A man of faith
The Reverend Paul Scalia, son Justice Antonin Scalia and a Catholic priest, who presided over the funeral mass for his father on Saturday, the 20th of February, 2106 is reported in several news sources to have said of his father that he considered the founding of the United States a blessing – “a blessing quickly lost when faith is banned from the public square or when we refuse to bring it there.”
From everything I read, Justice Scalia was a person who gave a lot thought to his vocation, his roles as father, husband, and grandfather and to his relationship with the God of his understanding. His son, The Reverend Paul Scalia, seemed to be saying that his father believed that the blessing of this country was diluted “when faith is banned from the public square or we refuses to bring it there.” On the surface, I could certainly agree with Justice Scalia. Surely most of us could agree that we humans need to bring to the public square a deep faith in the ability of we humans to claim the fact that the world in which we find ourselves is enormously interdependent – that we cannot harm or mistreat one part of creation without affecting all of creation. Personally I would like to enter the public square knowing that I am going to encounter other people who will treat me with enormous respect and will expect that I will treat them with the same respect. There, we have it. In this area at least I could easily replace Justice Scalia on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States and come to the same conclusions he did on cases dealing with freedom of religion. Case closed. Opinion rendered.
Well, not so fast. It would seem that if one reads the opinions of Justice Scalia or those of such Christian and judicial scholars as Gary DeMar (see godfatherpolitics.com) the opinion is that the Constitution of the United States protects the right to have certain religious displays, prayers, and monuments in public places. The first amendment of the United States reads as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
According to Mr. Demar and quotes attributed to Justice Scalia, the amendment states “of religion” rather than “from” and thus states that we have to allow religions displays, prayers, or monuments in public places. Suppose we agree to that interpretation. What religious displays, prayers, or monuments should represent all the various religious beliefs and traditions as well as the beliefs and traditions of the non-believers? If all are equally represented the amount of time and space required could be prohibitive. Perhaps we could have a prayer, for example, which was inclusive of the beliefs of all the people who might comprise the citizens of the United States. Programs such as AA and NA sometimes refer either to the God of one’s understanding, a power greater than oneself, or “Good orderly direction.” Those programs are eager to be inclusive of anyone who needs the support and assistance of the members of AA, NA, or one of the other 12-step programs. I am not sure anyone would object to a moment of meditation or a call to help each other open their hearts and minds to a wisdom which was inclusive and respectful of all of creation.
The problem, of course, is often cases come before a legal body which reference a particular religious belief. In the United States and, it would seem in the case of Justice Scalia and several of the current presidential candidates, faith refers to a Christian faith. Surely no one hears candidates such as Mr. Cruz, Mr. Rubio, or Mr. Trump advocating the universal inclusion of Muslim displays, prayers, or monuments at all public gatherings. The individuals and groups supporting those candidates are, for the most part, expecting them to uphold the carefully contained Christian faith which believes that one must accept Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior. Even Mr. Trump who is the least vocal about his Christian, Presbyterian beliefs seems to expect the voter to assume that he is embracing the Christian religion.
It is interesting to me that we humans can simultaneously posit an all-powerful, an ever present, and an all knowing “God” who also needs to be constantly affirmed and recognized as the only deity whose embracing arms are open only to those who can pass through one very narrow door.
Perhaps it is my limited ability to focus which fails to see that faith can only refer to a concept of a deity based on the narrow beliefs of a particular religion.
I am delighted that Justice Scalia and at least one of his children, the Reverend Paul Scalia, were able to identify a religious community which they found welcoming and able to embrace them in all their humanness. I applaud the fact that each of the presidential candidates know that they are a valued member of a community of faith who affirms them in times of joy and in times of sorrow. I am delighted that they each search for a set of core values which helps them be intentional about their life journey and their personal and leadership roles.
I am just as delighted that my atheist, Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish friends who embrace a wide spectrum of religions or non-religious communities, know that they too are part of the we who are invited to the table in the public square. I believe that:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I agree with the late Justice Scalia that this amendment clearly says “of” and not “from”. Let’s never, ever do or say anything in the public square which makes a person from any religion or non-religion feel excluded. That will, of course, demand that if we are going to posit a concept of a higher power – a deity – that it be one who is strong, self-confident, and courageous enough to open all the windows and doors of all faiths to embracing arms.
