In Theory: Justice Scalia questions religious neutrality

Speaking at a Catholic high school in Louisiana earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said there is “no place” for religious neutrality in the country’s constitutional tradition and that God has been good to America because its citizens honor him, the Associated Press reports.

“To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?” he said. “To be sure, you can’t favor one denomination over another but can’t favor religion over nonreligion?”

Scalia also said there is “nothing wrong” with presidents publicly invoking the name of God.

“God has been very good to us. That we won the revolution was extraordinary. The Battle of Midway was extraordinary. I think one of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor,” Scalia said. “Unlike the other countries of the world that do not even invoke his name we do him honor. In presidential addresses, in Thanksgiving proclamations and in many other ways.”

Q. What do you think of Scalia’s comments?

--

Justice Scalia’s written opinions and public statements have long been a source of controversy. Unlike most members of the Supreme Court, he is candid to the point of bluntness about his personal view of key constitutional issues. He, in fact, made very similar comments about the separation of church and state two years ago while speaking at a Christian college.

Scalia, and others, are concerned because “neutrality” has been used to marginalize the influence of religion in society. Used correctly, to be neutral is to avoid preference for one over another. Instead, many have come to equate neutrality with a bias against religion.

Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, outlined the LDS perspective on church and state in an October speech to a conference of judges, legal scholars and clergy. He is uniquely qualified to explain the LDS viewpoint. Before becoming an apostle, Oaks was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, taught at the University of Chicago Law School and served as a justice of the Utah Supreme Court.

Neutrality, Oaks said, should not be viewed as an impenetrable wall that prevents any cooperation or accommodation between government and churches, or between religious and secular institutions. The constitutional proscription, he said, is more like a curtain “that defines boundaries but is not a barrier to the passage of light and love and mutual support from one side to another.”

“Of course there will be differences that must be resolved by the rule of law,” Oaks said. “But these occasional differences must not obscure the basic fact that we are in this together, we need each other, and we can resolve our differences through mutual respect, mutual understanding.”

Oaks’ comments complements Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ observation that the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” It was designed to enable individuals and organizations that inevitably will disagree to live together in relative harmony.

Michael White
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
La Crescenta

--

In the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the citizens had so abandoned God that he had in mind to destroy the twin kingdoms. When Abraham pled for him to refrain for the sake of the few godly inhabitants, God said that he would relent for sake of even 10 righteous people, if they could be found. Of course, God knew there were not even 10, and that ultimately, three would safely make it out alive, and that by God’s own escort. We all know what happened then.

Scalia is right, that America is blessed, and not by being a bastion of righteousness and for it’s overwhelming faithfulness to God, but for the sake of America’s righteous inhabitants (and there are far more than three here). From our nation’s beginnings we have recognized God’s hand in the affairs of man and have made pains to defer to him for our earthly success. Both our national motto and anthem declare that our trust is in him, and we pledge allegiance to what our flag represents: a “nation under God.”

Virtually all of our founding fathers were Christian men of various denominations. John Witherspoon, who was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was also a pastor. We’ve invoked God at all our critical moments, and we’ve stood out among western nations as the most Christian and missionary. We still have the largest Christian population in the world, and it is the Christian God that our forefathers had in mind when they drew up our laws and formed our nation. I am sorry, frankly, that they were not more specific, as in the case of the Pilgrims, to specifically name the God of Jesus Christ, or Yahweh, or simply “Jesus.” It is only under the Christian banner that all those of other religions (and no religion at all) may enjoy God’s benefits. But it may have been for the sake of non-Christian citizens that God’s mention has often been left generally vague. Yet, we are not some atheistic, Communist country, but one who has God in our fabric. Whether our people are growing more like the aforementioned cities, or our inflated Christian reputation is just that, the fact is that God still has people here, which means he is here as well. I pray we start acting like it before we become like all the other nations who have fully apostatized.

Rev. Bryan A. Griem
Tujunga

--

I think that such ignorance on the part of a Supreme Court justice is shocking but no surprise coming from Justice Scalia. He often has trouble with plain English. Here he seems to think that “an establishment of religion” forbidden in the U.S. Constitution means a particular religion and that government expressions of religion in general are just fine, which of course they are not.

He has also recently claimed that a Christian cross was a symbol for all religions and thus didn’t privilege Christianity over any other faith, so should be allowed at a government facility. This is wrong on all counts.

Justice Scalia is a legal loose cannon and appears to be getting worse with age, not a reassuring state of affairs for a lifetime appointee to our highest court.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose