These Comments By Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Are Sure To Set Off A Firestorm

04 Oct, 2014 by Morgan Freeberg

Print this article Font size -16+

Returning once again to the issue of religious expression in proximity to public schools and other public resources:

During a speech at Colorado Christian University on Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit religious references in public places, including schools:

“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 nonreligion.”

Scalia suggested that if Americans want a more secular political system, such as those in Europe, they can “enact that by statute, but to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”

Haven’t much to add to this, that I didn’t already say in the post about the praying football team. Except for one thing: It seems a lot of this recent conflict has to do with an unstated “right” not too much explored in generations past, and not articulated word-for-word now. It is up to this new-right’s advocates to push for it, but up to its critics to define what exactly it is:

It is the right to go outside, venture in all sorts of directions, look left-right-up-down, and — not to see any evidence of anyone who believes differently. Muslims shouldn’t have to be reminded there are non-Muslims, feminists shouldn’t have to be reminded there are non-feminists, gun-control “advocates” shouldn’t be reminded there are people who believe in the right to self-defense, and atheists shouldn’t be reminded there are people who believe. That one right, it seems to me, is the one that is causing all, or most, of the trouble. Which is significant since it isn’t actually written down anywhere, except places like right here.

Such a right is fundamentally incompatible with the sustenance and preservation of any strong and meaningful civilization; especially one comprised of diverse assortments of creeds, national origins, cultures and values. If we’re really going to be a “melting pot” and not a salad bowl, that one needs to go.

Which really isn’t asking a whole lot, is it? I mean sure, there are people who believe in it and insist on it; but, they dare not say that is what they want, even as they refuse to settle for anything less. It’s probably a good rule of thumb that a right that refuses to say what it is, is a right we don’t need.