Scalia: Government can favor religion

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stirred up things last month when he made a common-sense statement about racial preferences in college and university admissions. To increase the number of brown faces on campus, schools lower admission standards for applicants of certain minority groups and call it “affirmative action.” Justice Scalia said some black students might be better off academically at schools that match their levels of achievement.

The justice could be on a roll. His latest “controversial” remarks came last week while speaking at a Roman Catholic High School in New Orleans. He reminded the audience that the U.S. Constitution does not require the government to be neutral on religion. (Have you noticed that liberals oppose a race- and gender-neutral government but insist on a religion-neutral one?)

“To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition,” Scalia said. “Where did that come from? To be sure, you can’t favor one denomination over another but can’t favor religion over non-religion?”

Government neutrality in religion, he pointed out, is not “common practice,” noting that activist judges began imposing their own rules. One example is the Supreme Court’s Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), where the justices came up with a three-part test to determine whether a law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. One could argue they made law with this case instead of interpreting the Constitution.

If people want strict prohibition against government endorsement of religion, let them vote on it, Scalia said. But we know how well that’s worked out in states where voters passed laws affirming that marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Courts struck down those laws. And then came Obergefell v. Hodges last June.

How can we stop the assault on religious freedom and protect our fundamental rights? Atheists and other unbelievers have managed to frame the religious freedom debate to their advantage, pushing Christianity from the public square. They complain and litigate to remove religious symbols and any hint of Christ on tax-funded property. They try to block nativity scenes in high school programs. They’ve threatened to sue a small city over the police department’s Adopt a Cop prayer program. According to their frame, Christian business owners can’t even refuse to provide a service that mocks the God they worship.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment means more than privately praying, going to church, wearing religious symbols, and sharing the gospel. It means living one’s faith every day, and that includes refusing to celebrate a lifestyle God calls an abomination. How can we reframe the debate and play offense? The main obstacle: groups that don’t care about our fundamental right to religious freedom have powerful lobbies that appeal to leftists in power.