Scalia To Synagogue - Jews Are Safer With Christians In Charge

[xpanda]

I wonder why Scalia isn't being deemed an 'Activist Judge', too?

Scalia To Synagogue - Jews Are Safer With Christians In Charge
by Thom Hartmann
*
Antonin Scalia, the man most likely to be our next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, turned history on its head recently when he attended an Orthodox synagogue in New York and claimed that the Founders intended for their Christianity to play a part in government. Scalia then went so far as to suggest that the reason Hitler was able to initiate the Holocaust was because of German separation of church and state.

The Associated Press reported on November 23, 2004, "In the synagogue that is home to America's oldest Jewish congregation, he [Scalia] noted that in Europe, religion-neutral leaders almost never publicly use the word 'God.'"

"Did it turn out that," Scalia asked rhetorically, "by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America?" He then answered himself, saying, "I don't think so."

Scalia has an extraordinary way of not letting facts confound his arguments, but this time he's gone completely over the top by suggesting that a separation of church and state facilitated the Holocaust. If his comments had gotten wider coverage (they were only noted in one small AP article, and one in the Jerusalem Post), they may have brought America's largest religious communities - both Christian and Jewish - into the streets.

(snip)

The photos that can be seen, for instance, at www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm of the Catholic Bishops giving the collective Nazi salute. The annual April 20th celebration, declared by Pope Pius XII, of Hitler's birthday. The belt buckles of the German army, which declared "Gott Mit Uns" ("God is with us"). The pictures of the 1933 investiture of Bishop Ludwig Müller, the official Bishop of the 1000-Years-Of-Peace Nazi Reich. That last photo should be the most problematic for Scalia, because Hitler had done exactly what Scalia is recommending - he merged church and state.

Article 1 of the "Decree concerning the Constitution of the German Protestant Church, of 14 July 1933," signed by Adolf Hitler himself, merged the German Protestant Church into the Reich, and gave the Reich the legal authority to ordain priests.

Article Three provides absolute assurance to the new state church that the Reich will fund it, even if that requires going to Hitler's cabinet. It opens: "Should the competent agencies of a State Church refuse to include assessments of the German Protestant Church in their budget, the appropriate State Government will cause the expenditures to be included in the budget upon request of the Reich Cabinet."

That new state-sponsored German church's constitution opens: "At a time in which our German people are experiencing a great historical new era through the grace of God," the new German state church "federates into a solemn league all denominations that stem from the Reformation and stand equally legitimately side by side, and thereby bears witness to: 'One Body and One Spirit, One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Father of All of Us, who is Above All, and Through All, and In All.'" (Me: Is there an echo in here???)

(snip)

Which brings up one of the main reasons - almost always overlooked by modern-day commentators, both left and right - that the Founders and Framers were so careful to separate church and state: They didn't want religion to be corrupted by government.

Many of the Founders were people of faith, and even the Deists like Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson were deeply touched by what Franklin called "The Mystery." And they'd seen how badly religious bodies became corrupted when churches acquired power through affiliation with or participation in government.

(snip)

Certainly the Founders wanted to protect government from being hijacked by the religious, as I noted in a previous article that quotes Jefferson on this topic. But several of them were even more concerned that the churches themselves would be corrupted by the lure of government's easy access to money and power.

Religious leaders in the Founders' day, in defense of church/state cooperation, pointed out that for centuries kings and queens in England had said that if the state didn't support the church, the church would eventually wither and die.

James Madison flatly rejected this argument, noting in a July 10, 1822 letter to Edward Livingston: "We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government."

He added in that same letter, "I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together."

Madison even objected to government giving money to churches to care for the poor. It would be the beginning of a dangerous mixture, he believed - dangerous both to government and churches alike. Thus, on February 21, 1811, President James Madison vetoed a bill passed by Con gress that authorized government payments to a church in Washington, DC to help the poor.

In Madison's mind, caring for the poor was a public and civic duty - a function of government - and must not be allowed to become a hole through which churches could reach and seize political power or the taxpayer's purse. Funding a church to provide for the poor would establish a "legal agency" - a legal precedent - that would break down the wall of separation the founders had put between church and state to protect Americans from religious zealots gaining political power.

