"...[Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia] said he believes the government should prefer religion to non-religion, state neutrality on religious matters, he said, 'is not an accurate representation of what Americans believe.' Scalia added, 'I am not sure how Orthodox Jews feel about the Establishment Clause, but I assume they do not like driving God out of public life.'"

Anybody who believes Scalia's smoke about being an "originalist" is an idiot. He's definitely an ideologue, but he's no originalist--not even close.

When Scalia talks about "religion", I'm sure his tent only includes a small subset of people with some sort of faith.

Damn activist judge!

It boggles my mind to think that a Supreme Court justice opposes government neutrality on religion. How does he square that with the first amendment? Anyone have any specifics from him?

"...[Imam Ali Jaaber] wanted to remind non-Muslims that "we are decent Muslims. We work; we pay taxes. We are Muslims who truly love this country."

Shame on us that Muslims feel like they have to hold an event to "remind non-Muslims" that they're decent people.

Those Christian protesters are a bunch of pussies. They should go do missionary work in Pakistan or something.

(joke. ha.)

just in terms of the religious character of this country (ferget about the teevee, the wars, the 'rugged individualism' bullshit) it is quite easy to see what a completely adolescent culture dominates this country.

and then you've got tony scalia nailing the point home with his chaos machine of a brain...

I think the question of what people believe is actually less important than the intensity with which they believe it.

For example, while "nones" make up roughly 15% of the country, I'm sure that people such as myself, who identify with a religion because they were raised in it, but are non-practicing as adults, also make up a significant portion of the population as well.

For example, although I culturally identify as being Jewish, I don't believe in a supreme being (like the "nones"), haven't attended services in years, rarely attend high holiday services, and usually don't even bother to celebrate Channukah or Passover.

but I assume they do not like driving God out of public life.

Typical conservative strawman statement. The establishment clause isn't about "driving God out of public life", it's about keeping government neutral on the subject of religion. The strawman arguments are telling, as they reveal the real agenda, which is ensuring that Christianity retains it's dominant role in American culture, and all others remain subordinate. What they're really concerned about is cultural identity, since religion is generally the foundation of a nation's culture. On that subject, I think there is a real conversation that needs to be had, but it won't happen until the religionists put their cards on the table.

Here's a pitch for steering some "spirituality" into a progressive direction, instead of letting the Right own it all: http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/
Note that "spirituality" does not require believe in a personal God etc., as my years of experience with the Unitarian Universalists showed me. Also, the progressive spirituality movement is pro-reason, accepts the judgments of science, independent of specific revelations or cultures (while borrowing what resonates) etc.

"Anybody who believes Scalia's smoke about being an "originalist" is an idiot. He's definitely an ideologue, but he's no originalist--not even close."
No, he's just an idiot. This guy is one of the people who is supposed to be defending the constitution ?

Not only that, but Scalia doesn't even care whether a person was accurately convicted of a crime or not - the "system" and appearance of finality matters more. What an odd attitude for a government-distrusting "conservative."

Many religious people at SoulPancake disparage and ridicule atheists daily, while totally ignoring the 'nones' as irrelevant. Atheists make better villains.

I am surprised none of you picked up on the sheer dumbness of the 'brilliant' Antonin's statement:

Scalia added, "I am not sure how Orthodox Jews feel about the Establishment Clause, but I assume they do not like driving God out of public life."

In fact, American Jews -- even most Orthodox -- have been traditionally the strongest defenders of the Establishment Clause. They know 'whose' God is being thrown into the public arena -- and it isn't 'theirs' -- at least as they see Him.

In fact, except for Fundamentalist Christians, it has always been the religious out in front on supporting the Establishment Clause. (There are records of the hearings on a first bill to overthrow Engle v Vitale and the vast majority of speakers are representatives of various 'mainstream' faiths arguing that their faiths would be ill-served by reversing even this decision.

"I am not sure how Orthodox Jews feel about the Establishment Clause, but I assume they do not like driving God out of public life."

I thought God was everywhere. How can She be driven out of anywhere?

Scalia's god is weak and pathetic. He should convert: http://www.venganza.org/

The conservative jurist said he believes the government should prefer religion to non-religion, state neutrality on religious matters, he said, "is not an accurate representation of what Americans believe." Scalia added, "I am not sure how Orthodox Jews feel about the Establishment Clause, but I assume they do not like driving God out of public life."

