Right-Wing Justice Scalia is Crusading to Establish Religion by Constitutional Fiat

The idea of a human being striving, as far as possible, to reduce or eliminate biases, prejudices, or subjective evaluations by relying on verifiable data is what it means to be objective. For a judge in America’s legal system, being objective means putting aside one’s personal beliefs and prejudices to make objective decisions based on established law or, where no legal precedent exists, the United States Constitution. Obviously, the current crop of Catholic conservatives on the nation’s highest court cannot refrain from basing a rash of recent decisions on anything other than their personal religious beliefs that has led them to glaringly establish religion by Supreme Court fiat. One Justice on the Catholic High Court has taken “establishing religion” a step  farther and is actively campaigning to establish his religion in the public school system, judicial system, and the government.

On Wednesday last, Koch and Vatican surrogate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia delivered a judicial sermon at Colorado Christian University and informed 400 faithful Christians that the separation of church and state “doesn’t mean the government cannot favor religion over non-religion.” Scalia said that secularists concern over the overreach of religion into the government and every aspect of the public sphere is “utterly absurd” and that the Constitution’s only obligation is to protect Christian’s freedom of religion and was never intended to protect Americans from religious imposition. Scalia must be removed.

Scalia defended his strict adherence to a purely theocratic reading of the U.S. Constitution and assailed the concept of a secular government. He claimed that what Christians must do is prevail in “the main fight 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 one religion over others or non-religion.  We do Him [god] honor in all our public ceremonies, 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

.” Scalia is parroting the religious right’s projectionist claim that atheists are “shoving their disbelief down our throats.” Scalia must go.

Now, there are several problems with Scalia’s claim and none are more malicious than interpreting the 1st Amendment as Constitutional cover to not only favor one specific religion, but to impose it on every other American. Scalia was not even attempting to conceal his theocratic aspirations and complained that, “Our [the Supreme Court’s] latest take on the subject, which is quite different from previous takes, is that the state must be neutral, not only between religions, but between religion and non-religion. That’s just a lie. Where do you get the notion that this is all unconstitutional? You can only believe that if you believe in a morphing Constitution.” Putting aside the “morphing” argument for a second, the originalists who wrote the founding document insisted favoring one religion over another, or over non-religion, was unconstitutional; that idea is not new or  has not morphed with the times. Antonin Scalia needs to be impeached.

Scalia could not be more wrong and it is stunning that as an alleged constitutional scholar and “originalist-turned theocrat,” he cannot countenance the Framers’ intent that the Constitution was specifically set up to “morph” from its original 1789 form.  The Framers inserted the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights particularly  to “clarify that the specific individual rights stated in the Constitution, particularly in the Bill of Rights, does not constitute an explicit and exhaustive listing of all individual rights possessed by the people, and cannot be used by the federal government to increase its powers in areas not stated

.” Areas such as Scalia demands in establishing religion according to the last three Catholic-majority Court decisions imposing and establishing Christianity on the nation.

If anything is “utterly absurd,” it is Scalia’s assertion that the Constitution was not created to “morph” to protect rights of all the people, and his contention that the First Amendment does not protect the people “from” religion is contrary to volumes written by the Framers and Founders. If he were a tenth the so-called Constitutional scholar and originalist as he claims, he would comprehend that very rudimentary premise. In fact, two of the Framers, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison realized a pressing need to address  “exceptions in the constitution in favor of particular rights” so they would not “be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution.” This includes Scalia’s intent to use the Constitution to enforce religion by government edict as interpreted by the Catholic majority on the Supreme Court. It is in direct contradiction to everything the Constitution’s true “originalist” Framers and Founding Fathers believed adamantly, wrote extensively about, and demanded to protect the nation from a government-by-Christian theocracy at the nation’s founding and into perpetuity.

Scalia has, unethically, been using the Catholic Court’s ruling that legislative sessions should be opened with sectarian (read Christian) prayers to campaign  and push for mandated public prayers in the public schools, state and federal legislatures, and every courtroom in the country. In June, Scalia harshly criticized his faith-based Court cabal for declining to hear a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled a public school district decision to conduct graduation ceremonies in church violated the Establishment Clause. Scalia and his little Koch accomplice Clarence Thomas were furious at not getting an opportunity to further decimate the Establishment Clause because according to their dissent, “the First Amendment explicitly favors religion” over the Founders and Framers’ well-documented opposition to favoring or establishing religion.


There are many reason Justice Scalia must be removed from the nation’s High Court besides his strict devotion and adherence to the whims and wishes of the Koch brothers. He travels around the nation actively promoting hardline conservative policies, and over the past year has made appealing for cases to establish Christianity by judicial edict a primary goal when he is not ruling according to Vatican dogmata. The First Amendment could not possibly be clearer in prohibiting the establishment of religion, and yet an alleged constitutional scholar and originalist is crusading to establish religion openly and with increasing frequency.

