kalm wrote:JoltinJoe wrote:He's 100 percent correct on this point. The problem is many of his critics don't really understand what he is saying (which is typical -- Scalia's opinions are routinely distorted by his critics).
"Because religious belief,
or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
The words "wall of separation between church and state" appear nowhere in the Constitution. And Jefferson is not the Constitution.
Scalia is correct that the Constitution requires the state to protect freedom of religion. Nothing in the Constitution protects "freedom from religion" or requires the state to do so. The state may choose to do so, but it is not constitutionally required.
As Justice Black observed in his brilliant dissent in
Griswold: "One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning."
The words "separation of church and state" and "freedom from religion" appear nowhere in the First Amendment. The words: "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" do appear in the First Amendment.
What is funny is how many people think Scalia is "wacked" for declaring with 100% accuracy what the First Amendment says.