Then amend the constitution if most Americans support something different from the founders. Given supposed conservative opposition to legislating from the bench, I would hope Scalia isn't basing his rulings on this unconstitutional belief of his.

Turnout at the "Islam on Capitol Hill" event was modest, with about 3,000 attendees.

I believe you're missing three zeros on the end of that number, if we're to rely on the techniques for crowd estimation most commonly used today, i.e., factoring in how many people the organizers would like to see.

Neil B (notes) you clever devil you. I ‘noted’ the subtle variation on your multiple signatures in this thread. These are clues! I can name that tune in 3 notes! It is measure 65 from my very own Polonaise in A flat, Op. 53. Do I win?

So much for 'strict constructivism'.

'Hypocrite' doesn't do it justice, working hard toward the opposite of your own horse shit is so fundamental to all parts of the conservative and Republican brain pattern, 'hypocrite' just seems too narrowly focused.

I have often noted that Republicans can't see past their own mirrors, and I just realized: when you look in the mirror everything is backward.

So they start out with a thought, say 'strict constructivism', look up and see it immediately going the other way and think that's reason.

Anybody who believes Scalia's smoke about being an "originalist" is an idiot. He's definitely an ideologue, but he's no originalist--not even close.

"Originalism" is the ultimate bogus argument from authority. You declare that your preferred outcome is what the Founders intended, and declare it proven without the need for actual evidence. Among other things, you have to ignore the fact that they even more clearly intended the law and the Constitution to evolve.

Originalism is really the perfect expression of conservatism -- things were better in the old days, our revered ancestors were perfect, and the best we can do is to go back to that time. (Slavery, wives being property, and other minor inconveniences notwithstanding.)

You quote Scalia: "I am not sure how Orthodox Jews feel about the Establishment Clause, but I assume they do not like driving God out of public life."

OMFG. It doesn't matter how Jews, or anyone else including a self-proclaimed good Catholic such as Antonin Scalia, "feel" about the Establishment Clause.

WTF have feelings got to do with Constitutional law?

Constitution, Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Guess it all comes down to the meaning of the word "no"! Wonder what part of "no" Scalia doesn't understand?

For more on Scalia's tendency to blow off any Constitutional phrases he "feels" that he doesn't "like," see Bush v. Gore.

Scaleface cares "what Orthodox Jews feel" precisely to the extent that it bolsters his own interests as an extremist Catholic. And not a molecule more.

I can't believe Scalia is so ignorant of history and the meaning of "Established Church"

If Scalia was living in London in 1776 he would be forced by law to pay taxes (via the tithe) to the Established Church of England, which we would call the Anglican (Protestant) Church. His religion would have barred him from public office, and even if he met property qualifications, from the vote. Something which equally applied to his co-religionists in Ireland, they do had to contribute to the Protestant Church of Ireland. While some Irish Catholics got the right to vote in 1829 (with a greatly increased property qualification) they were still required to support the State Church of Ireland until 1871.

Article VI: (in part) "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

In other words Scalia as a Catholic cannot be forced to support a State Church against his will, nor can his religion be a bar to hold a public office. For people like him the Constitution was explicitly an attempt to remove the Protestant Church from public life. Because under British law he wouldn't even be a citizen, simply a subject.

"The conservative jurist said he believes the government should prefer religion to non-religion,"

Well I guess that depends on whose ox is being gored. At the time of the Founders his own religion was in official British eyes not really a religion at all, just Papist Superstition.

Americans in general are fairly ignorant of history. But for Christ sakes if you pose as an Originalist you have some obligation to understand what the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent Constitution were actually reacting to. 'Establishment' had a very specific, technical meaning, one which seems to have escaped Tony.

...the impact on American politics is likely to be significant if we reach a point at which, in just one generation, a fourth of the U.S. population does not identify with any faith tradition.

Given the ambivalence of the "nones", their numbers would need to swell well-beyond 25% of the population before they'd come close to wielding much political influence. What makes today's crackpot far-right religious minority so influential is its passion (however misguided).

"In fact, except for Fundamentalist Christians, it has always been the religious out in front on supporting the Establishment Clause. "

Making the Fundies as ignorant as Scalia. Almost all Fundies are in Churches that come out of the Non-Conformist movement where 'Conformity' meant to conform to the Established Church in both doctrine and taking communion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformists

Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers (founded in 1648), and those less organized were considered Nonconformists at the time of the 1662 Act of Uniformity. Later, as other groups formed, they were also considered Nonconformists. These included Methodists, Unitarians, and members of the Salvation Army.

