Today, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in a speech at California’s Chapman University, blasted what he called “judge moralists” and the infusion of politics into judicial appointments, while commenting on moral issues not addressed in the Constitution, such as abortion, gay rights, the death penalty, and he might have added assisted suicide. He said such questions should be settled by Congress or state legislatures beholden to the people.
What’s missing here is the absence of any reference to the people’s settled holders of morality, that is, the established religions, and the holders of non-religious beliefs, and we all know what, who and where they are.
The Constitution keeps Church and State separate. As they should and must.
But why does government not concede to the aforementioned holders their right to decide their moral issues individually, case by case, and have their decisions upheld by Government law, (provided the public interest is not threatened, a necessary loophole)?
The issues he discussed would be taken care of by these holders within the cases, and immediately coming to mind is the case of Terri Schiavo, whose family were holders of Roman Catholic beliefs.
The Government and the courts should have indicated their disinterest, and held that the decision would be made lawfully by the girl and the family’s own religion, and stayed out of it other than by upholding their right to do this, but there is no law allowing that.
So, government would not only keep Church separate, but would actually allow religion to have a place in the larger concept of government, lawfully. And so an individual would be able to turn to their spiritual beliefs to decide certain problems, and not to government, which has continually shown itself to be inadequate to settle such questions of morality.
And furthermore, one is inclined to believe that the Founding Fathers intended that result when drafting the Constitution, using terms such as “Under God”.