Quote:
Originally posted by smoak
"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."
Anyway, I also think Scalia's point was somewhat overreaching as well. However, rather than chalk it up to a lack of learned knowledge on the subject, I think he chose an example (poor as it might have been) he believes would strike home with his obvious audience in attendance.
It is an interesting subject matter though and I appreciate your take on it, but I disagree with your take on Scalia, he is definately not an idiot. Maybe misguided in is idealogy sometimes, but certainly not unintelligent.
|
What you quote from Scalia's talk is somewhat downstream from the initial claim that the Jews sould have been safer in Europe (one supposes in Nazi-occupied countries). At least, that's what I get from the quote:
"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."
IOW, church and state were separated in Europe...? Well, maybe, except in the very countries where the Jews were least safe.
No, sorry, this is not an intelligent man speaking. It's someone's personal ideology overruling fact and logic. This is not what one wants in a judge.
There's fodder for endless discussion about what the founding fathers meant to do and say, but siezing on the outside writings of Jefferson or Madison alone does not negate what's written in the constitution and declaration. That this country's founding fathers recognized monotheism in their writing is not the issue. What is at issue is that factions in this country are trying to turn statements encompassing Islam, Judaism and Christianity into an endorsement of a specific fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity. And that's flat wrong.
As to who'd be the best chief, there is only one 'moderate' on the bench at the moment, and he's suffering from thyroid cancer. I hope he recovers, because if he retires, there will be a battle over the next appointee that will set the court's course for the next dozen or more years. And GWB thinks Scalia and Thomas are ideal, which is pretty scary, IMHO.