By Antony Barone Kolenc
Imagine an America where Justice Scalia’s views on the Religion
Clauses have garnered a solid majority on the Supreme Court, making
them the law of the land. This Article will address
criticisms of Scalia’s opinions on the Religion Clauses and examine
how “scary” it would be living under Scalia’s model of the
Establishment Clause. With the recent confirmations of Chief
Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, this issue is more pressing than
ever. Legal commentators now predict a 5-4 conservative
majority, with crucial changes in how the Supreme Court analyzes
religion cases. And Justice Scalia is the most articulate and
persuasive voice on the Court, seeking to discard the Lemon test
and replace it with a “coercion” test.
Contrary to popular opinion, Scalia’s reading of the First
Amendment provides crucial, overwhelming protection to adherents of
minority religions and provides them a genuine safe haven.
Driving into Mr. Scalia’s Neighborhood, one might encounter a town
bustling with the free practice of religion. The typical
small-town America row of Christian houses of worship on “Church
Street” might also include a Kingdom Hall of the Jehovah’s
Witnesses, a Muslim mosque, or a Buddhist Temple. Members of
minority religions would find a level playing field from which to
practice their faith and proselytize in the community. The
thing one will not find tolerated in Mr. Scalia’s Neighborhood is a
government rule that targets the free practice or belief of any
minority religion. No one will be able to claim to be the
“government-preferred” church. Scalia’s model allows these
religions to co-exist with a government that bears no official
hostility towards all things religious.