decision and uphold use of the phrase.

"I suggest that our jurisprudence should comport with our actions," he said.

If America's approach toward religion does change, it should be through democratic process, not "judicial fiat." America believes in "a personal God who takes an interest in the affairs of man," Scalia said. Quoting a line from Psalms that says the faithful will surely prosper, he added, "I think it is no accident that America has prospered."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 8113566627

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
—Thomas Jefferson

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/ ... index.html

Incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Sunday had harsh words for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas."I think that his opinions are poorly written. I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice."

But the Nevada Democrat said that he could support Thomas' fellow conservative, Justice Antonin Scalia, if he were nominated.

"I cannot dispute the fact, as I have said, that this is one smart guy," Reid said of Scalia. "And I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reasons for arriving at those results are very hard to dispute."

Im just curious, since I agree with Mr. Reid on this statement, in regards to jurisprudence where would you suggest Scalias opinions were unfounded?

There is nothing necessarily wrong with religion or religious beliefs.

I believe that religion can be, and often is, a good thing for many people in the world.

It is also well known that nearly all governments throughout history have based at least some of their laws and organization on religious law and beleif. This is nothing new.

But all that being said, I still think it is important that the government (for the most part) not take an active role in religion. I believe the government should recognize that religion is an inherant part of humanity, and should most certainly allow its existance.

I think, at least in part, what Scalia is saying is that he does not want the government to become involved in a negative way against religion. He thinks the existance of religion is important.

Where we differ, is that I think religious neutrality of government is important. Where we agree is that I, like him, believe that the government should not stifle religious expression or belief.

You don't find it somewhat disturbing that somebody who is suppose to uphold the Constitution has a right to tell me what God is and how people in this country should behave, according to what his beliefs are?

I dont necessairly adhere to the belief that he is taking the country in that direction.

He is not taking nearly as proactive stance as is implied and he is not stating that religious beliefs should guide the country, only that they must be protected. In doing so he does not suggest his support of any particular theology either. I think you are misinterpreting his words, if you have ever actually read his opinions, youd realize they are rather articulate.

Again, where did he state what god is? Secondly, it is his duty, above all else, to tell the people in this country how to behave.

Please refer to my edited post, Im sorry after submitting it I realized it wasnt nearly as thorough as I wished.

This is, essentially, one of the points I was trying to make. Thank you. I think people have become predisposed to interpreting judicial opinions along party lines rather than interpreting them objectively. If there is any part of the government where you should PERSONALLY take interest in addition to actually reading the opinions of the court. With the exception of Justice Thomas and Ginsburg I am actually quite content with the rest of our Justices. Perhaps this reflects my centrists nature, I cant be certain though.

This is a great post...

sometimes people confuse freedom of religion with freedom from relgion.

can't argue with that.....

As long as I can get good bagels with lox and whitefish I'm happy!

there is no god. People who believe in something that makes no sense are weak minded. I used to not care about if people believed or not but now it is starting to bug me. Religious people always try to force their views on you. do atheist do this. no they dont. and i hate when people do something(i.e. send us to a war that we shouldn't be in) and say "oh god wants it that way" besides why is it always the christian god that is the right one and all of the other ones are wrong. people who are religious need to grow up and start living in the real world

This really is unneccesary and does not help the discussion at all.

I understand that you have a dissenting opinion, but please try and verbalize it in a manner that is less derisive.

And to be fair, some religious and non religious people have been known to force their views on others.

Do you mean besides you and the 9th Circuit?

i'm not forcing my views. I am just stating them. It is the religious people that wont leave you alone when you say you dont believe. and then they say you're going to hell

you're calling people who believe in God as weak minded...granted, that's not forcing your views on anyone...but it's illustrating your own sort of ignorance...

and the secularist 9th Circuit has a long history of forcing their views on people.

Oh how I wish it was that easy.

Generally I used to come to that conclusion myself. However, if you are really being true to yourself you have to leave the possibility that you are wrong and there is a god. Is it highly improbable? I'm not sure how that shit breaks down if you go into infinite time and space. But any way I agree it's bullshit to have to listen to someone else tell me I will go and burn somewhere because I wasn't at church or where ever.

sorry if i am offending anyone. i am a doctor at a hospital and i work with people who do nothing but pray and talk about religion, yet they will pick on other people and say negative things because they look a certain way or have something wrong with them. it seems as if people use religion as a front to basically do whatever they want because "if they believe then nothing they do is wrong." i see our leaders as being like this too.

Maybe it doesn't make sense to you. Big deal. NOT believing in God doesn't make sense to me, so that, by your reasoning, makes you weak-minded.

Actually, I think it is your reasoning itself that would make you weak-minded.



Lies. You are trying to force you views on others right now by suggesting they are weak-minded if they disagree with your atheist viewpoint.






Riggghhtt......

I'll have you know that some of the best, most genuine people I have met are deeply religious. That is not to say that those who are not religious are losers, but religion and reality are not mutually exclusive. Religion and intelligence are not mutually exclusive.

I agree...I'm not really religious myself and I hate it when I'm accosted by some zealot on the street about accepting a savior....but I'm equally offended by secular zealots.