"The
First Amendment framers did not intend to strip religion of its
uniqueness, or to make it exactly equal to every secular institution in
society. To the contrary, the establishment clause aims only to keep
government from singling out certain religious sects for preferential
treatment, not from showing any favoritism to religion in general."
-Patrick M. Garry
(New York, NY)—Bill Donohue defends Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia's remarks that were given at Archbishop
Rummel High School in Metairie, Louisiana on January 2: (Photo via Catholic League)
Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Constitution was never meant
to be neutral about religion. Indeed, he said, "there is no place for
that in our constitutional tradition." He admitted that "you can't favor
one denomination over another," but that doesn't mean that religion
cannot be favored over non-religion.
Scalia's comments have ignited a firestorm.
For example, professor Jeff Schweitzer accuses him of "gross ignorance
unbecoming of a justice of the Supreme Court." The marine biologist
should stick to studying fish.
Scalia's critics say he ignores the meaning
of the establishment clause which supposedly bars government aid to
religious institutions. In fact, it was written in support of the
primary clause, the free exercise clause. University of South Dakota law
professor Patrick M. Garry, author of Wrestling with God: The Courts'
Tortuous Treatment of Religion, notes that "The first and foremost
concern of the framers of the First Amendment was not to create a
separation of church and state, but to guarantee religious freedom. And
the absence of an established church was just one aspect of achieving
freedom of religion."
Garry demolishes the idea that the First
Amendment is neutral about religion. "The First Amendment framers did
not intend to strip religion of its uniqueness, or to make it exactly
equal to every secular institution in society. To the contrary, the
establishment clause aims only to keep government from singling out
certain religious sects for preferential treatment, not from showing any
favoritism to religion in general."
The founders publicly funded the building of
churches, paid for the salaries of ministers, and allowed for state
churches. That has changed, but Scalia is right to say that there is
nothing in the Constitution that requires the government to be neutral
about religion.
Link>
Source: www.breakingchristiannews.com/
Topic: Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s Recent Comments on Religion and the Constitution Have "Ignited a Firestorm"