Thus, Madison said in his veto message to Congress, he was striking down the proposed law, "Because the bill vests and said incorporated church an also authority to provide for the support of the poor, and the education of poor children of the same;..." which, Madison said, "would be a precedent for giving to religious societies, as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty."

(snip)

But always, in Madison's mind, the biggest problem was that religion itself showed a long history of becoming corrupt when it had access to the levers of governmental power and money.

In 1832, he wrote a letter to the Reverend Jasper Adams, pointing this out. "I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others."

As he wrote to Edward Everett on March 18, 1823, "The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both..."

Yet now, in 2004, the religious appear to be on the verge of both corrupting government and being corrupted themselves by the power and influence government can wield.

For example, as Reverend Moon has moved more and more into the political realm - from funding activities of both George H.W. Bush and his son George W. Bush, to funding the money-losing but politically activist Washington Times newspaper, to financially bailing out Jerry Falwell, to setting up numerous charities that now ask for federal funding - we see an increasing and ominous participation of legislators and Moonies. Moon, for example, was crowned by several members of Congress in the Senate Dirksen Office building on March 23, 2004. As the Washington Post noted in a July 21 story by Charles Babington, Moon himself proclaimed to our elected representatives attending the ceremony, "Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."

Others, like Falwell and Robertson, who want to use the money and power of government to promote their religious agendas, are making rapid inroads with George W. Bush's so-called "faith-based initiatives," which shift money from government programs for the poor and needy to churches and religious groups.

All of this - the merging of church and state - is now being aggressively promoted by no less than Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, in no less shocking a venue than the nation's oldest Orthodox synagogue.

In some distant place, Adolf Hitler and Bishop Müller must be smiling at Scalia's encouragement of the growing conflation of church and state in America. It's exactly what they worked so hard to achieve, and what helped make their horrors possible.

And Thomas Jefferson and James Madison must have tears in their eyes.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1202-33.htm

 

[PatPatriot]

 

[xpanda]

Interesting reply, given that the article is very specifically about Scalia's terribly disingenuous and fallacious statement. Nothing in there whatsoever about Red States or Jesusland or Republican stupidity.

More interesting is that your reply paints you with the very brush you accuse me of using ...

If Scalia believes that fascism and tyrannical regimes can be kept at bay by merging the Church and the State, how does he explain his nation's disdain for Islamic regimes? More importantly, given the armageddon prophecies of Christians (especially those on the far right) how in god's name does he purport that Jews, who someday must convert or die, are actually safer?

It's a ridiculous argument and not founded on historical fact or even imaginative reasoning. Very sad for a future Chief Justice, don't you think?

 

[PatPatriot]

I don't see where Scalia acted on anything from the bench giving an opinion is not acting.

Certainly the Founders wanted to protect government from being hijacked by the religious, as I noted in a previous article that quotes Jefferson on this topic. But several of them were even more concerned that the churches themselves would be corrupted by the lure of government's easy access to money and power.

Thats bullsh!t the founders wanted to keep the politics away from the religion as much as religion out of politics.It was always the main premise was to keep the secular policys and politicians out of religioous sector.(Unless of course it was for a strong message deemed so by the NY Times and either Bill Clinton or John Kerry was delivering it from a black church which was also a great photo-op for the benifit of Jesus landers) Which by the way I don't ever recall GW giving a politcal speech from a church.

The pictures of the 1933 investiture of Bishop Ludwig Müller, the official Bishop of the 1000-Years-Of-Peace Nazi Reich. That last photo should be the most problematic for Scalia, because Hitler had done exactly what Scalia is recommending - he merged church and state.

Like they really had a choice.How long would those Bishops be alive if they told Hitler to take his Nazism and shove it up ass.??...Those churches were allowed to stay as long as the spin pro reich.Those were religions that were established and shaped by the nazi goverment.
I can't belive the paranoia of the seculaist Taliban that is going on.You sound like an insane person with your Bush/Facism comparisons.I mean its beyond absured.

