Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia does not think the that the separation of church and state means the government cannot favor religion over nonreligion. Did I mention that he is on the Supreme Court?

So here are a few things that Justice Scalia said to the audience of the Colorado Christian University on Wednesday courtesy of the Washington Times:  

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said. 

Okay for those who may not know, the 1st Amendment says the following:  

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

So my question would be IF the Congress were to favor a religion, which religion would it be, since the first amendment clearly states that they cannot favor one over another?

If the laws support Christianity then it steps on the rights of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, practitioners of Jainism, Taoists, Rastafarians, Wiccans, etc., etc., etc..

Which is kind of the reason that the amendment is usually interpreted to avoid favoring any religion over another, or over the nonreligious. And wouldn't you hope that a Supreme Court Justice might know that?

But wait, there's more:  

“We do him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” Justice Scalia said. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.” 

Yes, when we were a less educated, and less homogenized society, it may have seemed reasonable to allow certain religious groups to dominate the public arena. But we are far removed from those bygone days, and thankfully our founding fathers provided us with a blueprint of how to right the wrongs of past myopic leaders, and to finally have the all inclusive paradise that the authors of the Constitution always imagined.  

Again you would think a Supreme Court Justice might understand that.

“Our [the court‘s] latest take on the subject, which is quite different from previous takes, is that the state must be neutral, not only between religions, but between religion and nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said. “That’s just a lie. Where do you get the notion that this is all unconstitutional? You can only believe that if you believe in a morphing Constitution.”

Or in reading it.

“If I had the other view of the Constitution — that it was an empty bottle, which was to be filed by my court, and it was my responsibility to decide … all these massive ethical questions — if they were all my call, I couldn’t sleep at night,” Mr. Scalia said. “And some of my colleagues have said, ‘Oh, we agonize a lot.’ I don’t agonize at all. I look at the text, I look at the history of the text. That’s the answer. It’s not my call.” 

So what we have learned is that Justice Scalia really does not completely understand the document that he is sworn to uphold,  clearly panders to the religious right, and that his ignorance allows him to sleep like a baby.

Well great, now that I know all of that, how am I going to be able to sleep?