Fri. May 27th, 2022

“Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, appointed by Ronald Reagan, apparently has studied theology and has convinced himself that the irrational is rational. ‘It isn’t irrational to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses to miracles,’ Scalia said. ‘What is irrational is to reject a priori, with no investigation, the possibility of miracles in general and of Jesus Christ’s resurrection in particular — which is, of course, precisely what the worldly wise do.’ The ‘worldly wise’ is code for ‘non-believers.’ In his speech before the St. Thomas More Society, Scalia did not reveal where he gets his information about why non-believers reject miracles and other supernatural claims. Divine inspiration, perhaps.
“These unwise words on what’s rational come from a man who not only believes stories that claim there were eyewitnesses to The Resurrection, but who also believes in the virgin birth, the stigmata, the Trinity, and that the cracker he eats at Sunday Mass has been transubstantiated into a godman. By the way, five other Supreme Court justices apparently share Scalia’s religious views: Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alioto, and Sonia Sotomayor. I say “apparently” because, although they are all Roman Catholics, one can’t be sure they all believe everything the Roman Catholic Church teaches.”
— Bob Carroll, The Skeptic’s Dictionary Newsletter, Vol. 9, No. 11, Nov. 4, 2010.

The miracle is that the Christopublican theocrat Scalia was ever appointed to the Supreme Court of a secular nation.

By OEN

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
8 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joyce Lovelace
Joyce Lovelace
11 years ago

Are you (or Bob Carroll) implying that only non-believers should be appointed to the courts?

Ken Carman
Admin
11 years ago

I am far less bothered by this quote than most of what Scalia says and believes.

Worst.

Judge.

Ever.

In fact I regard him as an anti-Constitution judge, in the same manner that so many who wrap themselves in the flag, when quizzed, consider The Bill of Rights some Commie plot if not told it’s part of the Constitution.

The irony here is that an atheist will probably never serve on the court or in any significant office. I am not an atheist, but I loath religious-based bigotry. We haven’t really come all that far from the Kennedy days when he took so much fire for being Catholic. And ironically, these days, if a pol answered that the Pope and The Church took a stand they would follow he probably would get elected. Kennedy rightfully said the opposite. While our faith, or lack of it, should certainly help us with our decision process it should be “our” decision and based on what’s best for the country… not purely aligned with any church or faith.

RS Janes
11 years ago

No, Joyce, I didn’t mean that, but Scalia has said that he lets his religion inform his judgments, occasionally more than the law or the Constitution. (I guess I should have included some more background info on Scalia in the post.) In a what’s supposed to be a secular country, where judges take an oath to the Constitution and not to their religion, this is dangerous. To put it another way, would you want local law enforcement to refuse to answer your 911 emergency call because their religion was offended by your stand on women’s rights or gay marriage? If Scalia can’t do his job for ALL the people and leave his religion at the door, then he should resign from the court.

Ken Carman
Admin
11 years ago

“…but Scalia has said that he lets his religion inform his judgments, occasionally more than the law or the Constitution.”

Wow, I missed that one. How close is that to what I said? I knew it intuitively, I guess… or maybe I did hear and forgot. This is what they rely on: the MSM covering such things with, at best, a very light dusting. More likely not cover it at all. And people forgetting. The MSM is complicit: it should be their job to bring such things up at times like when that quote was made, but apparently unless it involves Bill Clinton, a dress and BJs no coverage need apply.

What do they think their job title is, “Enablers for the Extreme Right?” Certainly isn’t, “news,” “journalist” or “reporter.”

RS Janes
11 years ago

As far as the Supreme Court’s concerned, the MSM hasn’t been doing it’s job since the unconstitutional appointment of the Little King in 2000. I don’t remember any major media figure questioning the SC’s legal right to decide the election — instead it was ‘Gee, America will be glad this long, drawn-out election if finally over.’ Europeans and Canadians I’ve talked to cannot understand why we allowed this to happen with almost no protest. Neither can I.

Joyce Lovelace
Joyce Lovelace
11 years ago

I can’t imagine that I could be a judge or a legislator w/o my religious beliefs informing my decisions, but not more so than the constitution. For instance, though I am personally against abortion in most cases, I am for upholding Roe vs Wade. I think abortion can be decreased by a positive social attitude ie: positive support instead of condemnation for women and girls who are in an untenable situation. More social pressure against incest, rape, etc.
And though I believe the Bible is a useful book, I would not condone someone stoning another person, or beating their child, no matter what scriptures they cited.
I understand the issue here is the extremist view on religion working against the constitution in a secular state.

Ken Carman
Admin
11 years ago

I have never understood the stand the public was told to take in 2000, that it had to be decided right now. The MSM pushed it, the ReThugs demanded it. As far as I’m concerned all that matters is who really won, no matter how damn long it takes. And never guess what? The Right agrees, if it’s their candidate that’s on the losing side… like Miller.

What is proper here? What is just a stalling tactic? A conundrum that we requires us deciding what’s in another’s head. Despite Miller’s obvious tactics, I prefer erring on the side of doing all possible to assess the voter’s intent. But rejecting slight misspellings only errs on the side of candidate intent to do whatever to win.

RS Janes
11 years ago

Joyce, your approach is the proper one — determine the intent of the secular Constitution, regardless of your personal religious feelings. What’s even worse about Scalia and his right-wing pals, though, is that they are corporatists — they contradicted over a 100 years of Supreme Court precedent in deciding in favor of Citizens United, for example.

8
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x