Scalia sucks

[Michchamp]

Link.

this has to be the least coherent rambling on the Establishment Clause by a Supreme Court justice ever...

Some there are?many, perhaps?who are offended by public displays of religion. Religion, they believe, is a personal matter; if it must be given external manifestation, that should not occur in public places where others may be offended. I can understand that attitude: It parallels my own toward the playing in public of rock music or Stravinsky. And I too am especially annoyed when the intrusion upon my inner peace occurs while I am part of a captive audience, as on a municipal bus or in the waiting room of a public agency.


My own aversion cannot be imposed by law because of the First Amendment. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 790 (1989); Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 210?211 (1975). Certain of this Court?s cases, however, have allowed the aversion to religious displays to be enforced directly through the First Amendment, at least in public facilities and with respect to public ceremonies?this despite the fact that the First Amendment explicitly favors religion and is, so to speak, agnostic about music.
​

So... because he can't use the First Amendment to prevent himself from having to hear rock music on public property, no one should be able to use it to keep their public high school graduation from being held in a church.

That makes absolutely no sense. Not only does it completely confuse what's actually happening in each case, but it completely ignores 100's of years of human experience, going back to the Founding Fathers who drafted it. It's like he's just some Joe Beercan who wandered off the street and decided he'd opine on the Constitution.

 

[Gulo Blue]

M'eh. He gives one silly example of what's not a good enough reason to prohibit a religious practice. Looking at just the blurb, I can see why you'd think he's confusing the establishment clause with an aversion to public displays of religion. But if you click the link to see what he wrote in context, he does challenge the application of the establishment cause. The church was selected over the school because it was bigger, had air conditioning, and cushioned seats and "No one disputes that the church was chosen only because of these amenities." Whether or not that's enough to trip the establishment clause or not isn't the point regarding the accusation of confusion. The point is, the quote is taken out of context and Scalia did go after the establishment clause. He's not confusing the two.

 

[byco42]

Not sure what the rumpus is here. The lower-court ruling was upheld. There is no threat that the U.S. will establish a theocracy anytime soon. Public schools are safe from the "threat" of having to hold graduation ceremonies in churches, where all sorts of terrible influences can affect the pristine and pure proceedings of a high-school graduation, that time-honored and sacrosanct ritual that sets loose multitudes of kids who have forgotten pretty much all they learned in HS about 30 minutes after matriculation. Let's not, then, mar that accomplishment by exposing them to God in His house.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I graduated HS in Crisler Arena. Our staging area to prepare to enter was Michigan Stadium.

 

[Michchamp]

M'eh. He gives one silly example of what's not a good enough reason to prohibit a religious practice. Looking at just the blurb, I can see why you'd think he's confusing the establishment clause with an aversion to public displays of religion. But if you click the link to see what he wrote in context, he does challenge the application of the establishment cause. The church was selected over the school because it was bigger, had air conditioning, and cushioned seats and "No one disputes that the church was chosen only because of these amenities." Whether or not that's enough to trip the establishment clause or not isn't the point regarding the accusation of confusion. The point is, the quote is taken out of context and Scalia did go after the establishment clause. He's not confusing the two.

i didn't read the rest of what he said, but that's even worse. he's excluding key facts from his rant as well.

The record in the underlying appeal said there was no reason given why the church was the only option to host the graduation, and this was in suburban Milwaukee, so it's not like some hick town with no secular venues to rent for something like this. the premise is stupid to begin with.

local non-religious parents complained after a couple years, because the ceremonies were being held right there in the church, at the altar, surrounded by crucifixes, etc., the ACLU, FRF, and the ADL all intervened for the plaintiffs. I would too if my local school district started doing nonsense like this.

 

[Michchamp]

Not sure what the rumpus is here. ...

well, there's no rumpus; it's just that Scalia sucks is all.

I'd love to get a test case where the local public highschool went to hold their graduation ceremony in a Mosque, and did it such a way as to make it appear to be held according to the Muslim religion, as was the christian one here.

 

[Gulo Blue]

i didn't read the rest of what he said, but that's even worse. he's excluding key facts from his rant as well.

The record in the underlying appeal said there was no reason given why the church was the only option to host the graduation, and this was in suburban Milwaukee, so it's not like some hick town with no secular venues to rent for something like this. the premise is stupid to begin with.

local non-religious parents complained after a couple years, because the ceremonies were being held right there in the church, at the altar, surrounded by crucifixes, etc., the ACLU, FRF, and the ADL all intervened for the plaintiffs. I would too if my local school district started doing nonsense like this.