Scalia, with his Catholic cohort Justices have made three consecutive rulings shredding the Establishment Clause to impose Christianity as government policy in direct opposition to the original intent of the Constitution. Since Scalia, particularly, has blatantly opted to abandon judicial objectivity for Catholic biases, prejudices, and subjective evaluations to hasten America’s rush toward theocracy, he must be removed and sent to the Vatican where his special talent for pushing Christianity is not inherently unethical and unconstitutional. He has no rightful place on the Supreme Court or the secular nation the Founders intended America to be at its founding and in the 21st Century.


View Comments

  • This so called justice over reads the Constitution, as he over reads the so called bible, I agree he should be impeached

  • Justice Hugo Black would not agree with this turd. To wit:

    "... We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs."

    ---Justice Hugo black, Torasco v Watkins (1961)

  • This clown has to be impeached, other wise he will turn the laws and Constitution upside down. I truly believe that these so-called Supreme Justices that decide the laws of this country should annually be given a psychological test, to see if they suffering from type of brain problems. The things that have come out of the mouths of Scalia, Thomas and Roberts lately, have to make you wonder if they are qualified to decide how the rest of us should live. This is becoming a serious problem.

    • Agree Bernie. I also wonder if these catholic Justices really believe the American people will accept the Catholic Doctrine? Don't think So! When they finally have their theocratic Gov. think they will find it is more like a Koch Gov. Or a extreme religious one.

  • WE Must Stop This Absolute AntiAmerican,Judge Who Has Become A Religious Fanatic And Who Has Lost His
    Just Mind,It Has Been Suspected By Many
    Because Of Three Recent Rulings That the Court Had Lost Its Ability To Not
    Allow Its Function To Become Religious
    Doctrine/Justice Scalia Must Be Removed

  • It interesting to see how this story "evolves" from source to source on the internet. Scalia's comments were quite correct taken in context. The First Amendment guarantees the “Free Exercise” of religion. It also guarantees “Free Speech”. I am an agnostic; however, both of those constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (no creative reading required) quite clearly favor the freedom of religious expression over efforts to ban of limit that expression which is the stated goal of the “Freedom from Religion” movement. You may not agree with Scalia, but, he is correct. Also I'd point out that those who support "Freedom from Religion" are quite explicitly stating that it's OK to limit Freedom of Speech simply because someone does not want to hear the message. You all should give that one a bit more thought before agreeing with it...

    • So, asking that no religious items be placed on government property is limiting someones freedom of speech? Its ok for religion to have a voice but no one else?

    • In what way, shape, or form does the free EXERCISE of religion translate into the right to IMPOSE your beliefs on others? Your religion stops at the border of you buddy. PERIOD. Freedom FROM religion means exactly that - not having YOUR beliefs forced on US. Freedom from having your beliefs forced on us is NOT a limit on your freedom of speech much as you seem to think it so (see above about borders). You can preach all you want, you can't IMPOSE. PERIOD. Do you get the difference? Some people.

    • What an absurdist, ahistorical interpretation you've just presented. You can't Constitutionally justify this analysis in any way. It's just another attempt by "strict constructionists" to massage a right that doesn't exist. Jefferson was clear that the Constitution doesn't mandate religious freedom over others right to be free of religion. That's the "free speech" part you handily ignore.

    • It will be interesting to see how agreeable Christians will be to "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom to exercise their religion"..when Muslims insist on the same considerations. I wonder how long factions of the Christian organization will tolerate plaques with quotes of the Koran hanging over a court room judges bench. The First Amendment also guarantees that Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. The birth control mandate in Obamacare was Constitutional..as it is a religious belief that life begins at conception. Allowing a corporation the right to impose it's religious beliefs onto women employees denying them access to certain birth control medications in their insurance policy has not one thing to do with freedom of speech. It does require women pay the same premium/or an increase . The biggest scam on women by the health insurance industry and religious organizations has been characterizing women's reproductive health care needs as 'outside the ...

    • There is a major flaw in your thinking, Mr. Fletcher. The "free exercise of religion" refers to the INDIVIDUAL PERSON's religion. It does NOT mean that the GOVERNMENT should be "exercising religion."
      You have your church building, your church community, your circle of influence in which to practice your religion. You go right ahead and "exercise your religion" there, as an individual. That same right applies to every other INDIVIDUAL American-including those who choose atheism. Everywhere you are, seven days a week, each person is perfectly free to practice their religious--or non-religious--beliefs.