 

[PatPatriot]

By the way I haven't been to mass in a while but the last time I went there was no mention of Mein Fuherer Bush...However I would bet both our bankrolls that there would have been a few honarable mentions regarding the policys and the greatness of Hitler circa 1940 in any all churches in the fatherland on a regulary scheduled goverment say so.

 

[xpanda]

True, Scalia has not yet ruled in this regard. But, still, his reasoning is certainly questionable and, since judges are supposed to be masters at reasoning, it seems a bit bizarre, no?

On Hitler and the Church: Hitler didn't like Catholics so much but, instead of killing all of them off, he made a deal with the Catholic Church that each would turn a blind eye to one another. So, no, failure to comply with the Nazi regime would not automatically end in death. Hitler merged religion and fascism together as all fascist regimes have done and pronounced himself as the one to protect the "true German religion" from mass persecution. Though Bush has not done this as overtly as Hitler did, his references to 'crusades' and 'evildoers' and 'America's soul' suggest (to put it mildly) a Christo v. Islam mindset. Scalia's comments appear to echo these sentiments. Whether or not they will manifest in the courtroom as Bush's have in foreign policy remains to be seen.

 

[xpanda]

By the way I haven't been to mass in a while but the last time I went there was no mention of Mein Fuherer Bush...However I would bet both our bankrolls that there would have been a few honarable mentions regarding the policys and the greatness of Hitler circa 1940 in any all churches in the fatherland on a regulary scheduled goverment say so.

Be very careful here, by the way ... you are implying that this article is meant to compare the Bush admin to the Hitler regime when it does not. Scalia, in fact, is the one who purports to have the answers on avoiding another Holocaust and he believes that merging Church and State would do the trick. The author is merely pointing out the incredible flaw in this reasoning since the exact opposite is true.

(I believe the US is becoming fascist, but that is not to say the author agrees necessarily.)

 

[bblight]

Historicaly speaking, until recently, the Catholic hierarchy has been very anti-semetic. Because of this, Catholicism was more tolerated in the Third Reich than other religions. Although the Catholic Church has denied it, they've often been accused of knowing the details of the "Final Solution" before everyone else outside of the Reich.

Personally, I believe that the left is so anti-religious because their God, Karl Marx, disliked religion, saying that religion was "the opiate of the masses" a tool used by governments to oppress the people.

 

[PatPatriot]

On Hitler and the Church: Hitler didn't like Catholics so much but, instead of killing all of them off, he made a deal with the Catholic Church that each would turn a blind eye to one another.

Yeah it was like an offer they couldn't refuse....Take the "deal" or die.

(I believe the US is becoming fascist, but that is not to say the author agrees necessarily

Sweetheart you have to get a grip.Today when I went to get a paper I saw a man walking across the lawn with an axe in his hand.Chances were very good that he was getting some firewood.My lack of paranoia let me come to this conclusion.However if I would have smoked a lot of pot i may have thought that he was about to butcher an entire family with it. (Or I would be laughing my ass off at the limp he had and wondered if it was from the axe.)

I mean you take apples and oranges and bring them to whole new level of manic parallels.

 

[PatPatriot]

Personally, I believe that the left is so anti-religious because their God, Karl Marx, disliked religion, saying that religion was "the opiate of the masses" a tool used by governments to oppress the people.<!-- / message -->

They don't like it because it is a sanctuary for those like minded people with that religions beliefs,values and morals, which is counter to a lot of the liberal mind set.The libs want one contolling authority, that has mind set that they establish.
They don't want god providing anything they want central goverment tp provide all that THEY say you need......God your fired!

 

[xpanda]

With all due respect, I suspect you don't differentiate between Nazi fascism and other varieties. One needn't live in a society where mass genocide is occuring to be fascist. The two principle elements are hyper-nationalism (check) and imperialist ambitions (double-check.)

Further, I don't know what definition of liberalism you're referring to, but I've not heard of one that wishes for all people to have the same mindset. Unless you mean that we wish for everyone to leave everyone else alone unless they're actually harming you in some way. Other than hoping for mass tolerance, I don't see much in the way of one-size-fits-all.

