Scary Scalia

So I read Antonin Scalia's dissent in McCreary County v. ACLU, the Supreme Court case about the Ten Commandments display in a Kentucky courthouse.

It's an issue of concern only to radical fundamentalists, both those who maintain the Commandments form the basis of American law and those who think religion is a contagious virus, transmitted by reading, which renders the victim unable to think for himself. Neither group is particularly well-informed or rational.

Here is Scalia's description of the display in question:

"Entitled "The Foundations of American Law and Government Display," each display consisted of nine equally sized documents: the original version of the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Star Spangled Banner, the Mayflower Compact of 1620, a picture of Lady Justice, the National Motto of the United States ("In God We Trust"), the Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, and the Ten Commandments. The displays did not emphasize any of the nine documents in any way: The frame holding the Ten Commandments was of the same size and had the same appearance as that which held each of the other documents."

Only a truly paranoid person would worry that this constitutes an outright government endorsement of religion. But that's not the scary part. What is frightening is that Scalia accepts Kentucky's defense and premise that the Commandments do, in fact, form the foundation of American law. He quotes the text of the display:

"The Ten Commandments have profoundly influenced the formation of Western legal thought and the formation of our country. That influence is clearly seen in the Declaration of Independence, which declared that, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.' The Ten Commandments provide the moral background of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of our legal tradition."

As I pointed out in a recent post, there are only four commandments that could be said to be in common with American law, and none of them are unique to either Christianity or America. To me, of far more significance is not what the Commandments have in common with the Constitution, but how they differ. For example, Commandment #1 is, "I am the Lord your God; Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me." This is reflected in American law where, now? How about #2, the ban on idols and graven images?

And, Earth to Scalia, none of the Commandments are found in the quote from the Declaration. The Commandments do not speak of unalienable rights. A "right" is not a "commandment." A "commandment" is something you are required to do, not a God-given freedom.

Scalia thinks that the mere presence of the word "Creator" in the Declaration, and "God" in the Constitution, is sufficient proof that our laws derive from the Founders' undeniable Christian heritage. As proof, by reason of contrast, he quotes the French Constitution. Sort of.

He relates an anecdote -- which conveniently works in a 9/11 reference -- about a judge from an unnamed European country who laments, "How I wish that the Head of State of my country, at a similar time of national tragedy and distress, could conclude his address 'God bless ______.' It is of course absolutely forbidden."

Scalia writes, "That is one model of the relationship between church and state--a model spread across Europe by the armies of Napoleon, and reflected in the Constitution of France, which begins "France is [a] . . . secular . . . Republic."

If I were to ask you, "How does Shakespeare's play Richard III begin?," would you answer, "Set down, set down your honorable load"?

No. Because that's first line of scene 2. Everyone knows it starts, "Now is the winter of our discontent/Made glorious summer by this sun of York."

So how does France's Constitution begin?

"The French people hereby solemnly proclaim their dedication to the Rights of Man and the principle of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, reaffirmed and complemented by the Preamble to the 1946 Constitution."

Scalia's excerpt is actually the first line of Article II. And it, in fact, reads "France is an indivisible, secular, democratic, and social Republic. It ensures the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction as to origin, race, or religion. It respects all beliefs."

Read that last sentence again. "It respects all beliefs." That is, in fact, a more explicit endorsement of religious tolerance than can be found in our own Constitution. Conveniently leaving that part out and using the surgically redacted "France is [a] . . . secular . . . Republic" -- not to mention claiming the constitution "begins" with this phrase -- sure makes France sound like a bunch of God-haters, doesn't it?

I mean, you might as well say Hamlet opens with the line, "To be...is the question."

Look, here's my question: if the Ten Commandments were such an essential foundation of our national legal system, why didn't the founding fathers mention them ANYWHERE? If our national values were derived from the Christian tradition, why is there no reference anywhere to Jesus? Why not a single quote from the Bible in any of our national documents? Did the founders go around erecting monuments with Bible verses on them? Ummm...no.

Scalia tries to argue that the Ten Commandments are not an endorsement of a specific religion because "the Ten Commandments are recognized by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam alike as divinely given."

Look, find me a Muslim who supports having this version of the Ten Commandments posted inside an American courthouse, and I will STFU.

Meanwhile, let's bow our heads and pray that a judge willing to engage in cut and paste intellectual dishonesty does not, by the Grace of God, become Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.