I don't care much about other people's labels. But I do care about revisionism.
Read anything attributable to those that worked with him, even other Supreme Court Justices. And imagine how toned down that was.
In fact, I am more and more seeing the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas was of course the founding father of separation of church and state, in both the Declaration of Independence, and the Virginia Constitution it is evident. In one he talked extensively about the individual's rights for self-determination and in the other he put an end to state sponsored tithing and the penal laws. And he killed that particularly barbaric, authoritarian set of quaint set of customs that our English forefathers want to restore today.
If you don't consider any stand he has made back and forth on religion proof of that, you are blinded by politics, or need to list all his opinions and public statements and compare. It is simple, and concrete; there is no cause for subjective political or ideological complaint.
About religion, TJ was a 'deist.' ("
a theological/philosophical position that combines the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge with the conclusion that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe.)
I don't have a problem with a conservative justice, on the basis that he is conservative. Jefferson, or Adams, I cannot remember who, had a quote about, 'liberal in thought and conservative in application.' That serves me fine as an anthem and a label I am willing to wear.
But this devil, heaven and hell thing. On that basis alone, I have serious questions. I don't care where he graduated from law school. It is well documented. Scalia was an ardent believer in arch-conservative Catholicism. There is a devil with cloven hooves and a pitchfork. And he has made on the record comments about who is in heaven and who is in hell. It is true that in his mind Mahatma Gandhi is in hell, and it is because he did not convert to Christianity.
You know it was common knowledge that Gandhi was obsessed with Christianity, and reportedly knew the Books of the New Testament as well as, or better than the Christian scholars who tried to convince him of conversion. In fact, from everything I have read, what Gandhi treasured most was the works and quotes attributed to Jesus Christ. And if you ever read the Jeffersonian Bible, you will see that they both had the same view of the Bible.
Scalia says that Gandhi has to be in hell because of his rejection of Christianity, and therefore Jesus Christ. He said it. That view is so fraught with irony : When asked why he wouldn't convert, he said it was no problem with Christ or the tenants of Christianity, but simply the fact that he trusted few if any of the devout Christians he knew; And, not only did he overtly model his life after the example he found in Jesus Christ, Gandhi was probably responsible for freeing more people than anyone since our founding fathers.
Sometimes one can judge a man by his enemies, and if TJ and MG were his enemies one could conclude he was a great man and a colossus of an intellectual.
But, if one looks closely at the gestalt of his work, the overall body of his composition throughout the course of his career, one can see that he sniped conveniently at anyone that stood in the way of his illogic. And that he attacked those that couldn't defend themselves with impunity.
I don't know, maybe you all believe in a literal devil, but I am not so much impressed with the supernatural. Not impresses as in I don't believe in it. I don't have problems with anyone who does. What I have a problem with is someone who takes it as far as besmirching or persecuting anyone who doesn't believe. Someone who pursues that to an obsessive level. That to me supersedes the functional definition of insanity. After all, isn't what makes Christianity unique, their acceptance of all others, including those that persecuted them in similar a manner?
And finally about States Rights and Federal Executive Branch authority, Scalia didn't vacillate back and forth, he was clear. He was the lapdog of his benefactor, Ronald Reagan, and became the lapdog of his successor(s), the Bush family. That is also clear from his record.
* I believe what most biblical scholars, including a prominent one I had as a visiting professor have stated time and time again. Talk of the 'devil' began in old testament times. Developed as a literary device first expressed in the Book of Numbers, he became a full fledged character who tempted God to have his most faithfull servant tested in the book of Job. This was over an eight hundred year period, and corresponds to similar legend in almost every other culture of the ancient world.
[ שָּׂטָן satan, hasatan, meaning "adversary"; Arabic: شيطان shaitan, meaning; "distant", or sometimes "devil".]
Can we just go ahead and assume everyone who disagrees with your worldview is a complete dick? As long as everyone is goose-stepping along in lockstep....the world would be a better place.
I pretty much
agree with his view on this issue,
although I wouldn't use that language, but I am a
complete dick.