In England, Nonconformists were restricted from many spheres of public life and were ineligible for many forms of public educational and social benefits, until the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts in the nineteenth century and associated toleration. For example, attendance at an English university had required conformity to the Church of England before University College London (UCL) was founded, compelling Nonconformists to fund their own Dissenting Academies privately.

Puritans, Congregationalists, Methodists, Baptists and Quakers came to this country in droves because the Established Church of England and so the British Government did not recognize their faith as legitimate. They have just got their whole history ass-backwards.

Chopin, you "win" if you feel like you should! Note (!) that there are lots of compositions, and you extrapolate from only three notes! (I thought the beginning was a bit messier than that anyway ...) But I do like Polonaise Sauce.

Whenever I'm polled or have to state my religion, I always put "none," because I think labeling myself atheist is idiotic. I also don't believe in dragons, but I'm not going to list myself as being adragon, even if I were to be asked about it.

Atheism isn't a religion. It's the absence of religion. Therefore, "none" is the right category. Anyone who lists themselves as "atheist" is just looking for a fight.

I'm a None. I'm divorced from Christ.

Last year Georgia governor Sonny Perdue prayed for rain.

Prayer answered. . .

I'm not a "none"; I am an ALL ONE. There is a Source of All That Is, whether anyone believes in It, or NONE. Now, I don't know who or what that Source is; I do know that It Is, otherwise there would be NONE. Look around you and tell me where whatever your are observing came from...ultimately. Your computer, for instance (since you are probably reading this on a computer screen, unless someone printed this out and your are reading it on a piece of paper or stone tablet). The point is: how far back can you trace the source of this that you are observing. Maybe a thought? Where did the thought originate? Who had the thought? Do you see where I am going with this? Good, because, I don't. Tell me. Tell me Who, What, How, Why, Where and When and I'll call you God.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

DAY @ 3:32 --

Perfect!

"Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."

"It's a kind of religious indifference that's not hostile to religion the way they are in France. Franklin and Jefferson would have recognized these people".

People holding such views often profess a simple respect for a concept known as 'freedom of worship'.

Let us hope that the Bush appointees are less obvious hypocrites than Scalia. He's an activist judge without a judicial temperment. I have no idea why Ginsberg even talks to him.

Scalia is such a not-originalist he can't keep his religion in his pants, either. As Madison points out in Federalist #10,...Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

Last year Georgia governor Sonny Perdue prayed for rain.

Prayer answered. . . -- DAY,@15:32

But with a year's delay and the wrong amount when it came. You'd think God worked for government...

he believes the government should prefer religion to non-religion, state neutrality on religious matters, he said, "is not an accurate representation of what Americans believe." "

So, as Prup & Bruce point out, there are millions of Americans - not just nontheists, but countless religious people, entire denominations, even - who support secular, religiously-neutral gov't due to common sense, appreciation of history, etc. And then there's the folks who think that gov't should prefer religion, by which they mean (as DelCapsLock mentions) that the gov't should prefer, support, and assert their religion, their specific little denomination, over and above - to the exclusion of - their neighbors' religions. Which in practice of course means turning the culture wars up to 11, serious, constant & genuine violations of religious freedom, and at very, very best eventual gov't promotion - out of sheer exhaustion - of a generic lowest-common-denominator pseudo-religion, one equally offensive to anyone who thinks such things matter for anything other than a marker of political and social domination.

So . . . yeah.

As a liberal Jewish Atheist, proud of my people's American heritage in civil rights and social justice, I'm upset by the wish of some Orthodox Jews to ally with Scalia and the American Taliban.

I'm a staunch atheist. I despise religion and would love to drive it out of public life and leave religious people rocking in their bedrooms counting beads too nervous to come out of their homes for being laughed at as the deluded fools they are.

But even I think they should be allowed to put up Christmas trees on the town green -- just like any other public group. I don't want gov't telling people what to believe any more than I want them telling people what not to believe.

This religion vs. establishment clause really has nothing to do with anyone's particular views on religion. It has to do with their views on government. For a lot of people, the role of government is there to enforce morality and a common culture (usually white patriarchy). For others, the role of government is more practical and utilitarian. Where you fall on that spectrum has more to do with how you feel about church/state than if you are Catholic, Jewish, or atheist.