Antonin Scalia Re-defines "Separate" for the Religious

On Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke to an audience of 400 people at Colorado Christian University.  His speech focused on his interpretation of our constitutional right to the separation of church and state, telling his audience that "separation" doesn't really mean separate at all. 

what eye thynk:   Justice Scalia is a dangerous man in a position to do real harm.  

Apparently believing that every constitutional scholar for the past 200+ years has been wrong, he told his audience that the writers of our Constitution did not actually mean that church and state should be kept separate.  Calling himself a constitutional "originalist," he claimed that our founders' intent had nothing to do with keeping religion out of government.  They only meant to ensure that one religion was not favored over another.  

So Christians, Jews, Buddhists and even Wicans are cool, but agnostics get the back of the bus?  And when a Muslim wants to ride...?   

Calling qualms about religion in government "utterly absurd," (and completely ignoring how well legislating faith has worked historically in the Middle East), he said we need to "fight" the "secularists," explaining that the Constitution only obligates us to protect freedom of religion, not freedom from it.   

This argument turns every non-believer into a second class citizen. And if you wonder how this equality between religions would work in real life, you only need look at the case of Greece, NY here. 

Of the Supreme Court's "latest take on the subject...that the state must be neutral, not only between religions, but between religion and non-religion," he said,  "That's just a lie."  

He criticized his fellow Justices who see the Constitution as a "living" document, calling that a judicial philosophy only an "idiot" could believe.  (This guy must be a real joy to work with on a daily basis.)

The obvious weakness in his "originalist" dogma is that, if the maiden Constitution was so perfect and immutable, then why did our founding fathers feel the need to add the Bill of Rights just a few years later?  He claims that "the First Amendment explicitly favors religion;" but if we adhere strictly to the original Constitution, that protection would not even exist.  And don't even get me started on the 19th Amendment.

In Justice Scalia we have a man whose view of our Constitution goes beyond a conservative interpretation to become a narrow-minded re-invention--in short: a dangerous man in a position of great power.