Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Claims Americans Don’t Have Freedom From Religion

justice-antonin-scaliaI know removing a Supreme Court Justice is nearly impossible, but I’m not sure how Antonin Scalia’s continued presence on the bench is justified. It’s clear he doesn’t rule by the letter of the law, or even the Constitution, but by his own personal – overtly biased – feelings.



If there’s a court case based upon political ideologies, you don’t have to wonder how he’s going to rule – we already know. Not only is he conservative, but he’s basically a “tea party” justice sitting on that bench.

It’s ridiculous.

Take for instance comments he recently made at a Catholic high school in Louisiana where he essentially said people don’t have the Constitutional right to freedom from religion.

According to The Hill:

On Saturday, he said the First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing one religion over another. But, he added, that doesn’t mean the government has to favor non-religion over religion.

So, the government can’t endorse a religion – but it has the right to favor religion over non-religion? Let’s be honest, freedom of religion is the same as freedom from religion. Because anytime someone is forced to have another person’s religious views thrust upon them, that’s a violation of their rights to freedom of religion, even if they don’t believe in any religion.

The bottom line is, religion should be kept out of government – all government – completely.

But that’s not all Scalia said.

“God has been very good to us,” he said. “One of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor.”

Ah, yes – “done him honor.” Whatever that means. One would think if God favored one nation over another, that a nation founded on Christianity would be the more “favored nation.” Though as we all know, this nation was not founded on Christianity – which is why there’s not a single reference to it anywhere in the Constitution.



Scalia also said that religious neutrality shouldn’t be “crammed down the throats” of people and that he doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with presidents or politicians evoking God in speeches.

Shocker.

But these comment should serve as a reminder to every liberal who might be thinking of sitting out the 2016 election. With four Supreme Court Justices potentially retiring in the next 4-8 years, can this country survive a Republican president appointing four Scalia-types to replace them who’ll likely sit on the Supreme Court for the next 20-30 years?

I certainly don’t want to find out. But if you do, then by all means, stay home. Let Republicans tear apart abortion rights, religious freedom, voting rights and legalized same-sex marriage. If potentially preventing all of that progress from being undone isn’t worth getting out and voting blue in November, then stay home – be an absentee Republican.

Because that’s exactly what you’ll be.




Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Jim Bean

    For shame. The author twisted “that doesn’t mean the government has to favor (demonstrate a preference for) non-religion over religion” into ‘not favoring (showing a preference for) non-religion equals favoring religion.

    That is completely illogical.

    Now lets look at the authors line, “The bottom line is, religion should be kept out of government – all government – completely.” To do that you’d have to find away to ensure that no one selected to serve in a public office is a pure atheist. Its equally illogical to think that was intent of those who penned the document.

    • BobJThompson

      For the government to not favor 1 religion over another, they would need to give nods to all major religions at the same time. Matter of fact, that should happen. I’d love to see the freakout.

    • frivolous01

      Wrong, it means that anyone selected to serve in a public office must be able to separate their religious beliefs from their constitutional duties; which, by the way, thousands have been able to do over the years.