Justice Antonin Scalia and Candor

The other day I accused Justice Antonin Scalia of lying when during the hearing on the Ten Commandments he said that "the government derives its authority from God". In the WAPO today Richard Cohen has an even more disturbing take, Scalia is not guilty of lying but of Supreme Zealotry.

Scalia was, as usual, insisting on calling a spade a spade. "I mean, if you're watering it [the Ten Commandments] down to say that the only reason it's okay is it sends nothing but a secular message, I can't agree with you," he told a lawyer for the state of Texas. He then committed an additional act of candor that was more troubling than enlightening. Not only did he find the Ten Commandments to be religious, he asserted that they were "a symbol of the fact that government derives its authority from God." Oh yeah, Who says?

So, Cohen thinks he actually believes it. I don't know about you but I was more comfortable when I thought he was lying. Justice Scalia represents the very thing the founding fathers were trying to protect us against. You cannot believe in a secular state when you believe "the government derives its authority from God".

But it is not my religion -- or maybe yours. And I wonder how Scalia himself would feel if, instead of the Ten Commandments, a representation of another religion were placed in the courthouse lobby. I wonder how he would feel if somewhere in America Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus became the majority and decided to change the prayer for the opening of court or hang a religious symbol -- one, of course, that the jurisdiction's lawyer would say was basically secular -- on the wall behind the judge. Would he feel comfy?

Maybe. I cannot answer for Scalia. And I appreciate what he says about the benign qualities of these symbols. It's still sticks and stones that break bones, not representations -- and proselytizing is the real issue. But that's here and now -- and not the future. What might be coming -- coming here and already present elsewhere -- is something that could look more like the past, with its religious zealotry and fanatical intolerance. The "fact" that Scalia cites cannot be proved or refuted. All such "facts" are mere beliefs, hardly obnoxious to me but abhorrent to others, resistant to compromise and maybe sufficient reason for violence. Government neutrality -- rigorous secularism -- is the way to go. Scalia says what others will not. That's commendable. But others will do what he will not. That's frightening.

And what happens if Bush is successful in getting even more Radical Christian wingnuts on the bench of the highest court? Frightening indeed.