THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD
(apologies to Keith Olbermann)
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
The separation of church and state doesn’t mean “the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued during a speech at Colorado Christian University on Wednesday, according to The Washington Times. Defending his strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution, Scalia knocked secular qualms over the role of religion in the public sphere as “utterly absurd,” arguing that the Constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion — not freedom from it.
I may not believe in God, but I understand that I’m a pronounced minority. I try to respect the beliefs of others…and I don’t think it’s too much to ask the same in return. Unfortunately, identifying as atheist or agnostic is something that can brand someone as “less than” and unworthy of the rights and benefits that accrue to those who believe in a socially acceptable Imaginary Friend.
Believe in God if it gives your life meaning and purpose; that’s what freedom of religion is about. What I want to know is why freedom OF religion isn’t held to also encompass freedom FROM religion? Why does declining to identify with a particular Imaginary Friend make someone “less than” a full citizen and less worthy of the rights and benefits Americans who believe in God take as their due?
Though the 1st Amendment’s Exclusion Clause prevents laws from being passed that advance the interests of a particular religion, that doesn’t mean other, more subtle means of discrimination aren’t in play. Try running for public office as an atheist/agnostic. There’s no official religious litmus test employed for those who wish to pursue public office, but that won’t stop whisper campaigns or other nefarious methods for calling a person’s fitness to serve into question. I could never run for public office without my lack of belief in God being used against me…and in a country predicated upon freedom of religion, that’s just plain wrong. My religious faith (or absence of same) is a personal matter, NOT something that should be used against me to prove that I’m “less than.”
The thought that a sitting Supreme Court justice can refer to secular concerns over religion in the public space as “utterly absurd” is as repugnant as it is offensive. What Justice Scalia is saying is that there’s no right to not have religion doctrine forced upon you, and there’s no right to be free from proselytization and/or religious pressure. It means that the rights of those who profess religiosity supercede those of someone like myself who’s agnostic or atheist.
That’s not “strict adherence,” that’s religious tyranny. If Scalia had bothered to read his American History, he’s remember that America was founded by those seeking relief from religious tyranny in England. As it is, he’s another example of the generalized Christian arrogance extant in American today. Religious tyranny is the refuge of those who don’t know American History and are too arrogant to care about their ignorance.
“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 non-religion,” the Reagan-appointed jurist told the crowd of about 400 people.
“We do Him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” the conservative Catholic justice continued. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”
So Scalia would completely discount those who’ve not seen their way clear to believe in a socially approved Supreme Being? He’d completely ignore the rights of those who either don’t believe in God or believe in something different than the majority religion. Americans come in many shapes, sizes, and beliefs (or lack of same). To seriously posit the idea that the rights of those who believe in God supersede those who don’t is as offensive as it is unAmerican.
The belief prevalent among the Religious Right that the separation of Church and State doesn’t exist displays an appalling arrogance and a profound lack of understanding of the Constitution…and our collective history.
You’re free to your religion. What you don’t have is the right to elevate your beliefs over mine. I’m every bit as much an American as you are. I respect your beliefs; I don’t think it unreasonable to expect the same in return.
Until freedom FROM religion is held to be a right equivalent to freedom OF religion, America will not truly be free. Then again, religious zealots like Scalia aren’t concerned with freedom. They’re concerned with being able to enforce the primacy of their beliefs.
If Antonin Scalia isn’t an argument against lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, I don’t know what would be.