      However, the idea that GOVERNMENT should practice RELIGION is just as crazy as the idea that a CORPORATION is a person! No rational person really thinks that a huge company is the same as an individual human being.

      Only right-wing people in black robes sitting on the Supreme Court could believe that.

    • I'm not sure where you get your interpretation. Freedom of speech certainly provides as much protection to someone who wants to say "there is no God" as it does to someone who wants to say "there is a God." The free exercise clause protects your right to be a Catholic, a Jew, or an agnostic or atheist, as YOU choose. The establishment clause says that government can do NOTHING to foster or support or encourage ANY religious belief, including the belief that there is no God. Scalia's absurd take writes into the Constitution the idea that choosing not to practice a religion does not enjoy the same protections as choosing to practice one, and that is why his latest rant is so incredibly dangerous. You might also note Article 6's provision that "no religious test" shall be required for government service. That means government cannot treat an atheist and a devout believer any differently. The Constitution does protect us. Scalia wants to destroy that protection. He has to...

    • You are missing the entire point. Scalia can SAY whatever he wants, but he cannot pass laws to force the rest of us to abide by HIS religious ideas. That is absolutely unconstitutional.

  • Anton Scalia has become an embarrassment to
    the Entire Supreme Court.

    The Damage that Scalia has done to the integrity of the Court will take years to repair.

    Time for the Other members of the Court to
    stage an INTERVENTION.

  • Scalia's take on the reading of the Constitution of the United States in regard to religious imposition is (as a matter of fact) correct.
    The CotUS does NOT define Jefferson's high wall of separation between church and state... all it does is specify that the Congress shall not establish a state church (that's it).
    Religious people may work in government. Government officials of every sort may be involved in the political process (religious or not) and officials of the U.S. government may make their religious views known publicly (and this also includes Supreme Court Justices).
    It is silly to call on the impeachment of this man who has been appointed for life (he is just one justice). A minority voice should be welcomed and encouraged.
    Scalia is religious--- get over it.

    • Get over it, while he destroys others lives who do not want to live under the religious domain he wants to create? I think not. He is a supreme court judge and cannot make decisions based on religion

    • "The CotUS does NOT define Jefferson’s high wall of separation between church and state… all it does is specify that the Congress shall not establish a state church (that’s it)"

      Right-wingers have been pushing that line for forty years. It's a deliberate lie and always has been.

      • Well, that's great, because I'm a liberal. My politics are mostly democratic these days, and I'm also a Christ follower.
        So, nock off with the 'conservative' mantra. The interpretation of CotUS is not about liberal vs conservative; rather, its about logic and English rhetoric.
        There are only two lines in the CotUS that deal with religion... and both have ONLY to do with Congress... they may not establish a state church, and they may NOT curtail religious practice via legislation. This is NOT a conservative interpretation, its just what the text says. I'm voting democratic this year, so go figure.
        Mark H. Harris

  • In this article, "God's Justice and Ours", at http://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/05/, Scalia seems to say that divine right never died, the Constitution was divinely ordained at its inception to further God's will on earth and that God has given the state the authority to judge and punish for him on earth.

    Perhaps I'm not understanding the arguments, so please let me know if this is an accurate account of his beliefs and if they are reconcilable with holding public office.

    • Your statement is exactly what makes Scalia quite insane.

      Anyone can say its divinely ordained, as if such a thing existed. The constitution has nothing to do with religion or some god. The laws in the constitution come from English and European laws going back to the 1200's

Recent Posts

House Republicans Claim They Only Offered Family Tours On The Eve Of 1/6 Attack

Rep. Barry Loudermilk denies providing a reconnaissance tour to terrorists and says he only gave…

5 hours ago

1/6 Committee Has Bombshell Evidence Of GOP Guided Tours Before Attack

The  1/6 Committee wants to talk to Rep. Barry Loudermilk because the committee has evidence…

5 hours ago

Madison Cawthorn Tantrums And Vows To Expose GOP National Figures After Primary Loss

In case you were wondering how Madison Cawthorn would take his primary defeat, Cawthorn is…

6 hours ago

Senate Unanimously Sends Bill To Combat Baby Formula Shortage To Biden

The Senate has passed legislation via unanimous consent to combat the baby formula shortage which…

6 hours ago

Trump Commands the Pennsylvania GOP to ‘Stop Finding Votes,’ And Asks If Primary Is ‘RIGGED’

But one should frame that Trump "truth" - because that quote is truly Trump, through…

8 hours ago

11 Senate Republicans Betray Democracy By Voting Against $40 Billion Ukraine Aid

The Senate voted 86-11 to pass $40 billion in Ukraine aid, but all 11 votes…

8 hours ago