No, that intent belongs to the kinds of people who wish to profess that the US is a Christian nation, though it is not. But you guys can't seem to get the difference between secular and atheist and are knee-jerking all over the place.

 

[PatPatriot]

With all due respect, I suspect you don't differentiate between Nazi fascism and other varieties.

I don't when its only the comparison you use.

No, that intent belongs to the kinds of people who wish to profess that the US is a Christian nation, though it is not. But you guys can't seem to get the difference between secular and atheist and are knee-jerking all over the place.<!-- / message -->

It is a christian nation. The constitution was written by christian men with christian values and traditions and to say otherwise is another form history revision.
What "us" guys are doing is reacting to the knee jerking by "you" guys.
What "us" guys represent is the majority,what we react to is the knee jerking by minority,for a change.What you fail to understand is that "us" guys are the mainstream not "you" guys.Welcome to the real reality not the fabricated "Alice in Wonderland" perpetrated by the "mainstream" media.

 

[xpanda]

Historicaly speaking, until recently, the Catholic hierarchy has been very anti-semetic. Because of this, Catholicism was more tolerated in the Third Reich than other religions. Although the Catholic Church has denied it, they've often been accused of knowing the details of the "Final Solution" before everyone else outside of the Reich.

Just finished reading a bit on this exact thing. I think I agree.

Personally, I believe that the left is so anti-religious because their God, Karl Marx, disliked religion, saying that religion was "the opiate of the masses" a tool used by governments to oppress the people.

I agree with this, as well. Though it should be noted that I was indoctrinated Catholic (school, church, blah blah) and didn't read anything by Marx until about five years ago. It's really simple, actually: extremely religious people, by virtue of the fact that they believe in many things they've never seen and are by all accounts outrageous, are less likely to question authority. This is precisely what even nice governments want: less fuss. Religion, when in the hands of the government, is often used for exactly that. And, somehow, religion always ends up in the hands of the government.

 

[xpanda]

I don't when its only the comparison you use.

Well, remember that I don't. Hitler was brought into this thread in my original article, via Justice Scalia. Remember he claimed the Holocaust would not have happened had Church and State not been separated. That's how it came up.

It is a christian nation. The constitution was written by christian men with christian values and traditions and to say otherwise is another form history revision.

Then why is Jesus not written into anything? Why the careful ommission of anything specifically Christian?

What "us" guys are doing is reacting to the knee jerking by "you" guys.
What "us" guys represent is the majority,what we react to is the knee jerking by minority,for a change.What you fail to understand is that "us" guys are the mainstream not "you" guys.Welcome to the real reality not the fabricated "Alice in Wonderland" perpetrated by the "mainstream" media.

Well, fair enough. (this is why I said wed argue the chicken and egg bit because us types would argue that your side started it.) The province I live in (most of the country) is very secular. Almost nobody is publicly religious, short of clothing and jewellery and such. I've never heard a Prime Minister mention religion or god and certainly I've never heard one talk about his particular faith. We did have a much-further-right-wing party, the Reform Party, pop up in the 90s, only to throw the term 'family values' on the table and lose support almost overnight.

And, I do think the secular side takes some things too far. (Like the word 'god' appearing in the DoI.)

Anyway, there's a big difference between having more Christians than any other religion and actually embracing Christianity as an official characteristic of your national identity. Again, it would be like having a majority white and thus calling yourselves an Aryan nation.

 

[PatPatriot]

Anyway, there's a big difference between having more Christians than any other religion and actually embracing Christianity as an official characteristic of your national identity. Again, it would be like having a majority white and thus calling yourselves an Aryan nation.<!-- / message -->

There you go again.Cute.The distinction is a nation who's overwhelmingly base of orignal population was Christian and western european and whos constitution and declaration of independence,culture and traditions reflects christian values and beliefs (parse the wording anyway you want),would be contrary to an "aryan nation",anti-semetic nation or anything else that your trying to intimate.
Its only the secularist taliban that is hell bent on oppressing certain tradition and cultures within american society.

