Annoyed — yet again.
This time going after Justice Antonin Scalia for remarks he made in Colorado on the Constitution and religion:
Here’s the excerpt from Justice Scalia’s speech that has libs all-a-flutter:
“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 nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said.
“That’s a possible way to run a political system. The Europeans run it that way,” Justice Scalia said. “And if the American people want to do it, I suppose they can enact that by statute. But to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”
That’s it? The A.P. wrote it up differently, minus the outrage:
Scalia spoke earlier in the day to about 400 people at Colorado Christian University, where he said religious people can express belief in a society that sepaates church and state. But he warned that government must not try to compel religious belief.
More from Twitter’s merry band of Constitutional scholars:
Here’s the video from Cenk Uygur where he explains why Justice Scalia is “utterly stupid”:
And check out some of the comments!
- imo, this alone should justify his IMMEDIATE removal from his position. It’s clear he fails to understand the constitution, or, if he does, he fails to want to uphold it.
- If this keeps on going America will end up just the Islamic civilizations when they traded science and reason for a religious straightjacket.
- Alright, here is a major flaw with the US constitution then. Supreme justices are APPOINTED and not ELECTED! Americans now have this clown “interpreting” the constitution and nobody can do anything to him…
At least on watcher of the video tried to set Cenk straight:
- Cenk, you’re wrong. To “establish”-(set up [an organization, system, or set of rules] on a firm or permanent basis)…simply means the government does not endorse a specific religion. This has nothing to do with “secularism”-(indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations). Clearly the Constitution is not indifferent to religion if the freedom to religion is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Secularism is not protected by the Constitution. The government is made up of a set of people that enjoy the freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it.