I did imagine it was a place with few options...not Milwaukee.

Even in Milwaukee, it is possible the church is the best option if you consider facility suitability for a large ceremony and cost. Big secular places for ceremonies generally aren't cheap. Sometimes churches are.

You're just guessing there are better options. Ignoring the part about nobody disputing it was only a matter of amenities. Either way, it's not because he's confusing the establishment clause with his aversion for rock.

 

[byco42]

well, there's no rumpus; it's just that Scalia sucks is all.

I'd love to get a test case where the local public highschool went to hold their graduation ceremony in a Mosque, and did it such a way as to make it appear to be held according to the Muslim religion, as was the christian one here.

I speculate if the mosque would allow that to occur. But we'll just have to wait.

 

[Gulo Blue]

well, there's no rumpus; it's just that Scalia sucks is all.

I'd love to get a test case where the local public highschool went to hold their graduation ceremony in a Mosque, and did it such a way as to make it appear to be held according to the Muslim religion, as was the christian one here.

What are you saying? You'd flip your legal understanding of the issue if it was a different religion?

 

[byco42]

What are you saying? You'd flip your legal understanding of the issue if it was a different religion?

No I think he thinks I would. That I'd be all up in there if a public HS had a graduation in a mosque. I wouldn't care.

 

[Gulo Blue]

No I think he thinks I would. That I'd be all up in there if a public HS had a graduation in a mosque. I wouldn't care.

Oh. "get a test case" means "see a test case". Not actually get it himself.

 

[Monster]

No I think he thinks I would. That I'd be all up in there if a public HS had a graduation in a mosque. I wouldn't care.

and if it was your kid? That's what I thought.


Nobody cares about public displays of religion...as long as those displays are on private property and privately funded. The gov't, no matter if it's the city or fed gov't, has no right to endorse one religion over another. And unless every religion and non religion gets its fair share of the spotlight, it's illegal. And that would never happen. I don't get what people don't understand about this.

You won't see an atheist group going after a store because they have a jesus statue on their property that everyone has to look at. But the minute that the court or school do the same thing, that's a big issue.

It doesn't matter whether we're on the verge of being a theocracy or not. Nearly every member of Congress and every President have been Christian. I would think that'd be enough for you? We're further from an atheist takeover than a theocracy, but for some reason christians are up in freaking arms when we try to get a gov't building to take down the 10 commandments. We're pictured as villains when we try to get the gov't to abide by the one piece of the constitution that specifically refers to us. Forgive me if I laugh at Christians being offended by that.

 

[KAWDUP]

and if it was your kid? That's what I thought.


Nobody cares about public displays of religion...as long as those displays are on private property and privately funded. The gov't, no matter if it's the city or fed gov't, has no right to endorse one religion over another. And unless every religion and non religion gets its fair share of the spotlight, it's illegal. And that would never happen. I don't get what people don't understand about this.

You won't see an atheist group going after a store because they have a jesus statue on their property that everyone has to look at. But the minute that the court or school do the same thing, that's a big issue.

It doesn't matter whether we're on the verge of being a theocracy or not. Nearly every member of Congress and every President have been Christian. I would think that'd be enough for you? We're further from an atheist takeover than a theocracy, but for some reason christians are up in freaking arms when we try to get a gov't building to take down the 10 commandments. We're pictured as villains when we try to get the gov't to abide by the one piece of the constitution that specifically refers to us. Forgive me if I laugh at Christians being offended by that.

Right back 'atcha:

We're pictured as villains when we try to get the gov't to abide by the one piece of the constitution that specifically refers to everyone - Freedom of Speech. Forgive me if I laugh at atheists being offended by that.

 

[Monster]

Why are we offended by free speech? It applies to everyone regardless of religion, race, sex, etc. What we will complain about is anyone that uses that right to spread hate. I'd speak out against anyone spreading hate for christians, too. And I have.

 

[KAWDUP]

Why are we offended by free speech? It applies to everyone regardless of religion, race, sex, etc. What we will complain about is anyone that uses that right to spread hate. I'd speak out against anyone spreading hate for christians, too. And I have.