 

[xpanda]

There you go again.Cute.The distinction is a nation who's overwhelmingly base of orignal population was Christian and western european and whos constitution and declaration of independence,culture and traditions reflects christian values and beliefs (parse the wording anyway you want),would be contrary to an "aryan nation",anti-semetic nation or anything else that your trying to intimate.

There you go again redefining words to your benefit. If 'Aryan nation' autmatically means 'anti-Semitic', does it follow, by your logic, that 'Christian nation' is also anti-Semitic as well as anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, anti-Muslim, anti-Agnostic, anti-Atheist, etc?

Of course not.

But labelling yourselves a Christian nation, as opposed to a nation with a majority Christian, is to put a permanent characteristic on the country and to invite the Church to marry the State.

My Priest uncle and my minister friend both have told me that they agree with the separation of Church and State ... it protects both from the corruption of the other.

Why is this such an abomination for you?

Its only the secularist taliban that is hell bent on oppressing certain tradition and cultures within american society.

Funny, because in here I read Game and Doc state that the Mosques should all be shut down and that even knowing gays is unbecoming of the leadership.

When you interject religion (any religion) into the affairs of the state, you get this kind of lunacy. You also eliminate the need for reasoning in policy making, since everything can be explained away as 'god's will.' Funny, too, that bin Laden's beef with the MidEast is that there's too much secularism ....

Tell me, when Bush says that 'god speaks through me' or that 'god told me to strike so I did' do you go 'woohoo!' or does it give you the heebee-jeebees?

 

[PatPatriot]

If 'Aryan nation' autmatically means 'anti-Semitic', does it follow, by your logic, that 'Christian nation' is also anti-Semitic as well as anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, anti-Muslim, anti-Agnostic, anti-Atheist, etc?

No and you know I don't, but I just thought you were throwing in a backdoor dig with shoehorning in Aryan nation comment(when its used,its usually to scare up thoughts of anti-semetism and racism.)Maybe I'm wrong only you know.

But labelling yourselves a Christian nation, as opposed to a nation with a majority Christian

I'm not sure if I'm totally incorrect.I mean what I learned why people migrated here in the first place is freedom of religion and they were mostly if not all christian.So logicaly it would be framed and structured at the very least, with the "color" of christianity.In the last 20 years all of a sudden its causing some to go spastic.

Why is this such an abomination for you?

I'm not overly religious.I do believe in Jesus.I believe in certain christian teachings like the concept that you will be ultimatley judged on how you treat people less fortunate than you,and it has served me well where I go everyday.I think its wrong for the secularist to deamonize christianity and not allowing children and others that live in their own dispair that it may be an option for them.You can go to public school and find out where to get needles and abortions and prozac but you can't find Jesus there.....Hey any guy who can walk with whores,heathens and thieves is a friend of mine, and those are good values to have and most Americans have those even democrats.

Tell me, when Bush says that 'god speaks through me' or that 'god told me to strike so I did' do you go 'woohoo!' or does it give you the heebee-jeebees?

I think thats a paranoid reaction. Look you can't listen to the guy without subtitles as it is.I just think he dosen't know how to express himself without freakin everybody out about it.

 

[xpanda]

I'd be really happy if you stopped lumping me in with all those anti-Christian types, then. I mean it when I preach 'live and let live.' I don't care who you pray to, or that you pray at all or if you don't ever pray. Merging church and state, in an official manner, will send me over the edge, though. But there's no kind of immediate danger of that happening here. I've never even heard a Prime Minister name his religion of choice. For all I know, we've elected one atheist after another. It simply does not come up here.

That said, changing the term "Christmas" to "Festive season" serves little purposes. December 25 is a Christian holiday, no getting around that. (Why not give each citizen, say, five religious holidays to choose from a year?) The word 'god' appearing in various gov't documents isn't an issue for me, either.

BUT ... the President of the United States, sitting on the largest arsenal ever known to man, with the capacity to nuke all of us to high heaven (pardon the pun) who might believe in the Rapture, and/or believes that he is on a divine mission, scares the absolute living crap out of me.

Religion and politics is bad news.

(I believe that Jesus existed, too, btw. Just not from a theistic perspective. He does seem like nice man, tho.)