Browse By

“Religious Beliefs Aren’t Reasonable!” — Justice Antonin Scalia, October 7 2014

“Religious beliefs aren’t reasonable!”

So said Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on October 7, 2014 — and he said it as if this was a compliment.

Really, I’m not kidding. You can listen to Justice Scalia utter these words himself, in his questioning during arguments in the Holt v. Hobbs case this month: in the audio of arguments, Scalia’s remark appears at about 2 minutes and 8 seconds into the proceedings.

This is the same Justice Antonin Scalia who just six days earlier declared how vitally important it is that the powers of government be used to promote religious belief. “The main fight,” declared Scalia in an address to Colorado Christian University, “is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion.”

Finally, the Christian fundamentalists in control of American church-state policy have tipped their hand. In their own minds, powerful men like Antonin Scalia are fighting in a battle. The goal of the battle: using government power to promote religious beliefs. What quality characterizes religious beliefs? That they “aren’t reasonable.”

Can you support a political movement that openly declares its intention to use government to promote unreasonable beliefs?

Can you help Americans understand just how dangerously unhinged, unrealistic, unreasonable the conservative religious movement in America has become? Put this bumper sticker on your car to remind your fellow citizens just how unreasonable Justice Alito and his supporters have become.

Religious Beliefs Aren't Reasonable Antonin Scalia Quotation Bumper Sticker re: Holt v. Hobbs October 7 2014

All you have to do is quote Antonin Scalia to make a case against him and his powerful allies. It’s that simple. Spread the word.

3 thoughts on ““Religious Beliefs Aren’t Reasonable!” — Justice Antonin Scalia, October 7 2014”

  1. Bruce Nappi says:

    Jim,
    You bring up some good points here. I think the situation becomes clear if you look at it as follows.

    1. Scalia was correct when he said “religious beliefs aren’t reasonable”. By this, he means that religious beliefs are taken on FAITH. In fact, many religious beliefs are in direct opposition to reason. They are justified by religion as “being beyond human understanding”.

    2. Where Scalia was tragically wrong, is implying that government could, and should favor religion over non-religion. In the context of a religion, this would be an obvious and consistent conclusion. The congregation obviously believes that their beliefs are superior to all others.

    3. What Scalia, and many (but not all) religions, don’t want to acknowledge, is that a government, which permits MULTIPLE RELIGIONS to practice in its citizenry, must adopt rules that reject use by government of any religious beliefs that do not adhere to logic. To use them, would be INSANITY, in the true medical sense of that term. It would be equivalent to the government siding with one religion over others, which of course, is exactly what Scalia type religions are trying to achieve.

    The failure of society to understand this, I claim, is the explanation for the breakdown of human communication in the world. It explains the gridlock in congress, politics and the media. There is a longer discussion of this at http://a3society.org/MultipleReligionsProblem-T .

  2. Sense says:

    I dare anyone to prove that Christianity is a Religion

    1. J Clifford says:

      Sense, what do you mean by “Religion”. Is there a reason you capitalize the word?

      Religion is a concept, not a physical object, so what you’re asking for is proof of a concept. Absolute proof is not available in such cases. We could prove that Christianity is conceptually incompatible with some qualities, but positive proof is not something anyone could give. It’s like asking us to prove that pizza is delicious, or that starlings are annoying, or that goldfish are pets. Arguments can be made either way, and people often mean different things when they use identical words.

      Give this, all that’s required is that we show that it’s plausible to assert that Christianity is a religion (if uncapitalized “religion” is what you mean).

      Most people would agree that Christianity is a religion. Look up Christianity over at Dictionary.com, and the definition begins with “the Christian religion…”.

      So, Sense, why don’t you give us an idea of what you’re talking about?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!