. . . and how does that have anything to do with what I posted in answer to? Spreading hate - where is that coming from?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Found some details: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/20121220-Elmbrook-cert-petition.pdf NOTE: I think this is from the district side. Maybe MC could clear that up for me

It sounds like this thing unfolded with good intentions. It's not Christians up in freaking arms.

After considering several alternative venues, school officials chose the Church, because "no [other venue] is as attractive as the Church, particularly for the price."

It says there is no dispute that the decision to hold it in the church was motivated by a secular purpose. It went on for about 10 years. They removed all non-permanent religious symbols. They have a policy against covering permanent symbols, but they covered it inadvertently in the first year, and then didn't cover in following years. There were no prayers or religious references at the ceremonies. In some years, at least one, church members handed out religious material (they missed that in the write up). Respondents sought a permanent injunction against holding ceremonies there unless all religious symbols could be covered up (some flexibility offered there.) District court sided with the school and the secular factors driving the decision and said there was no indication that the alternatives suggested by the plaintiffs were better than or equal to the church and that a reasonable observer would conclude the selection was based on practical concerns and not an endorsement.

In 2009, a new gymnasium was built and the ceremony moved. A panel of the Seventh Court affirmed that the church rental was not endorsement and held that the case was not moot by relocating to the gym since the plaintiffs had claims for damages.

On appeal, the decision was reversed with a legal analysis that broadly adopted a prohibition of government functions in church buildings, which necessarily conveys a message of endorsement. The appeals court said you do not need to engage in coercive activity for something to be coercive and endorsement and coercion "are two sides of the same coin."


There must be more to it to explain why there were claims for damages. I need to see the other side.

 

[byco42]

and if it was your kid? That's what I thought.

Moot point given that my kids went to Catholic school. And that the Mosque would never permit it anyway, nor would the school apply for permission. Were he a public-schooler, it's a few hours in a building that has no power over me.

Nobody cares about public displays of religion...as long as those displays are on private property and privately funded. The gov't, no matter if it's the city or fed gov't, has no right to endorse one religion over another. And unless every religion and non religion gets its fair share of the spotlight, it's illegal. And that would never happen. I don't get what people don't understand about this.

Mabye it's simply using the structure as one and it's not an endorsement of the religion at all. My Catholic sons both graduated from the Masonic Temple in Detroit. You'd think there'd be a problem with that, but there wasn't. Even the Masons didn't protest. Somethings you let drift.

You won't see an atheist group going after a store because they have a jesus statue on their property that everyone has to look at. But the minute that the court or school do the same thing, that's a big issue.

This is not issue here. It's using a religious structure for a secular purpose. It's done all the time by people.

It doesn't matter whether we're on the verge of being a theocracy or not. Nearly every member of Congress and every President have been Christian. I would think that'd be enough for you?

Straw man. I don't care so long as they do not impinge on my right to worship God. There are even Christian sects who would do so if they could. Religion is not a voting-point for me.

We're further from an atheist takeover than a theocracy, but for some reason christians are up in freaking arms when we try to get a gov't building to take down the 10 commandments. We're pictured as villains when we try to get the gov't to abide by the one piece of the constitution that specifically refers to us. Forgive me if I laugh at Christians being offended by that.

I can't apologize for the actions of others. And which Christian sect of the hundreds of thousands would you think would be the one to "takeover" the government?

 

[Monster]

. . . and how does that have anything to do with what I posted in answer to? Spreading hate - where is that coming from?

You said your freedom of speech is being violated. The only speech that we attack you for is the hateful speech. We have no care in the world what you say or do as long as it isn't hateful or infringing on our rights.

 

[Gulo Blue]

 

[KAWDUP]

You said your freedom of speech is being violated. The only speech that we attack you for is the hateful speech. We have no care in the world what you say or do as long as it isn't hateful or infringing on our rights.

Hmm . . . not sure you got what I was saying.

You said:

. . . but for some reason christians are up in freaking arms when we try to get a gov't building to take down the 10 commandments. We're pictured as villains when we try to get the gov't to abide by the one piece of the constitution that specifically refers to us. Forgive me if I laugh at Christians being offended by that.

I was railing against your use of a Constitutional provision that refers specifically to your group, and also how you use the words "We're pictured as villains . . . ", when in the same situation you are describing (not anything to do with spreading hate), you yourself were picturing "us" as villains for using free speech to justify having the 10 Commandments there in the first place.

Followed by turning your "laughing at" statement around on you. Not trying to be persnickety, just saying that being "up in arms" goes both ways.