This article in the Huffington Post reports on an opinionated speech given by American Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on the separation of church and state and how that affects religion vs. non-religion arguments. He gave his speech at the Colorado Christian University, the location of his speech being, in my opinion, part of the interesting point in this article.The Catholic Justice was very blunt and clear in stating that just because there is a separation between politics and religion, it does not mean that the government is unable to favour religion over non-religion. His speech also touched upon how the secularists try to convince Americans that the separation of church and state means the government cannot favour religion over non-religion which he believes is false. He preached that there is nothing wrong with having all the best American traditions honouring God and he believes that the “main fight” is to persuade people to ignore the secularists who want no favouring of religion over non-religion.
Scalia also shows his beliefs in his decisions in Supreme Court cases, such as Town of Greece v. Galloway, where he joined in voting that the “New York town could continue opening legislative session with sectarian prayers.” He refers to things such as the First Amendment favouring religion and using the Constitution to show the American people that it is not a wrong to favour religious views and opinions over atheist ones.
As a Canadian, the report caught my attention by speaking of the way Scalia criticizes anyone that tries to approach the Constitution in an evolving and living view, since that is the basis of the Canadian judicial system. He has previously said, as the article quotes, that this evolving view for a judicial philosophy is something only an “idiot” could believe. That is quite the statement to make, considering that Canada is doing fine in their judicial ways and it could be said that we have just as many different cultures, religions, political views, and cultures as the United States does.
The location of where Scalia was reported of speaking at was interesting to me. He gave a talk at a Christian university, where most people would likely agree with him, and tI interpreted it as his way of communicating propaganda. While some completely agree with Scalia, it is safe to say that some would not entirely approve of his opinion on religion. The strategies of propaganda include not only sending out a message but also instilling that message as a worldview in the people’s minds, and its goal is to maintain and create political and or religious commitments.There is nothing wrong with the opinions that Scalia has, or the way that he goes about communicating them. It could be said that part of the reason he gave a speech at a christian university and not elsewhere could be seen as him wanting to strengthen the opinion of people that already agree with him, by furthering his propaganda strategies with specific communication techniques.