Written February 21, 2016
The Reverend Paul Scalia, son Justice Antonin Scalia and a Catholic priest, who presided over the funeral mass for his father on Saturday, the 20th of February, 2106 is reported in several news sources to have said of his father that he considered the founding of the United States a blessing – “a blessing quickly lost when faith is banned from the public square or when we refuse to bring it there.”
From everything I read, Justice Scalia was a person who gave a lot thought to his vocation, his roles as father, husband, and grandfather and to his relationship with the God of his understanding. His son, The Reverend Paul Scalia, seemed to be saying that his father believed that the blessing of this country was diluted “when faith is banned from the public square or we refuses to bring it there.” On the surface, I could certainly agree with Justice Scalia. Surely most of us could agree that we humans need to bring to the public square a deep faith in the ability of we humans to claim the fact that the world in which we find ourselves is enormously interdependent – that we cannot harm or mistreat one part of creation without affecting all of creation. Personally I would like to enter the public square knowing that I am going to encounter other people who will treat me with enormous respect and will expect that I will treat them with the same respect. There, we have it. In this area at least I could easily replace Justice Scalia on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States and come to the same conclusions he did on cases dealing with freedom of religion. Case closed. Opinion rendered.
Well, not so fast. It would seem that if one reads the opinions of Justice Scalia or those of such Christian and judicial scholars as Gary DeMar (see godfatherpolitics.com) the opinion is that the Constitution of the United States protects the right to have certain religious displays, prayers, and monuments in public places. The first amendment of the United States reads as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
According to Mr. Demar and quotes attributed to Justice Scalia, the amendment states “of religion” rather than “from” and thus states that we have to allow religions displays, prayers, or monuments in public places. Suppose we agree to that interpretation. What religious displays, prayers, or monuments should represent all the various religious beliefs and traditions as well as the beliefs and traditions of the non-believers? If all are equally represented the amount of time and space required could be prohibitive. Perhaps we could have a prayer, for example, which was inclusive of the beliefs of all the people who might comprise the citizens of the United States. Programs such as AA and NA sometimes refer either to the God of one’s understanding, a power greater than oneself, or “Good orderly direction.” Those programs are eager to be inclusive of anyone who needs the support and assistance of the members of AA, NA, or one of the other 12-step programs. I am not sure anyone would object to a moment of meditation or a call to help each other open their hearts and minds to a wisdom which was inclusive and respectful of all of creation.
The problem, of course, is often cases come before a legal body which reference a particular religious belief. In the United States and, it would seem in the case of Justice Scalia and several of the current presidential candidates, faith refers to a Christian faith. Surely no one hears candidates such as Mr. Cruz, Mr. Rubio, or Mr. Trump advocating the universal inclusion of Muslim displays, prayers, or monuments at all public gatherings. The individuals and groups supporting those candidates are, for the most part, expecting them to uphold the carefully contained Christian faith which believes that one must accept Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior. Even Mr. Trump who is the least vocal about his Christian, Presbyterian beliefs seems to expect the voter to assume that he is embracing the Christian religion.
It is interesting to me that we humans can simultaneously posit an all-powerful, an ever present, and an all knowing “God” who also needs to be constantly affirmed and recognized as the only deity whose embracing arms are open only to those who can pass through one very narrow door.
Perhaps it is my limited ability to focus which fails to see that faith can only refer to a concept of a deity based on the narrow beliefs of a particular religion.
I am delighted that Justice Scalia and at least one of his children, the Reverend Paul Scalia, were able to identify a religious community which they found welcoming and able to embrace them in all their humanness. I applaud the fact that each of the presidential candidates know that they are a valued member of a community of faith who affirms them in times of joy and in times of sorrow. I am delighted that they each search for a set of core values which helps them be intentional about their life journey and their personal and leadership roles.
I am just as delighted that my atheist, Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish friends who embrace a wide spectrum of religions or non-religious communities, know that they too are part of the we who are invited to the table in the public square. I believe that:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I agree with the late Justice Scalia that this amendment clearly says “of” and not “from”. Let’s never, ever do or say anything in the public square which makes a person from any religion or non-religion feel excluded. That will, of course, demand that if we are going to posit a concept of a higher power – a deity – that it be one who is strong, self-confident, and courageous enough to open all the windows and doors of all faiths to embracing arms.
Written February 21, 2016
RSS Feed